• DOJ clears Darren Wilson in Michael Brown death
    44 replies, posted
Essentially, policing in general in the US needs to be reformed to where all SOP (standard operating procedures) target everyone equally. Americans as a nation need to accept the fact they're that diverse, when it comes to cultural differences and also linguistic. Not to forget, more incentive for students to stay in school or university, and increasing penalties for workplace discrimination. You can't grow as a country if most or all of the power usually is reserved for one specific demographic of society.
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;47261441]Essentially, policing in general in the US needs to be reformed to where all SOP (standard operating procedures) target everyone equally. Americans as a nation need to accept the fact they're that diverse, when it comes to cultural differences and also linguistic. Not to forget, more incentive for students to stay in school or university, and increasing penalties for workplace discrimination. You can't grow as a country if most or all of the power usually is reserved for one specific demographic of society.[/QUOTE] Can you show me where in the US Policing SOP (standard operating procedures) Handbook it says to target different groups unequally?
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47261430]The DoJ had no reason to get involved. Some people told racial jokes in the PD on emails and weren't stopped. Blacks were stopped more frequently, etc as well. Truth is, part of the increased number of blacks over other races is because there are more blacks in Ferguson than other races. Are some officers racist? Sure. Does that mean the entire department is racist due to the actions of a few, and statistics which don't seem to account for the fact there are more blacks than any other race in Ferguson? No. Is racism alive in police departments? Yes, same with city governments who use the cops as scapegoats. Also, I will mention the race card because I know how that shit fucking works. Al, and his pals use it every chance they get. I have a question for you. Why are low income, predominately black neighborhoods among the worst? Why do the same cities who bash their own police forces for arresting more blacks, refuse to grant more funding for the areas in need like those areas? Why do they grant less funding for schools in those areas, cut community centers, etc? You do understand how this all adds up, right?[/QUOTE] I don't get how you don't seem to understand that 95% of all arrests were for black individuals, which is totally unbelievably disproportionate to the population. It was accounted for. There's a 30% gap in population size there. I could understand a 70%, maybe even an 80% arrest rate for black individuals, but 95% is disgustingly large. I'm also not getting the point you're trying to make by shifting all the blame to local government. That's exactly what I'm saying with institutionalized racism. It's the same thing with the CCA and privatized prisons, or with voting stations and schools being underfunded and left in the dust - it's an entire industry being built around systematically disenfranchising, arresting, charging, and siphoning money out of the poorest and most vulnerable section of the entire population.
[QUOTE=Subzero MP3Z;47261249]Cops always get the benefit of the doubt[/QUOTE] No it's pretty much always the opposite until people bother to read the actual details of each case
[QUOTE=Subzero MP3Z;47261249]Cops always get the benefit of the doubt[/QUOTE] From what I've seen cops always basically get crucified.I've rarely seem them get the benefit of the doubt.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;47261851]From what I've seen cops always basically get crucified.I've rarely seem them get the benefit of the doubt.[/QUOTE] doesn't what the general populace thinks about cops when they shoot guys,because in the end they [I]never[/I] get indicted and get 56000 years paid leave and a free vacation home and a trophy.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47259569]True but I find it interesting the DoJ said yesterday the department was overwhelmingly racially motivated and today they say the officers of the department did not act with racial motivation or at the very least profile Michael brown[/QUOTE] Both Brown and Johnson fit the description of robbery suspects and were walking in the middle of the street, so no, there was no profiling.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;47261892]doesn't what the general populace thinks about cops when they shoot guys,because in the end they [I]never[/I] get indicted and get 56000 years paid leave and a free vacation home and a trophy.[/QUOTE] Maybe they never get indicted because the vast majority of the cases the media latches on to are still undecided, but everyone jumps to their own conclusion based on one news article trying to get clicks, or some terrible camera footage that tends to always start a few seconds before the police do something "questionable". I also recall [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1s01lr/most_common_myth/cdslvma]this reddit post[/url] being linked before with regards to administrative leave, though I don't know how accurate that is.
Ugh my sister still think Mike Brown was completely innocent and Darren Wilson is the devil-incarnate
I think the Ferguson protests (not so much the riots but definitely the peaceful protests) were 100% justified. It's obvious that many of the police there are pretty fucking racist. But after reviewing all of the evidence? It seems like shooting Mike Brown, whilst never the best outcome, wasn't done by Wilson just cause he wanted to shoot a black guy.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47261430]The DoJ had no reason to get involved. Some people told racial jokes in the PD on emails and weren't stopped. Blacks were stopped more frequently, etc as well. Truth is, part of the increased number of blacks over other races is because there are more blacks in Ferguson than other races. Are some officers racist? Sure. Does that mean the entire department is racist due to the actions of a few, and statistics which don't seem to account for the fact there are more blacks than any other race in Ferguson? No. Is racism alive in police departments? Yes, same with city governments who use the cops as scapegoats. Also, I will mention the race card because I know how that shit fucking works. Al, and his pals use it every chance they get. I have a question for you. Why are low income, predominately black neighborhoods among the worst? Why do the same cities who bash their own police forces for arresting more blacks, refuse to grant more funding for the areas in need like those areas? Why do they grant less funding for schools in those areas, cut community centers, etc? You do understand how this all adds up, right?[/QUOTE] Why discount the efforts of the DOJ's investigation? In a town where 2/3's of the population are black, traffic stops and arrests were over 95% black, despite the fact that they found approximately 25% less contraband from black stops than they did with stops from whites and other groups. This indicates pretty damn strongly that white people were being pulled over and arrested when there was actually just cause to stop them, and that blacks were being pulled over simply because of unfair racial profiling. This is much deeper than "a few officers making racist jokes," it is hard, statistical proof of systematic racism within that department. While I doubt any of the officers were cloak-on-head klansman, it's simply delusional to throw away the results of a sweeping federal investigation simply because it proves a concept that you'd like very much to ignore: systematic racism is alive and well, and it turns out that "pulling the race card" is actually justified in many cases. To answer your second point, it comes down to the history of this country. There [I]is[/I] a reason why predominantly black neighborhoods tend to be worse, and it is only related to the fact that it is black people living in them in one sense: that's where we forced black people to live. It is the result of a process that began over a hundred years ago, and climaxed during the sixties and seventies. "White flight." In an extremely simplified explanation: in the wake of the civil rights movements, the emboldened black minority began to attempt to integrate more fully into society by moving into middle income neighborhoods. However, racism was still rampant at this point. Martin Luther King Jr had gone on his marches and introduced the possibility of true racial harmony, but his message had only just begun to sink into the wider population. As black families began moving into these neighborhoods, property values dropped. Upstanding white families didn't want to live near what they perceived to be the lesser elements of society. Ever heard the phrase, "there goes the neighborhood?" It refers to a time when a black family moving onto the block would cause his white neighbors to disappear. Beyond the inherent racism threatening stability, the local economies were already shaky due to increasing de-industrialization within the country sapping the financial backing of these urban residential areas, and so the families who were able to picked up stakes and moved out. Better opportunities existed elsewhere, and they wouldn't have to live near blacks anymore. Win-win. Of course, this devastated the communities they left behind, because as they left they took with them their businesses and their money. The already threatened local economies completely collapsed, and the black families who had moved there were stuck. Middle-income neighborhoods turned into deeply povertous ones, attracting even more minorities who had never been able to build enough funds to seek better housing in the previously OFFICIALLY segregated society. To add insult to injury, as these neighborhoods and counties developed a reputation for being "black areas," they lost much of the support of law enforcement and general services. Not having the support of the local government and law enforcement made a bad situation even worse. With that poverty and lack of security came crime, and with crime came gangs, and with gangs came a self-sustaining cycle of misery. Gangs fight to maintain and expand power, which means perpetuating to negative conditions that allowed them to thrive in the first place. And here we are today.
Looking more into it from last night, I see the point now people tried to make to me. Think I'll do some reading up on a few things to make a better opinion on it all.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47264619]Why discount the efforts of the DOJ's investigation? In a town where 2/3's of the population are black, traffic stops and arrests were over 95% black, despite the fact that they found approximately 25% less contraband from black stops than they did with stops from whites and other groups. This indicates pretty damn strongly that white people were being pulled over and arrested when there was actually just cause to stop them, and that blacks were being pulled over simply because of unfair racial profiling. This is much deeper than "a few officers making racist jokes," it is hard, statistical proof of systematic racism within that department. While I doubt any of the officers were cloak-on-head klansman, it's simply delusional to throw away the results of a sweeping federal investigation simply because it proves a concept that you'd like very much to ignore: systematic racism is alive and well, and it turns out that "pulling the race card" is actually justified in many cases. To answer your second point, it comes down to the history of this country. There [I]is[/I] a reason why predominantly black neighborhoods tend to be worse, and it is only related to the fact that it is black people living in them in one sense: that's where we forced black people to live. It is the result of a process that began over a hundred years ago, and climaxed during the sixties and seventies. "White flight." In an extremely simplified explanation: in the wake of the civil rights movements, the emboldened black minority began to attempt to integrate more fully into society by moving into middle income neighborhoods. However, racism was still rampant at this point. Martin Luther King Jr had gone on his marches and introduced the possibility of true racial harmony, but his message had only just begun to sink into the wider population. As black families began moving into these neighborhoods, property values dropped. Upstanding white families didn't want to live near what they perceived to be the lesser elements of society. Ever heard the phrase, "there goes the neighborhood?" It refers to a time when a black family moving onto the block would cause his white neighbors to disappear. Beyond the inherent racism threatening stability, the local economies were already shaky due to increasing de-industrialization within the country sapping the financial backing of these urban residential areas, and so the families who were able to picked up stakes and moved out. Better opportunities existed elsewhere, and they wouldn't have to live near blacks anymore. Win-win. Of course, this devastated the communities they left behind, because as they left they took with them their businesses and their money. The already threatened local economies completely collapsed, and the black families who had moved there were stuck. Middle-income neighborhoods turned into deeply povertous ones, attracting even more minorities who had never been able to build enough funds to seek better housing in the previously OFFICIALLY segregated society. To add insult to injury, as these neighborhoods and counties developed a reputation for being "black areas," they lost much of the support of law enforcement and general services. Not having the support of the local government and law enforcement made a bad situation even worse. With that poverty and lack of security came crime, and with crime came gangs, and with gangs came a self-sustaining cycle of misery. Gangs fight to maintain and expand power, which means perpetuating to negative conditions that allowed them to thrive in the first place. And here we are today.[/QUOTE] Fucking wow. This post right here. This is a good post.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;47261851]From what I've seen cops always basically get crucified.I've rarely seem them get the benefit of the doubt.[/QUOTE] maybe by angry people on the internet but some police departments are good at letting off cops too lightly see: kelly thomas. people were furious but that didn't change that the officers involved got a slap on the wrist.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;47266001]maybe by angry people on the internet but some police departments are good at letting off cops too lightly see: kelly thomas. people were furious but that didn't change that the officers involved got a slap on the wrist.[/QUOTE] That's not really the point though; the public in general, and more importantly the media, tends to jump right to the conclusion that the officer(s) were guilty, which only fuels anger if later on through actually evidence, rather than "feelings", the officer(s) were found to have taken reasonable actions. The US's legal system is built upon the concept of innocent till proven guilty, but the public happily ignores this and prefers to make up their own opinion after reading a paragraph in a news story, or watching a 20 second video. Police departments, and the justice system in general, choosing not to charge officers who were clearly shown to have committed illegal actions is an entirely different issue and has nothing to do with benefit of the doubt and everything to do with corruption. Also, in the case you reference (kelly thomas), three of the officers were charged, two of which were brought to court and found not guilty by a jury. Charges were dropped against the third after the verdict for the first two came through. I'm not sure I see the problem in terms of what the legal system did. What the public thinks should never have any bearing on if someone is convicted of a crime; only the evidence and the law should matter in any given case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.