• Shots fired at Michael Brown's 1 year death anniversary in Ferguson, MO.
    59 replies, posted
There's some black guy on my facebook trying to say the cops are opening fire on people and shit and trying to spin it into an anti police 'they did it because black people' argument. Of course they are going to fucking shoot back if someone shoots at them. This is why problems like this are so much worse than they need to be.
st louis county declared state of emergency
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48425670]I agree, but it's critically important not to dismiss the wider complaints of racial subjugation based on specific instances of misinformation and confusion.[/QUOTE] The entire BLM movement martyrized Brown, and continue at every opportunity to use him as one of the foremost examples of police brutality. It's not some small number of outlier radicals.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;48422566]I wonder how they feel about black cops. #BlackLivesMatter #CopsLivesDontMatter they'd be so conflicted with their illogical reasonings[/QUOTE] I don't think it's a very big leap to assume that they don't like black cops either. Regardless of skin colour a police officer is a part of the organization they feel (and studies suggest) is deeply corrupt.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48426044]The entire BLM movement martyrized Brown, and continue at every opportunity to use him as one of the foremost examples of police brutality. It's not some small number of outlier radicals.[/QUOTE] And how does that discount the fact that Ferguson was absolutely ripped into by the Department of Justice?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48426218]And how does that discount the fact that Ferguson was absolutely ripped into by the Department of Justice?[/QUOTE] It doesn't, but why aren't they running with that instead? The banner of police corruption is surely a better choice than venerating a proven criminal.
[QUOTE=usaokay;48421603]Trying to get revenge on the police isn't exactly helping out any sort of movement. Unless if you're part of the #CopsLivesDon'tMatter crowd or something.[/QUOTE] The media is partially to blame here.
so they decided to have a re-enactment with live ammunition.... really sad that its been a year and not much has changed while everybody is still investigating what to do
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48426218]And how does that discount the fact that Ferguson was absolutely ripped into by the Department of Justice?[/QUOTE] It doesn't. What it does do is show that the movement, as a whole, is either A) willfully ignorant or B) so biased that they don't care about truth. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] As a completely separate point: You're response prompted me to look up the DOJ report on Ferguson, and they make some odd conclusions based on the data. The data shows that black people were far more likely to be cited for violent or major things like resisting arrest, not obeying police orders, etc. The report assumes these to be false citations made for racist reasons for no other reason than it being different than the percent of the Ferguson population that is black. (the numbers from the report: 94% of Failure to Comply charges; 92% of Resisting Arrestcharges; 92% of Peace Disturbance charges; and 89% of Failure to Obey charges) The reason I bring up this specific point up is because if the black people in Ferguson were actually much more likely to resist arrest, not obey police orders, etc., then it would make perfect sense that all the other stats would also be much higher for blacks (like being searched, having longer searches, being arrested, etc.). I can't find anything about this connection in the report. With that said, the report is 102 pages of small print. So I could have easily missed the analysis. Do you happen to know if they talk about this at some point? I don't want to blame them for ignoring something that they covered. Here's the report in question: [URL]http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=sgman91;48426622]It doesn't. What it does do is show that the movement, as a whole, is either A) willfully ignorant or B) so biased that they don't care about truth. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] As a completely separate point: You're response prompted me to look up the DOJ report on Ferguson, and they make some odd conclusions based on the data. The data shows that black people were far more likely to be cited for violent or major things like resisting arrest, not obeying police orders, etc. The report assumes these to be false citations made for racist reasons for no other reason than it being different than the percent of the Ferguson population that is black. The reason I bring up this specific point up is because if the black people in Ferguson were actually much more likely to resist arrest, not obey police orders, etc., then it would make perfect sense that all the other stats would also be much higher for blacks (like being searched, having longer searches, being arrested, etc.). I can't find anything about this connection in the report. With that said, the report is 102 pages of small print. So I could have easily missed the analysis. Do you happen to know if they talk about this at some point? I don't want to blame them for ignoring something that they covered. Here's the report in question: [url]http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Part of the question of structural racism is [i]why[/i] are black people resisting arrest more often? Why do they have so little respect for police? It's easy to argue that they're putting themselves down by not just listening to orders, but the bigger question is what causes this disregard for authority? The most obvious answer is a sense of distrust and a sense that law enforcement officers don't represent their best interests and don't give them a sense of comfort or security, which could be argued for police almost everywhere. I read the entirety of the DOJ report once, and it's boring as sin, but it was months ago and I've forgotten a lot of the details, so I'll admit to looking up a number of these to refresh my memory. The major point of the DOJ report is that in a town of 67% blacks, 93% of all arrests were for black people, which is disproportionate. They also got 85% of traffic stops and 90% of their citations. There's a couple specific cases, like a woman who got an illegal parking ticket and ended up getting arrested twice, paying over $1,000, and spending almost a week in jail. Why? The city refused her multiple attempts at partial payments (which is all she could afford) and demanded she pay in full immediately. The city also treated a single missed or untimely payment as equal to a missed appearance, which almost no other city does. That means if you miss a single payment, there's a warrant out for your arrest. And they don't accept partial payments. If you can't afford to pay your ticket immediately, you will be arrested and jailed, further impeding your ability to pay for your ticket. They found that the city routinely used arrest warrants as tactics to compel the fastest possible payment of tickets and fines. They stopped using the "Failure to Appear" charge, which no other court in the area did, and then slapped you with an arrest warrant if you didn't pay the full price within a number of days, all while refusing partial payments. There were numerous cases found by the DOJ where people who spent time in jail did not receive credit for their stay, and often their stay was never recorded. Usually, when you spend time in jail, you are credited a certain amount of what you owe for each day you spend in jail. Ferguson ignored this, and kept people in jail for up to 72 hours without crediting them and without recording their incarceration whatsoever. This doesn't even mention the dozens of individual cases of police brutality and abuse of power. A couple quotes that the DOJ mentioned police officers as saying: After a guy was dragged out of his apartment, he retorted: "You don't have a reason to lock me up." The police officer responded: "[B]Nigger, I can find something to lock you up on.[/B]" The officer then slammed the guy's face into the wall, let him fall to the floor, and then said: "Don't pass out, motherfucker, because I'm not carrying you to my car." He went unpunished for those actions. 14 times, the Ferguson PD arrested people during traffic stops with the [I]only[/I] charge being "resisting arrest." Each of those times, they were black. I could go on for pages with the damning evidence. It was a for-profit racist police force in collusion with the local court.
I'm with you on the for profit policing. I think this is a real problem with police forces across the nation. Every time I see a police car hiding on the side of the road trying to give tickets to people going over the speed limit, even if they aren't putting anyone in harms way, I get angry. It's a problem that you won't see me deny. This may have a greater effect on black people because they are more likely to have less money, and are therefore less likely to be able to deal with things like fines, but that's not really evidence of racist policing. Charges of racism are a completely different issue. The quote you gave is absolutely disgusting, but it's hard for me to take anyone at face value after we've seen witnesses giving false testimony, either intentional or not, against police officers because of their preconceived biases (see the Michael Brown case as a preeminent example). I'm sure the officer in question wouldn't admit to saying that. So it's really just a case of he-said, she-said. I'm not even taking the officer's side on specific instances like this. The arguments in the report are based on the statistics, and it just seems like a case of assuming correlation = causation. [QUOTE]14 times, the Ferguson PD arrested people during traffic stops with the only charge being "resisting arrest." Each of those times, they were black.[/QUOTE] This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder because it can push the evidence in opposite directions depending on your starting assumption. This seems to only show evidence of racism if you already start with the assumption that the police were racist in a sort of circular argument (The police charged them with resisting arrest because the police are racist, which goes to show that the police are racist). If you don't start with that assumption, then it goes to show why the other statistics are so disparate. If black people are actually resisting arrest, not obeying police orders, etc. a lot more than white people, then it makes perfect sense that black people would also have higher rates of citation, arrest, etc. You might then legitimately ask the question that you posted: [QUOTE]Part of the question of structural racism is [I]why are black people resisting arrest more often? [/I][/QUOTE] I'm just not sure how the conclusion can come down to racist policing based on the given data.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48427071]I'm with you on the for profit policing. I think this is a real problem with police forces across the nation. Every time I see a police car hiding on the side of the road trying to give tickets to people going over the speed limit, even if they aren't putting anyone in harms way, I get angry. It's a problem that you won't see me deny. This may have a greater effect on black people because they are more likely to have less money, and are therefore less likely to be able to deal with things like fines, but that's not really evidence of racist policing. Charges of racism are a completely different issue. The quote you gave is absolutely disgusting, but it's hard for me to take anyone at face value after we've seen witnesses giving false testimony, either intentional or not. against police officers because of their biases (see the Michael Brown case as a preeminent example). I'm sure the officer in question wouldn't admit to saying that. So it's really just a case of he-said, she-said. This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder because it can push the evidence in opposite directions depending on your starting assumption. This seems to only show evidence of racism if you already start with the assumption that the police were racist. If you don't start with that assumption, then it goes to show why the other statistics are so disparate. If black people are actually resisting arrest, not obeying police orders, etc. a lot more than white people, then it makes perfect sense that black people would also have higher rates of citation, arrest, etc.[/QUOTE] I think that it should not be possible to be arrested [i]solely[/i] on a charge of resisting arrest. Attempted assault on a law enforcement officer? Absolutely, take them away. But getting pulled over and then being arrested... for resisting arrest? It doesn't make sense. If you're arresting somebody for resisting arrest, it implies that they're resisting an arrest. You can't make that call until you're already arresting them - for what? Arresting someone for resisting arrest implies that an illegal arrest was being made up until the "resisting arrest" charge was placed. That quote was admittedly followed by "claimed" and other language that implies it was only alleged, but among hundreds of interviews they conducted they found that people in the community consistently reported FPD officers as using racial slurs when handling arrests and even ticketing. Numerous allegations of that kind of behavior were recorded, and many of them matched up with police records. I'd talk more about it but my internet's down and I'm using data to tether my computer and it's eating away way too fast so I'm out for now.
Let me start off by saying that I really appreciate your serious responses. [QUOTE=.Isak.;48427127]I think that it should not be possible to be arrested [I]solely[/I] on a charge of resisting arrest. Attempted assault on a law enforcement officer? Absolutely, take them away. But getting pulled over and then being arrested... for resisting arrest? It doesn't make sense. If you're arresting somebody for resisting arrest, it implies that they're resisting an arrest. You can't make that call until you're already arresting them - for what? Arresting someone for resisting arrest implies that an illegal arrest was being made up until the "resisting arrest" charge was placed.[/QUOTE] I hadn't even thought about that. So I went and did some research on the topic. It seems that the legal code allows resisting arrest to be the only charge, and it isn't that rare of an occurrence (there were ~11,000 cases of resisting arrest as the only charge in 2014). Based on the articles I've read these types of charges happen when the police ask someone to do something, and they don't do it. The officer then goes to arrest, and the person resists. So the officer charges them with resisting arrest instead of some other similar charge like obstructing a police officer. If that's the case, then it would seem to line up with the other statistics saying that black people are incredibly more likely to do things like not obeying a police officer. It might be a sign that officers aren't educated on the correct citation, but I'm not sure how it shows racism (unless you also believe that the increased level of black pushback during police encounters is false). [QUOTE]I'd talk more about it but my internet's down and I'm using data to tether my computer and it's eating away way too fast so I'm out for now.[/QUOTE] Take your time.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48427127]I think that it should not be possible to be arrested [i]solely[/i] on a charge of resisting arrest. Attempted assault on a law enforcement officer? Absolutely, take them away. But getting pulled over and then being arrested... for resisting arrest? It doesn't make sense. If you're arresting somebody for resisting arrest, it implies that they're resisting an arrest. You can't make that call until you're already arresting them - for what? Arresting someone for resisting arrest implies that an illegal arrest was being made up until the "resisting arrest" charge was placed. [/QUOTE] I don't think you really understand what this is. It doesn't imply an illegal arrest was made at all. You see, once you get pulled over or stopped in person, you are detained. If you try to get away you will be charged with resisting arrest because legally there's no difference between resisting arrest and detainment. In addition, these people tend to resist the arrest itself, which causes even more trouble.
But who needs data anyways. Couple other statistics that were interesting to me: 90% of the cases where police used force were on black individuals. Every single dog bite was inflicted on a black individual. They were 68% less likely to have their cases dismissed by the court than other races, and at least 50% more likely to have their cases lead to an arrest warrant. They accounted for 92% of all cases where arrest warrants were issued. Of those actually arrested for outstanding warrants, 96% were black. 16,000 active warrants existed for a town of 22,000. The police force routinely charged people under municipal code, even when state code existed that could charge them, in an attempt to generate revenue. The police force is recorded as saying that the results of the investigation and the disparate rates of arrest and warrants issued was not the fault of the police department, but came from a "lack of personal responsibility" from "a certain segment" of the population. The police department routinely used the term "ped check" to talk about momentarily detaining people without probable cause in order to frisk, run IDs to check for warrants, or otherwise search pedestrians and other people in public areas, which is wholly unconstitutional. In one case, an officer wrote an arrest ticket for someone playing music loudly in their car, despite nobody making a complaint, which is required for the officer to issue the ticket - this was cleared by the supervisor. Focusing specifically on the racial bits, now: Blacks were 2.07 times (207%!!!) more likely to be searched during a traffic stop, but 26% less likely to have any contraband. They were 2 times more likely to receive citations, and 2.37 times more likely to be arrested during a stop. African-Americans were far more likely to receive multiple citations during a single encounter, accounting for 73 instances of receiving four or more citations in a single stop. Non-black individuals accounted for 2 of those instances. African-Americans accounted for 95% of all Manner of Walking charges (yes, that's a fucking thing they charged people for), 94% of all Fail to Comply charges, 92% of all Peace Disturbance charges, and 89% of all Failure to Obey charges. The DOJ report says, very factually, that "we have also found explicit racial bias in the communications of police and court supervisors." It also says "In email messages and during interviews, several court and law enforcement personnel expressed discriminatory views and intolerance with regard to race, religion, and national origin. The content of these communications is unequivocally derogatory, dehumanizing, and demonstrative of impermissible bias." Examples of these communications: A November 2008 email stated that President Barack Obama would not be President for very long because “[B]what black man holds a steady job for four years.[/B]” A March 2010 email mocked African Americans through speech and familial stereotypes, using a story involving child support. One line from the email read: [B]“I be so glad that dis be my last child support payment! Month after month, year after year, all dose payments![/B]” A June 2011 email described a man seeking to obtain “welfare” for his dogs because they are “[B]mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are[/B].” An October 2011 email included a photo of a bare-chested group of dancing women, apparently in Africa, with the caption, “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.” An April 2011 email depicted President [B]Barack Obama as a chimpanzee[/B]. It's pretty undeniable that it was a racist police force. Just adds to the absurdity of the for-profit collusion with the local judicial system.
[QUOTE]Blacks were 2.07 times (207%!!!) more likely to be searched during a traffic stop, but 26% less likely to have any contraband. They were 2 times more likely to receive citations, and 2.37 times more likely to be arrested during a stop. African-Americans were far more likely to receive multiple citations during a single encounter, accounting for 73 instances of receiving four or more citations in a single stop. Non-black individuals accounted for 2 of those instances. African-Americans accounted for 95% of all Manner of Walking charges (yes, that's a fucking thing they charged people for), 94% of all Fail to Comply charges, 92% of all Peace Disturbance charges, and 89% of all Failure to Obey charges.[/QUOTE] All of this would be easily explainable by the fact that black people are way more likely to be aggressive, violent, or disobey officers. If you, in any way, act in opposition to the officer, then they're going to be more likely to search you, give you a citation, etc. Take the manner of walking citations (it means you are walking on the street instead of the sidewalk). If a cop tells you to get off the street, and you immediately apologize and obey, then you're much more likely to get a soft warning. If you, on the other hand, act aggressively or dismissively to the cop, then he's much more likely to cite you on every letter of the law. The fact that black people in Ferguson were much more likely to do those sorts of things would lead to the logical conclusion that they would also receive more citations that are normally just given as warnings. [QUOTE]The DOJ report says, very factually, that "we have also found explicit racial bias in the communications of police and court supervisors." It also says "In email messages and during interviews, several court and law enforcement personnel expressed discriminatory views and intolerance with regard to race, religion, and national origin. The content of these communications is unequivocally derogatory, dehumanizing, and demonstrative of impermissible bias."[/QUOTE] Generally, personal conversation isn't very good evidence for this type of thing. People can say racist things, and find racist things funny, without being racist. For example, everyone who laughs at race centric comics (often worse than what you've quoted) aren't assumed to be racist. I don't think it's a coincidence that all the quotes are comedic in nature. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] The part that seems odd to me is that this obvious hole in the data isn't ever mentioned. They don't even try to explain how those extremely high numbers of increased police opposition are falsified or wrong in any way. They just simply state that it's racist because the percentages don't match with population numbers. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] I'm not even arguing that it 100% isn't caused by racist policing. All I'm saying is that there are some glaring holes in the analysis that aren't covered at all, and that these holes give very plausible alternate explanations of the data.
I'm not here to argue, only to gather information. It's very refreshing to see you both debating this manner in a civil fashion. With that said, I'm still curious to what a conservative like you thinks of this situation. What alternate explanations do you propose for these disproportionate arrests, and if applicable, what solutions do you have in mind? The racist rhetoric of conservatives and white supremacists often leaves me wondering what solutions they propose to the problem of minority crime. Hypothetically speaking, even if minorities were inherently more aggressive, we should still find humane solutions to these problems, instead of just killing them all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48432880]All of this would be easily explainable by the fact that black people are way more likely to be aggressive, violent, or disobey officers. If you, in any way, act in opposition to the officer, then they're going to be more likely to search you, give you a citation, etc. Take the manner of walking citations (it means you are walking on the street instead of the sidewalk). If a cop tells you to get off the street, and you immediately apologize and obey, then you're much more likely to get a soft warning. If you, on the other hand, act aggressively or dismissively to the cop, then he's much more likely to cite you on every letter of the law. The fact that black people in Ferguson were much more likely to do those sorts of things would lead to the logical conclusion that they would also receive more citations that are normally just given as warnings. [/QUOTE] I'd be interested to know how traffic stop conversations begin and where they take a turn for the worst. How many of them start out with a cop spouting a racial slur vs the person that was stopped began to be rude and uncooperative? I mean, if you verbally abuse an officer, "talk shit", be uncooperative in accepting your damn ticket, obviously the officer will take increasingly more aggressive action because said person is forcing their hand with each display of disobedience. Seriously, a cop is more likely to encounter the dregs of society more than an average person will meet in a lifetime, so I doubt being a fucking armchair lawyer will help you out of your traffic ticket for running a stop sign when the cop may have had someone spit in their face a week earlier. From what I've seen (and experienced), being nice to the guy makes the ordeal 10x easier.
[QUOTE=elevate]The racist rhetoric of conservatives and white supremacists often leaves me wondering what solutions they propose to the problem of minority crime. Hypothetically speaking, even if minorities were inherently more aggressive, we should still find humane solutions to these problems, instead of just killing them all.[/QUOTE] Let me be eminently clear: I don't think any minority is inherently more aggressive than any other group of people. The biggest difference between liberal and conservative thinking on this issue is where the solutions and faults lie. Liberals feel that the solution lies in the government and is the fault of external factors, and conservatives feel that both the solution and fault lies generally within the black community (in the same way that asian success is caused by the asian community, and not some external positive racism). [QUOTE]I'd be interested to know how traffic stop conversations begin and where they take a turn for the worst. How many of them start out with a cop spouting a racial slur vs the person that was stopped began to be rude and uncooperative? I mean, if you verbally abuse an officer, "talk shit", be uncooperative in accepting your damn ticket, obviously the officer will take increasingly more aggressive action because said person is forcing their hand with each display of disobedience. Seriously, a cop is more likely to encounter the dregs of society more than an average person will meet in a lifetime, so I doubt being a fucking armchair lawyer will help you out of your traffic ticket for running a stop sign when the cop may have had someone spit in their face a week earlier. From what I've seen (and experienced), being nice to the guy makes the ordeal 10x easier.[/QUOTE] Agreed, the lack of clear information makes these topic difficult. Stats, by themselves, are not arguments.
Clean up the police force and have a government that works for the people, that is something we work towards fixing, we cannot fix the people of Ferguson but the DoJ report shows a damning amount of evidence that the community of Ferguson and St. Lewis is a city under siege by the police and law enforcement system protecting it and the residents of that city are responding like any community under siege would. Build the trust, keep them out of the meat grinder justice system, and some of the people that would have been destroyed by the system will go on to success, the rest will still be better off than they were
[QUOTE=sgman91;48434186]Let me be eminently clear: I don't think any minority is inherently more aggressive than any other group of people. The biggest difference between liberal and conservative thinking on this issue is where the solutions and faults lie. Liberals feel that the solution lies in the government and is the fault of external factors, and conservatives feel that both the solution and fault lies generally within the black community (in the same way that asian success is caused by the asian community, and not some external positive racism).[/QUOTE] Thank you for the information. It's always good to get the opinion of the other side, especially for issues I don't have a concrete opinion about. With that said, liberals and conservatives should work together to solve the problem of minority crime, or better yet, crime in general.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;48433814]I'd be interested to know how traffic stop conversations begin and where they take a turn for the worst. How many of them start out with a cop spouting a racial slur vs the person that was stopped began to be rude and uncooperative? I mean, if you verbally abuse an officer, "talk shit", be uncooperative in accepting your damn ticket, obviously the officer will take increasingly more aggressive action because said person is forcing their hand with each display of disobedience. [/QUOTE] It honestly doesn't even have to be any sort of racial slur or aggressive behavior for a stop to go down hill depending on the people. Your tone of voice my offend them, they could have had a bad day, any number of things can send it into a downward spiral.
This really isn't going to stop until the town is burned to the ground.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48432880]All of this would be easily explainable by the fact that black people are way more likely to be aggressive, violent, or disobey officers. If you, in any way, act in opposition to the officer, then they're going to be more likely to search you, give you a citation, etc. Take the manner of walking citations (it means you are walking on the street instead of the sidewalk). If a cop tells you to get off the street, and you immediately apologize and obey, then you're much more likely to get a soft warning. If you, on the other hand, act aggressively or dismissively to the cop, then he's much more likely to cite you on every letter of the law. The fact that black people in Ferguson were much more likely to do those sorts of things would lead to the logical conclusion that they would also receive more citations that are normally just given as warnings. Generally, personal conversation isn't very good evidence for this type of thing. People can say racist things, and find racist things funny, without being racist. For example, everyone who laughs at race centric comics (often worse than what you've quoted) aren't assumed to be racist. I don't think it's a coincidence that all the quotes are comedic in nature. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] The part that seems odd to me is that this obvious hole in the data isn't ever mentioned. They don't even try to explain how those extremely high numbers of increased police opposition are falsified or wrong in any way. They just simply state that it's racist because the percentages don't match with population numbers. [editline]10th August 2015[/editline] I'm not even arguing that it 100% isn't caused by racist policing. All I'm saying is that there are some glaring holes in the analysis that aren't covered at all, and that these holes give very plausible alternate explanations of the data.[/QUOTE] I can understand your position on a higher rate of resisting arrest and such, but the one glaring statistic that is [i]significantly[/i] higher than any other race is the likelihood of black people being searched at a vehicle stop. 207% higher than the average rate for other races is unbelievably stilted. It doesn't imply resisting arrest, it doesn't imply a lack of cooperation, it doesn't imply any kind of attitude. Those aren't things that would increase the search rate, even though they would increase the rate of arrests or resisting arrests of failure to comply or failure to obey citations. Many of the other statistics could be explained by a refusal to comply. A higher search rate does not, from my perspective, especially when [i]significantly less[/i] contraband was actually discovered as a result of those searches. Even if the FPD was searching people's vehicles because they were being rude or uncooperative, that's a blatant breach of fourth amendment rights - someone being uncooperative is not evidence for you to search their vehicle. I can understand your perspective on the other statistics, but that one just cannot be explained away by black people being more likely to resist arrest or be uncooperative.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48436401]207% higher than the average rate for other races is unbelievably stilted. It doesn't imply resisting arrest, it doesn't imply a lack of cooperation, it doesn't imply any kind of attitude. Those aren't things that would increase the search rate, even though they would increase the rate of arrests or resisting arrests of failure to comply or failure to obey citations.[/QUOTE] My gut feeling is that increased levels of non-cooperation would increase the search rate, but I'm not sure. I'm going to try and find evidence one way or the other. [QUOTE]Even if the FPD was searching people's vehicles because they were being rude or uncooperative, that's a blatant breach of fourth amendment rights - someone being uncooperative is not evidence for you to search their vehicle.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I wouldn't put it past them. I often see examples of cops trying to punish misbehavior through long car searches/not letting you leave. I personally know people who have had this happen to them. [QUOTE]Many of the other statistics could be explained by a refusal to comply. A higher search rate does not, from my perspective, especially when significantly less contraband was actually discovered as a result of those searches.[/QUOTE] The 26% is a little misleading because the numbers are fairly small. Only 30% of white people who were searched had contraband compared to 24% of black people who were searched who had contraband. So, sure, it's technically a 26% difference, but it's only 6% of actual difference in rate of finding contraband. (page 65) My lack of experience in this field forces me to ask 2 questions: 1) Is that the average over a long period or a single data point? The report just states it as a fact and moves on. I can't find this clarification. I'm sure you can see the problem if this were just a single data point. 2) How do these numbers compare to other cities without these kinds of racial issues? It may be totally normal to have certain groups with slightly lower or higher contraband rates, or it may not be normal. I just don't know. Whether normal or not is important because if it is normal, then the argument would be that all police are just as racist as the Ferguson police. I really don't want to sound pedantic, but these questions are necessary to show the actual value of the statistic.
[url]http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2015/08/11/ferguson-officer-involved-shooting-video-released/31488297/[/url] UPDATE: One shooter, Tyrone Harris, has had his identity released. [url]http://fox2now.com/2015/08/10/tyrone-harris-jr-showed-off-guns-on-facebook-was-out-on-bond-for-other-felony-charges/[/url] He was out on bond for other felony charges and the gun he fired with was stolen.
The gun used in this shooting was stolen from the town I go to college in. This is two hours away from St Louis. [url]http://www.kfvs12.com/story/29752963/gun-used-in-sunday-ferguson-shooting-believed-stolen-from-cape-girardeau-home[/url]
[QUOTE=OvB;48425507]No offense, but this right here is the problem. No one looks past the first media report for the truth. They see [i]"Michael Brown exicuted by cop while surrendering"[/i] and don't bother to check up on the investigation later which corroborates the officers report, or that a large number of the eye witness testimony was made up or false, and that even the hand-gesture of the whole movement (hands up, don't shoot) [i]never happened[/i]. They see [i]"cops murder Sandra Bland"[/i], then retweet all the armchair justice attorneys that say it must've happened this way and the racist police just wanted to kill another black person, then ignore the hours of video that show Sandra alive and well in jail. We're the generation of manufactured outrage because everyone wants to feel like they had a part in some historical civil rights movement but they ignore the facts and jump to conclusion before the real story comes out. They shout #JusticeForBrown but ignore the facts when the real justice is served. And the media eats it up and amplifies it and makes it fester because the longer they can perpetuate the manufactured outrage, the more ratings they'll get. Everyone needs to calm the fuck down and let civilized society work it's processes. Rioting, especially in this case, is destructive to real progress.[/QUOTE] I agree, as well as that we should also stop focusing on the more extremist members of the BLM movement such as those who storm political rallies or those who assault people. The majority of people in the BLM movement are actually just peaceful protestors rallying in cities across the nation, not a bunch of thugs dressing up a movement so they can be violent. But unfortunately the likelyhood of either of our proposed scenarios happening is so low because neither mine nor yours makes a good story for the media.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.