Crow T. Robot
Police terrorize an innocent, senior citizen couple as a result of their own fuck up (but the additional nastiness and harassment was their own signature style of policing):

Quote
Jinnistan

The Chicago PD have been caught using a warehouse to unofficially detain and beat citizens, including one death.


This echoes Chicago's previous legacy of 40 plus years of cops torturing mostly black men, and largely not getting much press for it.

(EDIT: Hyperlinks aren't visible, but are included in both sentences.)

Quote
Crow T. Robot
A guy agrees to serve a court document to a police officer accused of brutality (I don't really get that part), and the angry cop along with several others completely lie, say the guy attacked the cop, and pursue charges for two years until video proves the guy did nothing wrong.

http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/investigations/mike-perlstein/2015/02/26/charges-crumble-after-cell-phone-video-uncovered/24039559/
Quote
Moses
Thanks for this thread, Crow T. Robot.
Quote
Caesar
I was listening to a podcast earlier this morning and heard about this story...

Brooklyn man wins nearly $1M lawsuit after NYPD cop tried to frame him on DWI charge

(just in case you don't feel like reading the article, here are the details.

-- A man (Oliver Wiggins) was driving his car in Brooklyn when  with an officer (in a marked police SUV) blew through  a stop sign and plowed into Wiggins’ car.

- Instead of taking responsibility for the wreck, the officer decided to charge Wiggins with "impaired driving". The officer claimed (in his official report) that Wiggins "...had slurred speech, watery eyes, an odor of alcohol on his breath and was observed swaying...".

- Not only was Wiggins arrested and charged, his license was suspended AND his insurance company refused to cover his repair bills because of the DWI arrest.

- Wiggins claimed that he didn't drink, but he also took a Breathalyzer test at the scene and that test showed no alcohol in his system. At the hospital (where Wiggins went for his injuries), Wiggins volunteered to have his blood tested for drugs and/or alcohol (tests were negative).

- The charges were dropped three months later. but Wiggins' lawyer decided to sue the city and five police officers: Justin Joseph (the arresting officer), Jason Conway, Greg Gingo, Matthew Sabella and Chris Connor, who are all police officers.

- The City settled the case before going to trial and Wiggins is to receive just under $1 million.

But here's the part that bothers me...

No charges have been filed against the cops. All of the officers involved are still employed by the department.

...so it looks like that just got away with it.
Quote
Zuben
Caesar wrote:
I was listening to a podcast earlier this morning and heard about this story...

Brooklyn man wins nearly $1M lawsuit after NYPD cop tried to frame him on DWI charge

(just in case you don't feel like reading the article, here are the details.

-- A man (Oliver Wiggins) was driving his car in Brooklyn when  with an officer (in a marked police SUV) blew through  a stop sign and plowed into Wiggins’ car.

- Instead of taking responsibility for the wreck, the officer decided to charge Wiggins with "impaired driving". The officer claimed (in his official report) that Wiggins "...had slurred speech, watery eyes, an odor of alcohol on his breath and was observed swaying...".

- Not only was Wiggins arrested and charged, his license was suspended AND his insurance company refused to cover his repair bills because of the DWI arrest.

- Wiggins claimed that he didn't drink, but he also took a Breathalyzer test at the scene and that test showed no alcohol in his system. At the hospital (where Wiggins went for his injuries), Wiggins volunteered to have his blood tested for drugs and/or alcohol (tests were negative).

- The charges were dropped three months later. but Wiggins' lawyer decided to sue the city and five police officers: Justin Joseph (the arresting officer), Jason Conway, Greg Gingo, Matthew Sabella and Chris Connor, who are all police officers.

- The City settled the case before going to trial and Wiggins is to receive just under $1 million.

But here's the part that bothers me...

No charges have been filed against the cops. All of the officers involved are still employed by the department.

...so it looks like that just got away with it.


Hey look, sometimes you have to frame a suspect. That's just reality.
Quote
Caesar
The Shooting of Stephon Clark.

This happened a few days ago in Sacramento, Ca



^^^This video was put together by someone who combined the police body cam footage (there were two officers involved) and some incredible (infrared?) video from a helicopter that was over the scene.

The police received a 9-1-1 call about someone breaking windows on cars in the neighborhood and there was a report of someone attempting to break into a home. The video from the helicopter starts with someone (Clark) running from one yard and jumping over a fence into the neighboring yard.  We now know that Clark is leaping from his neighbor's yard in to his own backyard (to the house where he lived with his grandmother). 

The person on the surveillance video stated that he was "running" between the two houses. He clearly wasn't. He's walking rather slowly, actually. He looks into the window of a car parked next to the house. The person speaking on the video suspects that he's checking out that car, maybe looking to break in. But, we now know that Clark was at his own house, so that car was parked in his yard (how many people break into cars in their own driveways?).  So if he was looking into that car, I doubt that he had any criminal intent. The two officers arrive on the scene and -- for some reason -- Clark runs to the back of the house.  The police come around the corner (to the back of the house) and we hear an officer shout, "Gun" before seeking shelter against the house. The officer then says, "let me see your hands!", quickly followed by "gun, gun, gun" and then the two officers start blasting. 

Reports were that 20 rounds were fired. Clark was hit multiple times and if you notice, the police wait a while (for their own safety, I guess) before administering any first aid. I get that, I guess.  They think he has a gun, so they're worried that he might start firing back at them.  They shout questions/commands to him that he doesn't answer (he's probably already dead).

No gun was found on Clark or anywhere near him. Reports are that he was holding a cell phone.

I guess (hope) an investigation will show what Clark was doing in his neighbor's yard--if he was actually trying to break into that house. As crazy as it seems (and based on the very, very little I have to construct this theory), it's possible that Clark was just cutting through his neighbor's yard to his home and happened to do so when the officers were looking for a potential burglar (horrible timing on Clark's part). He then saw a car parked in the driveway and looked into it so see if he could see who's car it was (to determine who was visiting the house)...yeah, I know, that's kinda flimsy.

We'll never know why he ran from the cops and I have a really strong feeling that no charges will be filed against the officers (even though they killed an unarmed man).

Couple things:

1.  Maybe I missed it, but it doessn't seem that the officers identified themselves.  I heard one of them yell, "Stop" as Clark ran away, but I didn't hear, "Stop! Police!".  Is it possible that Clark saw someone running towards him and ran because he had no clue as to who it was?

2. A few years ago, I was talking to a member of the local police force and he told me that it's the officer's job (for his/her own safety) to escalate the level of force until they get compliance. Then they can deescalate  the situation once things have calmed down. I asked him, "how am I supposed to calm down AFTER you've pointed a gun at me and threatened my life? What happens if during that escalation, you pull the trigger?". He asked me, "What do you expect me to do?  It's awfully dangerous out here and I have no idea if you have a weapon or not, I have to err on the side of caution. Once I'd determined that the situation is cool, I'd holster my weapon, then we can talk calmly". "Yeah", I said, "after you'd almost scared me to death".

I then tried to get him to look at the situation from the other side.  Let's say that he gets a call over the radio to "be on the lookout for a person who is a suspected of an aggravated assault.  He's a Black male...may be armed...could be dangerous'.  The officer is looking for a violent criminal--someone who has (probably) already hurt someone--using a weapon--and probably wouldn't hesitate to hurt HIM if they encountered each other". And suddenly, I show up. I just happen to be walking down the street.  The problem (for me) is that I HAVE NO IDEA that the officer has received the radio call. I don't know that he's looking for anyone. All I know is that I'm out for a walk, minding my business and I've done nothing. On an escalation scale of 1 (we both walk away from each other, calmly) to 5 (I get shot), I'm at 1 (I have no reason to be alarmed), but he's at 4 (because he's expecting to encounter a criminal).  We he pulls his weapon and instructs me to stop, he's probably ready to shoot me. I don't know it, but if I don't react properly, if I do anything suspicious, I could end up dead (and the investigation will determine that it was my fault). So, now, there's a gun pointed at me and I have no idea why, but I have to remain calm (don't run...don't make any suspicious hand gestures). Why do I have to maintain a level of cool that the officer hasn't? 

I get it, the police officer's job is difficult and the fact that there are so many guns on the street makes it harder (because everyone could be carrying), but I just think that the officers could make things easier (keep the streets cooler) if they tried to see things from the side of the person their pointing that gun at (unfortunately, they won't because they believe that that moment of hesitation could get them killed).


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fatal-police-shooting-footage-20180322-story.html



Quote
Zuben
Look, sometimes you just have to murder an unarmed man on his own property. That's part of the job, and if you don't like it, maybe don't become a cop. Simple.
Quote
Putu
I mean, the officers did fire 20 times with the intent to wound rather than kill. What else would you have them do?
That's...not what I meant at all.
Quote
Putu
20 warning shots is extremely courteous, given the situation.
That's...not what I meant at all.
Quote
Putu
Oh, and meanwhile...in Australia...

Police repeatedly beat a naked 16 year-old as he screams for help. It turns out that the teenager had taken LSD. I mean, sometimes you just have to beat a naked 16 year-old kid. It's just part of the job.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/03/26/11/52/byron-bay-inquiry-police-officers-bashing-teenager
That's...not what I meant at all.
Quote
Caesar
Putu wrote:
20 warning shots is extremely courteous, given the situation.


It was also nice of the officer to scream, "let me see your hands!" at his lifeless body.

If you look at the helicopter video, you can seen bullets sparking of of the patio (while Clark lies on the ground not complying). I'm pretty sure that Clark didn't even hear the last 17 warning shots.
Quote
Bigwig
Caesar wrote:
The Shooting of Stephon Clark.

This happened a few days ago in Sacramento, Ca






This is a really good post. I've talked about it before, but the problem with American police shooting too many people (not just black people) is a lax standard of the use of force continuum. What's considered "reasonable" in this country should not be classified as such.
Quote
Caesar
Bigwig wrote:


This is a really good post. I've talked about it before, but the problem with American police shooting too many people (not just black people) is a lax standard of the use of force continuum. What's considered "reasonable" in this country should not be classified as such.


Take a look at this case...

A few days ago, the police received reports that a man named Danny Ray Thomas was wandering in the street with his pants around his ankles.  The man was also "hitting" (with his hand, presumably) cars as they drove by.

Cops were called, and while the police were on their way, a motorist got out of his (I'm presuming it was a man) and confronted Thomas.  The deputy arrived and broke up that altercation.  The officer then draws his weapon and starts yelling instructions at Thomas. Thomas ignores his instructions and continues walking towards the officer.  Eventually, the officer shoots Thomas, killing him.

There is video of the incident (shot by a bystander), but it doesn't show the moment the shot is fired, because at that exact moment, a van pulls in front of the camera. You can hear the shot and by the time she is able to resume filming, Thomas is on the ground.

OF COURSE, a spokesperson for the sheriff's department claimed that Thomas had an "object in his hand"...and, OF COURSE, no actual object was found (there was definitely not a weapon).

Besides, if Thomas had a weapon, would he not have used it (or brandished it, at least) during the earlier confrontation with the motorist?

So the question at the officer's trial (if there actually is a trial), whether or not the deputy had cause to believe that his life was threatened. I just don't see how he could reasonably think that when the person in front of him had no weapon, and the officer had a loaded gun pointed at him. Sure, Thomas didn't stop when was instructed to (more on that in a moment), but for the officer to jump to the, "I'd better kill him before he kills me" conclusion just seems wrong to me...but I won't be on the jury and juries in a America all seem to feel that (especially when it comes to the police) that if the officer felt threatened, lethal force is justified. He thought he had a weapon...he had no way of knowing for sure...so he had to protect himself. What if he hesitated and he actually DID have a weapon? If one juror thinks that way, the officer walks.

Oh, I alluded to this before...why did Thomas not stop when the officer told him to?  According to the article, Thomas had suffered from mental illness.  In 2016, his two children were murdered by their mother (she drowned them in a bathtub)--the mother is awaiting trial. He'd -- according to family members -- had suffered from depression since then.

Look, if a man is walking around town in broad daylight with his pants around his ankles, something is clearly wrong. Does he pose a threat to the public...probably, it's possible that he could harm someone. Was lethal force required? I can't believe that it was.




Quote
Caesar
Here is a bit of a twist...

the article linked above wrote:

...taken to the Gresham District lockup, he (the victim) talked about killing himself, so he was taken to St. Bernard Hospital, prosecutors said. Calhoun and another officer were assigned to watch him while he awaited a psychiatric evaluation.

Once the victim changed into a hospital gown, the other officer went to get food, leaving Calhoun and the man alone. The man was handcuffed to the bed by his wrist and left foot.

Calhoun (a Chicago police officer) started talking with the man about why he was arrested and “gave him relationship advice,” eventually asking if he knew about “pressure points,” according to prosecutors.

Calhoun then grabbed the man’s foot and began sucking on his toes “for several minutes as the victim asked him to stop,” prosecutors said.

Calhoun, an officer since May 2008, grabbed the man’s penis, prosecutors said. To get him to let go, the man told Calhoun that he needed to urinate and grabbed a nearby portable urinal to go. The officer allegedly took a photo of the man’s genitals, prosecutors alleged.

Later, Calhoun escorted the victim to the bathroom. The man’s feet were shackled.

“The defendant squatted down and performed oral sex on the victim,” according to prosecutors. “The victim repeatedly asked the defendant to stop and tried to convince him that his misbehavior would be discovered.”

After they returned to the hospital room, Calhoun told the victim that he would contact him on Facebook within the next six days, prosecutors said.

Once Calhoun and the other officer had left, the victim told hospital staff what happened. They administered a sexual assault evidence kit. A saliva swab taken from Calhoun matched the DNA found on the victim, prosecutors said.

The Chicago Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division took Calhoun’s cellphone and found a photo of the victim’s penis, prosecutors said.



A Chicago police officer has been charged with sexual assault against someone that had been incarcerated. 

No one died.
Quote
Putu
That's just civic duty. Everyone should know (apologies for autocorrect edit) about sensual pressure points.

Meanwhile, case closed in the Australian case of police repeatedly beating that naked 16-year-old kid who was tripping on acid. They were merely fearing for their safety (all four of them), and there was "no malice intended" (as exemplified by calling the kid a "cunt" and striking him slightly less than two dozen times with a baton). Good job, police!

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/03/30/18/27/byron-bay-arrest-public-inquiry-closes
That's...not what I meant at all.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion

I read police abuse stories all the time, near daily, but this one really stood out against the constant hum of police abuse for me:

http://www.miamiherald.com/article202663229.html

On another note, it turns out Alton Sterling's killers were cleared without interviewing the eyewitness:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-charges-but-a-lot-of-unanswered-questions-in-the-alton-sterling-killing

LA is the most corrupt carceral state in the country.

Quote
Putu
As a species, we really are beyond hope, right EA?
That's...not what I meant at all.
Quote
Caesar
Esoteric Allusion wrote:

I read police abuse stories all the time, near daily, but this one really stood out against the constant hum of police abuse for me:

http://www.miamiherald.com/article202663229.html

On another note, it turns out Alton Sterling's killers were cleared without interviewing the eyewitness:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-charges-but-a-lot-of-unanswered-questions-in-the-alton-sterling-killing

LA is the most corrupt carceral state in the country.



“The officers in question acted as reasonable officers under existing law and were justified in their use of force,”

...every fuckin' time.
Quote
Meowzers
Caesar wrote:
Here is a bit of a twist...



A Chicago police officer has been charged with sexual assault against someone that had been incarcerated. 

No one died.



What the fuck.

With Love And Kisses!
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Here's a video of police attempting to run over protestors protesting the police:

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/980506149689745408

If you believe that the 2nd amendment is justified to defend one self against a tyrannical government, at what point does this behavior become a justified pretext to opening fire on the responsible police?
Quote
Zuben
Esoteric Allusion wrote:
Here's a video of police attempting to run over protestors protesting the police:

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/980506149689745408

If you believe that the 2nd amendment is justified to defend one self against a tyrannical government, at what point does this behavior become a justified pretext to opening fire on the responsible police?


This is a question I ask myself about young black men in America. Like, when does killing cops start to get to be something you have to do out of self-defense? I don't mean that a black man could justify just killing an officer unprompted, but when you start to see a situation going a certain way, I dunno. "He went for his gun" serves as justification for police killing people; when does it start to work the other way around?
Quote
whic
Zuben wrote:


This is a question I ask myself about young black men in America. Like, when does killing cops start to get to be something you have to do out of self-defense? I don't mean that a black man could justify just killing an officer unprompted, but when you start to see a situation going a certain way, I dunno. "He went for his gun" serves as justification for police killing people; when does it start to work the other way around?


The NRA's (and American gun culture's) white supremacist motives are so easily revealed thanks to this reality. The fact that this kind of governmental tyranny so plainly exists for PoC and gun culture unfailingly sides with the cops puts the lie to the thought that the 2nd amendment is in place to protect the populace.
nothing.
Quote
Rooby
I've tried to find statistics on black men who lived out their terms with US military and then discharged with PTSD diagnoses so they couldn't own firearms once they returned to civilian life. I only know a few, mind you. But they were all discharged with PTSD and zero incidents were documented while they were in. They didn't even know why I was asking the question. I made up a bullshit reason because I wanted an honest answer, since black people are not trustworthy.
Torrible. Absotively, posilutely herrible.
Quote
Caesar
Zuben wrote:


This is a question I ask myself about young black men in America. Like, when does killing cops start to get to be something you have to do out of self-defense? I don't mean that a black man could justify just killing an officer unprompted, but when you start to see a situation going a certain way, I dunno. "He went for his gun" serves as justification for police killing people; when does it start to work the other way around?


I had a similar question with regard to Trayvon Martin. The jury (and NeoConvict and a number of Zimmerman defenders) all seemed to think that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Why didn't Trayvon? He's being followed in the dark by some jackass. Why wouldn't he feel that his safety was endangered? If what Trayvon did could be considered an attack, it's pre-emptive at worst.

Trayvon fighting Zimmerman was completely justified. Zimmerman panicked during the ass-whoopin' and shot him.
Quote
YARN
whic wrote:
The NRA's (and American gun culture's) white supremacist motives are so easily revealed thanks to this reality. The fact that this kind of governmental tyranny so plainly exists for PoC and gun culture unfailingly sides with the cops puts the lie to the thought that the 2nd amendment is in place to protect the populace.


Liberal gun owners are a thing. 
Gun culture includes blacks, gays, women, etc.

And the denial of 2nd Amendment rights historically has been motivated by racism against black people.

Militarization of police (the stuff Balko has covered at length) is not a 2A problem. It's a police culture problem and a police training problem. You can totally nuke the 2nd Amendment and you will still have cops with AR15s, and storm trooper gear, and hand-me-down MRAPs. You will still have civil assert forfeiture. You will still have cops shooting unarmed civilians. You will still have "no knock" warrants being served with flash-bang grenades.
Quote
Infinitus Corsair
YARN wrote:


Liberal gun owners are a thing. 
Gun culture includes blacks, gays, women, etc.

And the denial of 2nd Amendment rights historically has been motivated by racism against black people.

Militarization of police (the stuff Balko has covered at length) is not a 2A problem. It's a police culture problem and a police training problem. You can totally nuke the 2nd Amendment and you will still have cops with AR15s, and storm trooper gear, and hand-me-down MRAPs. You will still have civil assert forfeiture. You will still have cops shooting unarmed civilians. You will still have "no knock" warrants being served with flash-bang grenades.


When the response to your dumb post is in the post to which you were responding.
Quote
Paquito
Caesar wrote:
I had a similar question with regard to Trayvon Martin. The jury (and NeoConvict and a number of Zimmerman defenders) all seemed to think that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Why didn't Trayvon? He's being followed in the dark by some jackass. Why wouldn't he feel that his safety was endangered? If what Trayvon did could be considered an attack, it's pre-emptive at worst. Trayvon fighting Zimmerman was completely justified. Zimmerman panicked during the ass-whoopin' and shot him.


Here's something fucked up: had Trayvon Martin been armed, and shot Zimmerman the moment Zimmerman started chasing him, that works have been a legal shooting under Florida's "Stand your ground" laws
Quote
Paquito
whic wrote:
The NRA's (and American gun culture's)


You shouldn't conflate U.S. gun culture with the NRA. Gun owners support gun control measures that the NRA routinely opposes, and there are a significant number of gun owning PoC who, obviuosly, aren't white supremicists. One of the most frustrating things about Congress' inability to pass gun control measures is the fact that this is so plainly not what polls indicate the public, including gun owners, want.

The NRA's definitely run by "All lives matter" types though. Their relative silence around the Philando Castile shooting made that abundantly clear.
Quote
whic
I'm conflating the NRA and USA's larger gun culture on purpose.
nothing.
Quote
Paquito

whic wrote:
I'm conflating the NRA and USA's larger gun culture on purpose.


Here's how I understand your main point: If you believe 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then you should believe black people have the right to use lethal force when defending themselves against the police.

So if you say you believe the 2nd amendment is about citizens' right to protect themselves from tyranny, but you're unfailingly siding with the police in every account of police shootings, you're hypocritical in a way that suggests your opposition to gun control is really about maintaining white supremacy.

Am I reading you correctly? If so, why do you need to conflate the NRA with USA's larger gun culture, to support that point?

Quote
YARN
Paquito wrote:
The NRA's definitely run by "All lives matter" types though. Their relative silence around the Philando Castile shooting made that abundantly clear.


NRA members were pretty upset about it. A lot of NRA members don't really like the organization, but reason that despite the flaws, it is the biggest and most effective organization--kind of like how a lot of people voted for Hillary not because they really wanted her, but because they could not stomach the alternative.

It's complicated because the NRA is wrapped in the flag, genuflecting to police and military as a matter of identity politics (e.g., law and order, 'Merica, heroes with guns). It's not direct racism, but a fantasy of playing cops and soldiers, a fantasy that gets disrupted with the cops and soldiers aren't the goodies.

This is a weird point of agreement between the NRA and the anti-gun community. NRA supports authority, especially local "boots on the ground" law enforcement, even when cops shoot innocent civilians exercising their 2A rights. The anti-gun community is also very pro-authority to the point that they feel that ONLY cops and soldiers and body guards for the rich should have guns, even when they're complaining that cops are racist, that the military isn't trustworthy, and that the rich have unequal privileges. 




 
Quote
Caesar
Looks like a semi-automatic over the shoulder and he seems to be reaching for a firearm on his hip.

Shouldn't that officer be screaming "Gun!, Gun!, Gun!" and emptying his service weapon into him?
Quote
YARN
Caesar wrote:
Looks like a semi-automatic over the shoulder and he seems to be reaching for a firearm on his hip. Shouldn't that officer be screaming "Gun!, Gun!, Gun!" and emptying his service weapon into him?


Depends on the sequence of events. We don't know how long that guy has had his hand up on his hip. Maybe they're just about to do the dip?
Quote
whic
Paquito wrote:



Here's how I understand your main point: If you believe 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then you should believe black people have the right to use lethal force when defending themselves against the police.

So if you say you believe the 2nd amendment is about citizens' right to protect themselves from tyranny, but you're unfailingly siding with the police in every account of police shootings, you're hypocritical in a way that suggests your opposition to gun control is really about maintaining white supremacy.

Am I reading you correctly? If so, why do you need to conflate the NRA with USA's larger gun culture, to support that point?



Because the NRA doesn't represent the entirety of US gun culture, but the white supremacist motives also motivate the larger culture.
nothing.
Quote
Putu
Australian police, setting a fine example for law enforcement agencies everywhere!

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/04/03/06/28/cctv-victoria-police-beat-abuse-mentally-ill-disabled-pensioner

Favourite quotes:

"You fucking idiot..."
"You like that? You like that? Smells good, doesn't it?" (after spraying pepper spray into the guy's face)
"Our officers make mistakes like anyone else, and when that happens, we learn from that."

That's...not what I meant at all.
Quote
Paquito

whic wrote:
Because the NRA doesn't represent the entirety of US gun culture, but the white supremacist motives also motivate the larger culture.


Are you basing this on anything more than your personal Facebook feed? Tacit support of white supremacy is systemic, so I'm curious about just how much more prevalent it is with gun owners than it is in the population as a whole.

Stories like this undercut your narrative a bit:

Gun owners are outraged by the Philando Castile case. The NRA is silent.

Quote
Paquito
YARN wrote:

Depends on the sequence of events. We don't know how long that guy has had his hand up on his hip. Maybe they're just about to do the dip?


In general, do you believe police are more likely to use lethal force on a black man than a white man in the same situations?
Quote
YARN
Paquito wrote:


In general, do you believe police are more likely to use lethal force on a black man than a white man in the same situations?


Direct answer? If a cop pulls a gun on me, I intuitively feel that I have a better chance of living if I have white skin than black. Give me a choice, and I will elect to be pulled over "driving while white" over "driving while black."

Feelings aside, however, it appears that the rational answer may be more complicated...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a-massive-new-study-on-police-shootings-of-whites-and-blacks-is-so-controversial/?utm_term=.830d7938c644

The study above finds no difference between use of lethal force between races by police.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/26/black-suspects-more-likely-to-be-shot-by-black-cop/

The study above underlines a fact we don't like to talk about; the greatest threat to the life of a black male is not that posed by a cop, but by another black male.

I have seen plenty of LiveLeak videos where fat nervous cops shoot up a white guy and then scream orders at a fresh corpse with 35 bullets in it. The larger problem is with modern policing practices: Escalation, Militarization, Lower standards, Poor physical conditioning, etc.  




Quote
Paquito

YARN wrote:

Direct answer? If a cop pulls a gun on me, I intuitively feel that I have a better chance of living if I have white skin than black. Give me a choice, and I will elect to be pulled over "driving while white" over "driving while black." 

Feelings aside, however, it appears that the rational answer may be more complicated...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a-massive-new-study-on-police-shootings-of-whites-and-blacks-is-so-controversial/?utm_term=.830d7938c644



I wouldn't lean too heavily on that study. Two reasons:

1) That study did find that, "nationwide, black and Hispanic civilians are indeed more likely to be manhandled, handcuffed or beaten by the police — even if they are compliant and law-abiding."

2) It arrives at a different conclusion than a number of other studies examining the same issue, and the article describes a number of reasons that could explain this, including the fact that it only looking at Houston police shootings.


YARN wrote:

The study above underlines a fact we don't like to talk about; the greatest threat to the life of a black male is not that posed by a cop, but by another black male. 


The reason people don't talk about it is because it's an inane point. It's equally true that "the greatest threat to the life of a white male is another white male". 83% of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians". People tend to commit crimes in their own neighborhoods, so stats like these are probably more reflective of the high degree of segregation in our communities than anything else.

In regards to black officers shooting black civilians, it'd be interesting to see the backgrounds of those officers. After the Eric Garner killing, a former NYPD detective talked about racial bias in that police force, and had this to say about how systemic racism against black Americans manifested itself:

GRAHAM WEATHERSPOON wrote:
You know, we need people—and another thing, they talk about the diversity, where they’re hiring so many people from different countries. Well, people coming here to New York have many preconceived notions about African Americans in their heads—even blacks coming from foreign countries, because they’re fed a lot of nonsense. In the Sean Bell case, the initial officer who started the situation was a Haitian officer, if you remember. All right? That’s a whole dynamic beyond the white-black issue. And we need to see how racism affects African Americans, how it affects alleged West Indians and people from the Caribbean, and how it affects Indians and Asians and other people coming here, and how they interact and can see black people. And that racism is put out through media. People have these notions. And they come here, and they join the police department, and it’s carried out. So, just as Willie Lynch wrote, it’s a self-perpetuating scenario. And we’re not looking at how race is tearing this country apart.

Quote
YARN
Paquito wrote:
The reason people don't talk about it is because it's an inane point. It's equally true that "the greatest threat to the life of a white male is another white male". 83% of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians". People tend to commit crimes in their own neighborhoods, so stats like these are probably more reflective of the high degree of segregation in our communities than anything else.


Inane? Sadly, no. A white person is more likely to be killed by a black person than the other way around, even though people of all stripes tend to kill within their own demographic. See below for 2014 FBI data.  

[image] 
 
In 2014 you have 446 whites killed by African Americans and 187 African Americans killed by whites. This is especially stark when you consider that African Americans comprise just 12.7% of the total population. If these numbers were evenly distributed, the ratios should be flip-flopped (to just to get started). Hardly inane, if the numbers were reversed (merely showing a more apparently random distribution), people would be rioting in the streets over white on black crime.

As for black police killing blacks suspects, some of that may be more black cops in black communities(?). It may be that a black cop does not second guess the race-question in a shooting (every white cop has to be aware that another Ferguson could be just around the corner--the optics of white shooting black are never good) without hesitation. Maybe most of it is a larger system of prejudice. I don't know, but we still need black cops, especially in black communities.

Overall, our idea of policing in the U.S. is upside down. Too many cops seem to see citizens on the street as enemy combatants, upstarts who must bend the knee to the sovereign authority of the police.

Our problems run deep. Race is largely a fiction, so demographic differences are cultural, but it is really hard to talk about problems in black culture without it sounding like victim-blaming, but black on black crime kills more young black men that cops every year and denigrates the profile of all African Americans (profiling isn't purely by accident and isn't purely irrational, even if it is unfair). And I don't think you can really touch institutional racism in police forces so long as a wall of blue separate cops from everyone else. And it is annoying to see cops over-policing, getting push back from the public and then passive-aggressively de-policing neighborhoods in places like Baltimore. 

At bottom, I don't think we really care about each other enough. There isn't enough love and we're more concerned with blaming (I am the victim!) and punishing (Get tough on crime!) than we are with investing in the social work need to to turn shit around. There is a punitive Puritanical streak that runs deep in the American psyche.

Quote
whic
Paquito wrote:



Are you basing this on anything more than your personal Facebook feed? Tacit support of white supremacy is systemic, so I'm curious about just how much more prevalent it is with gun owners than it is in the population as a whole.

Stories like this undercut your narrative a bit:

Gun owners are outraged by the Philando Castile case. The NRA is silent.



I apologize for not including a bibliography with my thesis paper, professor.

I just finished reading An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States. In the book, the author, Roxanne Dunbar-Oritz, argues that the 2nd amendment and America's gun fetish has white supremacist roots that go waaaaaaay deeper than "tacit support".

I didn't realize it when I made yesterday's post, but Dunbar-Oritz recently published an entire book around that thesis, here's a great writeup on it:

Link



That gun culture is much broader than the NRA.

nothing.
Quote
Caesar
YARN wrote:


Inane? Sadly, no. A white person is more likely to be killed by a black person than the other way around, even though people of all stripes tend to kill within their own demographic. 
   


You quoted Paquita saying that " 83% of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians"." and posted a chart stating exactly that.

If you're murdered, 4 times out of 5, your assailant will be a someone who looks like you...and yet, your fear is of the person who doesn't look you...and your reasoning is..."well...but...they kill us more than we kill them". 

But not as much as y'all kill each other. 

And that last sentence is relevant because you tried to use the similar logic with Blacks vs. the police.  Why are Blacks worrying about the cops when they kill each other more?

Those 446 black assailants were handed a license to kill because they're supposed to be on the streets protecting us.  And we treat those 446 killings as a crime.  Cop kills unarmed Black person...is that a crime?
Quote
YARN
Caesar wrote:


You quoted Paquita saying that " 83% of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians"." and posted a chart stating exactly that.

If you're murdered, 4 times out of 5, your assailant will be a someone who looks like you...and yet, your fear is of the person who doesn't look you...and your reasoning is..."well...but...they kill us more than we kill them". 

But not as much as y'all kill each other. 

And that last sentence is relevant because you tried to use the similar logic with Blacks vs. the police.  Why are Blacks worrying about the cops when they kill each other more?

Those 446 black assailants were handed a license to kill because they're supposed to be on the streets protecting us.  And we treat those 446 killings as a crime.  Cop kills unarmed Black person...is that a crime?


Facts are facts. If you're white, you're at greater risk of being murdered by an African American than an African American person is by a white person. It is ALSO true that whites tend to kill whites and that blacks tend to kill blacks. These two facts are not mutually inconsistent. It just so happens that black people also kill each other at a greater rate.

You're accusing me of being fearful of African Americans, but that's missing the point. I am not claiming that we should live in fear of a black planet, but rather that we need to stop with bullshit claims that African Americans are being genocided in the streets of America (e.g., the critique of America offered by "Killmonger" in Black Panther).

The problem is not some program to kill African Americans, but out of shape, poorly trained, aggressive cops. We should always be concerned about policing in the United States. Any of us could be subjected to a no-knock middle-of-the-night police raid in which we won't be able to be sure if we're being home invaded or "policed" and we're left with a dead dog that was "menacing" portly cops dressed like storm troopers. Civil asset forfeiture on the nations highways happens to everyone.

When a physically weak cop (male or female) faces a black man, especially a young black man on the street and the fear kicks in, guns get drawn out of fear of being physically incapable using other means. Such fear is driven by stereotypes about physical attributes of African Americans (e.g., White Men Can't Jump) and stereotypes about criminality. It's really hard to fix residual, baseline, background racial biases that exist consciously and unconsciously in people's minds (I recall a study in which African American subjects responded negative to images of black faces right along with other test subjects). It doesn't help that poverty tends to create self-fulfilling prophesies in terms of criminality and other poor life choices. There is that awkward truth that racism is bad, but that profiling still works (e.g., if you're looking for a rapist, there is a greater than 90% chance that you are looking for a man). Black cops shoot black people at a great rate than white cops, so it's not like there is any easy fix here.

The problem is real, but it doesn't help to misrepresent the problem as being worse than it is. Odds are no one is going to murder you at all. The odds are massively in your favor that you will never be shot by a cop, even if you're black. And there are MILLIONS of police/public interactions that happen everyday without significant incident. Racism is real, but you can't just "fix racism."

The best solution, I think, is to overhaul our approach to policing in the United States. Stop militarization of cops. Roll back shady practices like 3 AM raids and highway patrol asset seizure. Have them wear body cams all the time. Spend more money for quality employees. Focus training on deescalation. Cops in the UK are much better at talking people down and finding peaceful solutions.







Quote
Caesar
YARN wrote:


Facts are facts.

Of course.
YARN wrote:

If you're white, you're at greater risk of being murdered by an African American
than an African American person is by a white person.

You're also more likely to die of heart disease than you are of being murdered by a Black person. You're also more likely to die in an auto accident than you are of being mirdered by a Black person.

That wasn't Pawiito's pooint, so you're shifting the goal posts.
Quote
Paquito

YARN wrote:

Overall, our idea of policing in the U.S. is upside down. Too many cops seem to see citizens on the street as enemy combatants, upstarts who must bend the knee to the sovereign authority of the police. 


I agree with this. And you seem to be arguing that this causes police brutality across demographic lines. If that's the case, I agree with that too.

That said, for any socio-economic problem we face, people who are discriminated against suffer worse from those problems. This fact is constantly obfuscated by white supremacists who intentionally spread specious arguments, in order to promote fear and hatred of black people. People fall for those specious arguments, and end up repeating those talking points in good faith.

I'm assuming you're in the latter category, especially since you at least acknowledge racism exists. So assuming you're arguing in good faith, here's the problem with the facts you're citing.

1) You shouldn't make conclusions about the probability of an event based on one trial. I can flip a coin four times and get H-H-H-T. That doesn't mean you have a 75% chance of getting heads when you flip a coin. Likewise, you can't confidently conclude the likelihood of getting killed by a person of a certain race, based on an arbitrary year's crime statistics.

2) Even if you soundly derived statistics like that looked like that, there's the question of whether or not they're significant. You're attaching significance to the fact that 7% of black homicide victims were killed by white offenders, while 14% of white homicide victims were killed by black offenders. Why do you think that slightly larger ratio is significant? Last week, a piece of a Chinese space station crashed to Earth, and potentially could have killed someone. To ease fears, people pointed out that you were ten times! more likely to be struck by lightning than be hit by a part of the space station. You shouldn't read that and believe lightning to be a significant threat to your life. That statistic indicates you don't have to fear either event, because they're both extremely unlikely.

3) The facts you're citing still don't back up your original point. You claimed:

YARN wrote:

the greatest threat to the life of a black male is not that posed by a cop, but by another black male. 

I pointed out that this is an inane point, because you can also say "the greatest threat to the life of a white male is not posed by a cop, but by another white male". Nothing you've posted addresses my rebuttal.

Quote
EJ
Fucking animals.

Watch the longer video, which is a bit more of a scroll.

Quote
wirthling
EJ wrote:
Fucking animals.

Watch the longer video, which is a bit more of a scroll.



Quote:
“I don’t feel that our officers were at their best,” Batista told reporters Tuesday when releasing the video. “I don’t feel this situation needed to go the way that it went.”


Is there a Nobel prize for understatement?
"I am very poorly today and very stupid and hate everybody and everything." - Charles Darwin
Quote
EJ
wirthling wrote:
“I don’t feel this situation needed to go the way that it went.”*


*i.e., recorded
Quote
Ivan the Terrible
EJ wrote:
Fucking animals.

Watch the longer video, which is a bit more of a scroll.



Well, he didn't sit down when told to, did he? And he had aggressive body language. Maybe next time, if he wants to avoid a beating, he'll be appropriately submissive immediately.

Fun fact: my sister went to police academy in the last few years. When I attended her graduation, there was a video played showing highlights of their time there, with the music "We are Soldiers" in the background.

And all I could think was....no, you're not.

A soldier's job is to destroy an enemy, and is intrinsically linked with violence. A police officer's job is to protect the community, which should only very rarely come to violence. A police officer should not be thinking of themselves as soldiers going out to find and destroy enemies.
It's the lack of stabbing that makes NoCrimesVille the kind of city I'm proud to live in.
Quote