Top cop sorry for 'historical mistreatment' of minorities

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/10/18/top-cop-sorry-historical-mistreatment-minorities/92348646/

Quote:An apology for the role police officers played "in society’s historical mistreatment of communities of color" issued by the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police quickly drew mostly positive reviews from advocacy groups and other top cops.



IACP leader Terrence Cunningham, speaking Monday at his group's annual conference, said laws adopted at the federal, state and local level in the past required officers to perform "unpalatable tasks" such as ensuring legalized discrimination.


"While this is no longer the case, this dark side of our shared history has created a multigenerational, almost inherited, mistrust between many communities of color and their law enforcement agencies," Cunningham said.
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/longform/sponsor-story/rei/2016/10/17/rei-pauls-boots-grace-white-hiking/92282234/][/url]
He said most of today's officers had nothing to do with those practices and find it difficult to understand the inherent mistrust felt by many minority citizens. Work must be done to build trust, he said.


"For our part, the first step in this process is for law enforcement and the IACP to acknowledge and apologize for the actions of the past and the role that our profession has played in society’s historical mistreatment of communities of color," Cunningham said. "At the same time, those who denounce the police must also acknowledge that today’s officers are not to blame for the injustices of the past. If either side in this debate fails to acknowledge these fundamental truths, we will be unlikely to move past them."

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who heads the New York-based National Action Network, welcomed the apology. NAN issued a statement saying Sharpton "will urge officers around the United States to back his words up with action and legislation to protect communities of color from the onslaught of police misconduct that has disturbed the country."


The NAACP's Legal Defense Fund tweeted the apology was a "Good 1st step. Some next steps: require anti-bias training; discipline officers who engage in bias policing."


Delrish Moss, who took over as police chief of Ferguson, Mo., in the spring, also was positive. Ferguson made international headlines two years ago when police officer Darren Wilson, who is white, fatally shot unarmed black teen Michael Brown on a Ferguson street. The shooting set off a wave of protests across the nation.


Moss, who is black, told the Associated Press he had negative encounters with police when he was growing up.

“There are communities that have long perceived us as oppressors, there are communities that have long perceived us as the jackbooted arm of government designed to keep people under control, and that’s one of the things we have to work hard to get past,” Moss told AP. “I’m glad it’s being addressed (by the IAC)P) because the only way to get past it is to first acknowledge the existence of it.”


However, Lt. Bob Kroll, head of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, called Cunningham's statement "asinine."
“Our profession is under attack right now and what we don’t need is chiefs like him perpetuating that we are all bad guys in law enforcement,” Kroll told AP. “I think it’s an asinine statement. … We’ve got officers dying on almost a daily basis now because of this environment, and statements like that don’t help.”

[fredtoast]

Not really apologizing for police. Basically he blamed the lawmakers. Claimed the police never did anything except enforce laws passed by others.

Completely denies that racial profiling exists despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Lame.

[Belsnickel]

(10-18-2016, 12:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not really apologizing for police. Basically he blamed the lawmakers. Claimed the police never did anything except enforce laws passed by others.

Completely denies that racial profiling exists despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Lame.

Yeah, studies show that white people and black people use drugs at about the same rate, yet black people are arrested for drugs at a rate over three times that of white people. That's not the way the law is written, that is the way it is executed, which is the role of law enforcement.

[Yojimbo]

He keeps mentioning "in the past" like it still isn't going on.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

The mistreatment of minorities by police in the south in the 1950s and 1960s was immoral and wrong. People marching for justice and equal opportunity should never have been cut down by water hoses, beaten with truncheons, or attacked by dogs. Only an insane government could attack people for marching for their beliefs or studying peacefully at a lunch counter.

Fast forward sixty years. If you're breaking the law and/or not obeying a cop, you're an idiot. If a police officer tells you to do something, don't argue. Do it. If you're innocent this will blow over and if you're guilty, obstructing and resisting will make things even worse.

A lot of men and women died needlessly and innocently at the hands of law enforcement during marches and sit ins. They won freedom for so many so please don't taint their legacy by being stupid.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-18-2016, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, studies show that white people and black people use drugs at about the same rate, yet black people are arrested for drugs at a rate over three times that of white people. That's not the way the law is written, that is the way it is executed, which is the role of law enforcement.

I've explained why this discrepancy exists in very minute detail.  It has very little to nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with the ancillary crime that pervades the drug trade at the lower economic level.  I will, sadly, explain again.

Upper class drug user wants drugs.  They call their dealer who often times delivers straight to their door.  At the very least they have a place they go to to buy directly and go straight home.  As they have the money to buy drugs without engaging in further criminal activity to acquire it the drug sales themselves are low profile and therefore hard to catch.  Thus, low level of arrests for upper class drug users.

Middle class drug user wants drugs.  The vast majority of the time they already know a guy and they go to said dealers place of residence to buy drugs.  As they have the money to buy drugs without engaging in further criminal activity to acquire it the drug sales themselves are low profile and therefore hard to catch.  Most middle class drug users are busted when they attempt to buy at the street level.  Thus, middle class drug users are arrested at a lower rate.

Lower class drug users usually don't have a regular dealer or if they do it's a street level dealer.  Drug transactions are made in the open or in a residence that is known for selling drugs.  Lower class people do not have the discretionary income to buy drugs and thus engage in a lot of ancillary criminal activity to acquire it.  Chain and purse snatching, auto burglaries, home burglaries, armed robbery, prostitution, I could go on.  Point being that this type of street crime attracts attention, lots of it.  This doesn't even account for the amount of crime generated by the dealers themselves.  Fights over dealing territory resulting in felony assaults, attempted murders and actual murders.  Fights over product that generate the exact same level of violence.  Additionally, drug sales fund a lot of street gang activity; extortion, violence used to intimidate witnesses or just ordinary citizens, illegal gun sales, sales of forged documents, etc.  This brings an even larger degree of scrutiny from law enforcement and guess what, if it didn't then citizens would be screaming bloody murder asking why not.  Rightfully so btw.


Yes, the sale of drugs funds cartels equally no matter the buyer but the plain fact of the matter is that upper and middle class drug use is both lower profile and doesn't create the highly visible street crime that lower class drug use does.  The discrepancy has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with the level of street crime the drug trade engenders at the lower class level.


I'm mortally sick of hearing the above argument because it's a fact without context.  Not blaming you directly Matt, I'm just sick of this bullshit.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm mortally sick of hearing the above argument because it's a fact without context.  Not blaming you directly Matt, I'm just sick of this bullshit.

I get what you're saying. Do you know of any studies that separate out arrests of minorities for drug crimes without any other charges. Legitimately curious about that.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-19-2016, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've explained why this discrepancy exists in very minute detail.  It has very little to nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with the ancillary crime that pervades the drug trade at the lower economic level.  I will, sadly, explain again.

Upper class drug user wants drugs.  They call their dealer who often times delivers straight to their door.  At the very least they have a place they go to to buy directly and go straight home.  As they have the money to buy drugs without engaging in further criminal activity to acquire it the drug sales themselves are low profile and therefore hard to catch.  Thus, low level of arrests for upper class drug users.

Middle class drug user wants drugs.  The vast majority of the time they already know a guy and they go to said dealers place of residence to buy drugs.  As they have the money to buy drugs without engaging in further criminal activity to acquire it the drug sales themselves are low profile and therefore hard to catch.  Most middle class drug users are busted when they attempt to buy at the street level.  Thus, middle class drug users are arrested at a lower rate.

Lower class drug users usually don't have a regular dealer or if they do it's a street level dealer.  Drug transactions are made in the open or in a residence that is known for selling drugs.  Lower class people do not have the discretionary income to buy drugs and thus engage in a lot of ancillary criminal activity to acquire it.  Chain and purse snatching, auto burglaries, home burglaries, armed robbery, prostitution, I could go on.  Point being that this type of street crime attracts attention, lots of it.  This doesn't even account for the amount of crime generated by the dealers themselves.  Fights over dealing territory resulting in felony assaults, attempted murders and actual murders.  Fights over product that generate the exact same level of violence.  Additionally, drug sales fund a lot of street gang activity; extortion, violence used to intimidate witnesses or just ordinary citizens, illegal gun sales, sales of forged documents, etc.  This brings an even larger degree of scrutiny from law enforcement and guess what, if it didn't then citizens would be screaming bloody murder asking why not.  Rightfully so btw.


Yes, the sale of drugs funds cartels equally no matter the buyer but the plain fact of the matter is that upper and middle class drug use is both lower profile and doesn't create the highly visible street crime that lower class drug use does.  The discrepancy has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with the level of street crime the drug trade engenders at the lower class level.


I'm mortally sick of hearing the above argument because it's a fact without context.  Not blaming you directly Matt, I'm just sick of this bullshit.

I read a very interesting book a little while back titled "Once a Cop".  It's memoir of a NYC cop who rose from the ranks of beat cop to Deputy Inspector.  The interesting part is not only that he's black, but also, that he used to be a drug dealer before he became a cop.  I really feel that many in law enforcement could learn a lot from his approach to policing.  I'll see if I can get more details of the author, I forget his name.  I think it was something like Pregues.  It's in Barnes and Noble.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-18-2016, 02:47 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: The mistreatment of minorities by police in the south in the 1950s and 1960s was immoral and wrong.  People marching for justice and equal opportunity should never have been cut down by water hoses, beaten with truncheons, or attacked by dogs.  Only an insane government could attack people for marching for their beliefs or studying peacefully at a lunch counter.  

Fast forward sixty years.  If you're breaking the law and/or not obeying a cop, you're an idiot.  If a police officer tells you to do something, don't argue.  Do it.  If you're innocent this will blow over and if you're guilty, obstructing and resisting will make things even worse.

A lot of men and women died needlessly and innocently at the hands of law enforcement during marches and sit ins.  They won freedom for so many so please don't taint their legacy by being stupid.

When I get out later today I'm going to look up the book "Once a Cop" to try and remember the authors name and you guys can look him up.  Interesting police career in some of NYC's toughest areas.  I don't think you'll think that he his tainting their legacy.  Amazing story really.

[*bfine32*]

(10-19-2016, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've explained why this discrepancy exists in very minute detail.  It has very little to nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with the ancillary crime that pervades the drug trade at the lower economic level.  I will, sadly, explain again.

Upper class drug user wants drugs.  They call their dealer who often times delivers straight to their door.  At the very least they have a place they go to to buy directly and go straight home.  As they have the money to buy drugs without engaging in further criminal activity to acquire it the drug sales themselves are low profile and therefore hard to catch.  Thus, low level of arrests for upper class drug users.

Middle class drug user wants drugs.  The vast majority of the time they already know a guy and they go to said dealers place of residence to buy drugs.  As they have the money to buy drugs without engaging in further criminal activity to acquire it the drug sales themselves are low profile and therefore hard to catch.  Most middle class drug users are busted when they attempt to buy at the street level.  Thus, middle class drug users are arrested at a lower rate.

Lower class drug users usually don't have a regular dealer or if they do it's a street level dealer.  Drug transactions are made in the open or in a residence that is known for selling drugs.  Lower class people do not have the discretionary income to buy drugs and thus engage in a lot of ancillary criminal activity to acquire it.  Chain and purse snatching, auto burglaries, home burglaries, armed robbery, prostitution, I could go on.  Point being that this type of street crime attracts attention, lots of it.  This doesn't even account for the amount of crime generated by the dealers themselves.  Fights over dealing territory resulting in felony assaults, attempted murders and actual murders.  Fights over product that generate the exact same level of violence.  Additionally, drug sales fund a lot of street gang activity; extortion, violence used to intimidate witnesses or just ordinary citizens, illegal gun sales, sales of forged documents, etc.  This brings an even larger degree of scrutiny from law enforcement and guess what, if it didn't then citizens would be screaming bloody murder asking why not.  Rightfully so btw.


Yes, the sale of drugs funds cartels equally no matter the buyer but the plain fact of the matter is that upper and middle class drug use is both lower profile and doesn't create the highly visible street crime that lower class drug use does.  The discrepancy has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with the level of street crime the drug trade engenders at the lower class level.


I'm mortally sick of hearing the above argument because it's a fact without context.  Not blaming you directly Matt, I'm just sick of this bullshit.

Thanks and makes sense. What is the opposition's counter?

That we see a white guy taking drugs and we see a black guy taking drugs and we just arrest the black guy?

Makes more sense that it be an ancillary charge to other crimes. I'll let others explain the demographics of crimes that could be related to drug use.

Just spit-balling, but if someone did a study based on economics and not skin color they might get similar if not more staggering results.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2016, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you're saying. Do you know of any studies that separate out arrests of minorities for drug crimes without any other charges. Legitimately curious about that.

I'm not immediately aware of one but it would still miss the point.  Street level drug trade invites far greater scrutiny because of the amount of ancillary crime it generates, thus arrests for simple possession will be much higher due to that level of scrutiny.  Your possession arrests for middle, and especially upper, class users is almost always in conjunction with another offense such as intoxicated in public, DUI or other traffic offenses.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not immediately aware of one but it would still miss the point.  Street level drug trade invites far greater scrutiny because of the amount of ancillary crime it generates, thus arrests for simple possession will be much higher due to that level of scrutiny.  Your possession arrests for middle, and especially upper, class users is almost always in conjunction with another offense such as intoxicated in public, DUI or other traffic offenses.

Hmm, there really should be someone digging into this more, and I have no doubt there is. It's likely it is sitting in a library somewhere as someone's dissertation and has never seen the light of day beyond the review committee.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2016, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hmm, there really should be someone digging into this more, and I have no doubt there is. It's likely it is sitting in a library somewhere as someone's dissertation and has never seen the light of day beyond the review committee.

I'd be very confident that one has been done.  I'd also point out the following; when people think of crime they always think of street crime.  You'll get more prison time for stealing $10 with a gun than stealing $10,000,000 with a pen.  One could certainly argue, and I'd agree, that the "white collar" criminal actually does more damage to their victims and possibly society as a whole.  But people are always more fearful of, and demand greater action against, street level crime.  This further contributes to the higher level of drug related arrests for lower income offenders.  It's another reason why I hate when burglary is referred to as a non-violent crime.  IMO it causes far more psychological damage, and monetary loss, to have your home burglarized than have a guy rob you on the street.  Plus the potential for violence during a home burglary is immense.

I wish you guys knew how frustrating it is to be a professional in a field subject to so much amateur debate and argument.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish you guys knew how frustrating it is to be a professional in a field subject to so much amateur debate and argument.

You mean like working in the government and your focus being on fiscal policy and public administration? I know it's not the same, but I do understand in part where you are coming from. The ignorance regarding how our government functions is astounding, especially with regards to fiscal policy.

[*bfine32*]

(10-19-2016, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish you guys knew how frustrating it is to be a professional in a field subject to so much amateur debate and argument.

Wish no longer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2016, 03:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean like working in the government and your focus being on fiscal policy and public administration? I know it's not the same, but I do understand in part where you are coming from. The ignorance regarding how our government functions is astounding, especially with regards to fiscal policy.

I have no doubt.  You have my sympathy.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have no doubt.  You have my sympathy.

And you, mine. Working in most government occupations has this to some degree, because we are always the target of public scrutiny. You all receive so much more just because of the very nature of the work you do.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2016, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you're saying. Do you know of any studies that separate out arrests of minorities for drug crimes without any other charges. Legitimately curious about that.

Look at the "stop and frisk" numbers from New York City


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/racial-discrimination-in-stop-and-frisk.html

At the heart of the Floyd case are statistics showing that the city conducted an astounding 4.4 million stops between January 2004 and June 2012. Of these, only 6 percent resulted in arrests and 6 percent resulted in summonses. In other words, 88 percent of the 4.4 million stops resulted in no further action — meaning a vast majority of those stopped were doing nothing wrong. More than half of all people stopped were frisked, yet only 1.5 percent of frisks found weapons. In about 83 percent of cases, the person stopped was black or Hispanic, even though the two groups accounted for just over half the population.

The city has consistently said that the disparity was justified because minority citizens commit more crimes. But Judge Scheindlin trenchantly rejected this argument. As she pointed out, “this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent — not criminal. There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.”



This policy of racial profiling resulted in over half a million citations and arrest.  A large portion of them were for simple possession of small amounts of drugs.  And since blacks and Hispanics were racially profiled (83% of the stops) they received an overwhelming majority of these citations.

This had nothing to do with "collateral crime".  It was nothing but straight up racial profiling.  If you stop and frisk more minorities for no reason then you are going to end up charging more minorities even though minorities and whites both possess illegal drugs at the same rate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2016, 10:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This had nothing to do with "collateral crime".  It was nothing but straight up racial profiling.  If you stop and frisk more minorities for no reason then you are going to end up charging more minorities even though minorities and whites both possess illegal drugs at the same rate.

100% bullshit.  This has been addressed above yet you didn't seem to comprehend it.  But then I expect that level of debate from someone who pretends to be a lawyer.  

[treee]

(10-19-2016, 10:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 100% bullshit.  This has been addressed above yet you didn't seem to comprehend it.  But then I expect that level of debate from someone who pretends to be a lawyer.  

While your speculation about income level correlating to rate of citation for drugs is certainly based in logic, I think calling Fred's assessment of stop-and-frisk being bullshit is needlessly dismissive.