What Percentage of BLM Protestors Know What They're Protesting?

[Brownshoe]

(07-17-2016, 10:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder what percentage of total interactions are between cops and blacks vs cops and white. 

Given the profiling that goes on.

Someone who can carry on a discussion without refusing to respond might be able to answer that question.

Do you have that stat, because I'm on my phone, so it would be a pain to try and look it up.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2016, 11:10 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Do you have that stat, because I'm on my phone, so it would be a pain to try and look it up.

I don't.  I'll have to look for it at some point unless someone else can get it.

[fredtoast]

(07-17-2016, 12:01 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I have no reason to think that the study is wrong. Why do you think blacks are more likely to be stopped in the first place? Could it possibly be that they commit more crime per capita?

No that is not it.

About the same percentage of white people use illegal drugs as black people, but black people are more likely to get stopped and also m ore likely to be searched whem they are stopped. This leads to more arrests. That is why many of the "crime stats" don't tell the truth.

[fredtoast]

Funny that the very study that all of the BLM haters are fawning over proves there is racial bias toward blacks by police officers.

So what do all of you anti BLM people suggest be done about the problem of racial bias by police officers?

Or are you goimg to stand on the principle that it id fine to be more physical and violent with blacks as long as they don't shoot them?

[Brownshoe]

(07-17-2016, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No that is not it.

About the same percentage of white people use illegal drugs as black people, but black people are more likely to get stopped and also m ore likely to be searched whem they are stopped. This leads to more arrests. That is why many of the "crime stats" don't tell the truth.

And how do you know "that's not it"? Why wouldn't police be looking for crime in high crime rate areas?

[Brownshoe]

(07-17-2016, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Funny that the very study that all of the BLM haters are fawning over proves there is racial bias toward blacks by police officers.

So what do all of you anti BLM people suggest be done about the problem of racial bias by police officers?

Or are you goimg to stand on the principle that it id fine to be more physical and violent with blacks as long as they don't shoot them?

White people are more likely to get the baton or be pepper sprayed when complying. We don't know how much they were resisting and how much force the officer had to use to stop them. Those stats mean nothing without context of each situation.

But if it were found that there is racial bias then the officer should be punished accordingly.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2016, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Funny that the very study that all of the BLM haters are fawning over proves there is racial bias toward blacks by police officers.

So what do all of you anti BLM people suggest be done about the problem of racial bias by police officers?

Or are you goimg to stand on the principle that it id fine to be more physical and violent with blacks as long as they don't shoot them?

Giving your interpretation of the data the benefit of the doubt (although I have seen Brownshoe cite that whites are more likely to also get the baton or sprayed) you can't just throwing in "except shooting" as an after thought to your little rant that paints folks that disagree with BLM as racists.

Question 1: IF there is racial bias (given many sites dispute it) then additional training is required and those found to be unjust in their actions should be disciplined.

Question 2: Was addressed above.

Now let's see if a cop hater (see I learning to use the inflammatory terms ) to answer a couple questions:


Do blacks commit a higher rate of violent crime than whites (situations that would most likely result is a LEO being physical)?

What do we do about this if true?

It has been shown that blacks kill LEOs at a higher rate than whites. What should be done about this? 

[McC]

You'll always have people there just to fuel the chaos or take advantage of it, like the LA riots, when grabbing free TV's was as prevalent as any real protest.

[fredtoast]

(07-17-2016, 12:50 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: And how do you know "that's not it"? Why wouldn't police be looking for crime in high crime rate areas?

But if police looked as closely at white people as they did black people then about the same amount of each would be arrested on drug charges.

You are confusing high "arrest" rates with high "crime" rates.

[Brownshoe]

(07-18-2016, 12:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But if police looked as closely at white people as they did black people then about the same amount of each would be arrested on drug charges.

You are confusing high "arrest" rates with high "crime" rates.

No, I'm looking at high crime rates. Most black neighborhoods have a higher crime rate than white neighborhoods, so police will be there more often. It's not like police are just looking for drugs. They're looking for all types of crime. Black people are just getting caught with drugs more often, because they're in high crime area's.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 08:27 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Black people are just getting caught with drugs more often, because they're in high crime area's.

This just is not true.

You need to educate yourself about racial profiling. New York city police were famous for this with their "stop and frisk" policy.

It happens everywhere. Black people are more likely to get stopped by police simply because they are black. I can list several more proven examples.

[Brownshoe]

(07-18-2016, 11:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This just is not true.

You need to educate yourself about racial profiling.  New York city police were famous for this with their "stop and frisk" policy.

It happens everywhere.  Black people are more likely to get stopped by police simply because they are black.  I can list several more proven examples.

So why are all the high crime area's have a higher population of black people?

[Bengalzona]

It's interesting. The old white guy who teaches the Sunday school class I was in this weekend used that same phrase: "Do those BLM people even know what they are protesting about?"

Must be some kind of catch-phrase disseminated by Fox News.

Frankly, I find it to be a pretty patronizing and dismissive attitude, one that will ensure that poor race relations continue for a new generation. What bothers me is that people like this man do not know what they are protesting about.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 12:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So why are all the high crime area's have a higher population of black people?

What is your point?

Are you denying the proof of racial profiling by police?

If your neighbor commits a crime does that mean the police should have the right to search you?

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 01:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What is your point?

Are you denying the proof of racial profiling by police?

If your neighbor commits a crime does that mean the police should have the right to search you?

Police are going to be around higher crime rate areas. The highest crime rate area's in this country have a high black population in it. Police are going to be searching black people more often because they are living in said high crime rate areas.

If a crime is committed and they are looking for the suspect and they see you and think you're the suspect or involved in any way that's probable cause to search you.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 01:54 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Police are going to be around higher crime rate areas. The highest crime rate area's in this country have a high black population in it. Police are going to be searching black people more often because they are living in said high crime rate areas.

If a crime is committed and they are looking for the suspect and they see you and think you're the suspect or involved in any way that's probable cause to search you.

Except that is not how racial profiling works. It has nothing to do with "looking like a perpetrator". Police have been proven to target blacks more than whites just because of the color of their skin. Do you deny this?

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 03:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Except that is not how racial profiling works.  It has nothing to do with "looking like a perpetrator".  Police have been proven to target blacks more than whites just because of the color of their skin.  Do you deny this?

Show me where police are targeting blacks just because the color of their skin, and it has to take into consideration where they "targeted" the black person (high crime rate area / low crime crate area).

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 03:42 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Show me where police are targeting blacks just because the color of their skin, and it has to take into consideration where they "targeted" the black person (high crime rate area / low crime crate area).

East St Louis police officers admit they were told to target black people at malls.



NYC "stop and frisk" program targeted blacks at a much higher rate than whites.  Had nothing to do with the crime rate in that area.



2009 study of traffic stops in West Virgina found "on a statewide basis, black drivers are over 1 1/2 times (1.68 to be exact) more likely to be pulled over than white drivers. Hispanic drivers are just under 1 1/2 times (1.48) more likely to be pulled over than white drivers.

Some might argue these results don't prove the existence of racial profiling. Indeed, there could be any number of reasons people get pulled over notwithstanding their race; and if all the information we had were the rates at which minority drivers were pulled over in comparison to that of white drivers, we would not be able to prove much.

Our study went further into law enforcement practices, documenting what happened after a person had been pulled over by police. Specifically, the collection process (as has been the case with other ACLU studies of this kind) documented the vehicles searched, whether any illegal contraband was found, and the authority used to perform said vehicle search (consent versus probable cause.) With the information collected in these categories, those who deny the existence of racial profiling had better buckle their seat belts, because the road of denial gets increasingly bumpy when confronted with the jarringly disproportionate levels at which minorities are targeted for roadside searches in West Virginia.

All told, on a statewide basis, black and Hispanic drivers are nearly 2 1/2 times more likely (2.45 and 2.37 respectively) to be searched once pulled over than white drivers on West Virginia roads. The fact the disproportion not only carries over, but increases from the rate of roadside stops to roadside searches of minority drivers, leaves little wiggle room concerning the existence of racial profiling."



2003-2004 study in Los Angeles "after controlling for violent and property crime rates in specific LAPD reporting districts, as well as a range of other variables, It is implausible that higher frisk and search rates are justified by higher minority criminality, when these frisks and searches are substantially less likely to uncover weapons, drugs or other types of contraband."

[Brownshoe]

(07-19-2016, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: East St Louis police officers admit they were told to target black people at malls.



NYC "stop and frisk" program targeted blacks at a much higher rate than whites.  Had nothing to do with the crime rate in that area.



2009 study of traffic stops in West Virgina found "on a statewide basis, black drivers are over 1 1/2 times (1.68 to be exact) more likely to be pulled over than white drivers. Hispanic drivers are just under 1 1/2 times (1.48) more likely to be pulled over than white drivers.

Some might argue these results don't prove the existence of racial profiling. Indeed, there could be any number of reasons people get pulled over notwithstanding their race; and if all the information we had were the rates at which minority drivers were pulled over in comparison to that of white drivers, we would not be able to prove much.

Our study went further into law enforcement practices, documenting what happened after a person had been pulled over by police. Specifically, the collection process (as has been the case with other ACLU studies of this kind) documented the vehicles searched, whether any illegal contraband was found, and the authority used to perform said vehicle search (consent versus probable cause.) With the information collected in these categories, those who deny the existence of racial profiling had better buckle their seat belts, because the road of denial gets increasingly bumpy when confronted with the jarringly disproportionate levels at which minorities are targeted for roadside searches in West Virginia.

All told, on a statewide basis, black and Hispanic drivers are nearly 2 1/2 times more likely (2.45 and 2.37 respectively) to be searched once pulled over than white drivers on West Virginia roads. The fact the disproportion not only carries over, but increases from the rate of roadside stops to roadside searches of minority drivers, leaves little wiggle room concerning the existence of racial profiling."



2003-2004 study in Los Angeles "after controlling for violent and property crime rates in specific LAPD reporting districts, as well as a range of other variables, It is implausible that higher frisk and search rates are justified by higher minority criminality, when these frisks and searches are substantially less likely to uncover weapons, drugs or other types of contraband."

How do you know that the NYC "stop and frisk" program didn't have anything to do with crime rate in the area? You don't see them doing "stop and frisk" in area's with low crime rate.

So, basically it's saying that it doesn't prove much. And it's saying that minorities either consent to being searched more, or the police had more probable cause to search them. I mean speculation isn't proving it.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2016, 11:19 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: How do you know that the NYC "stop and frisk" program didn't have anything to do with crime rate in the area? You don't see them doing "stop and frisk" in area's with low crime rate.

Because the '07 study controlled for "precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation."

(07-19-2016, 11:19 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So, basically it's saying that it doesn't prove much. And it's saying that minorities either consent to being searched more, or the police had more probable cause to search them. I mean speculation isn't proving it.

Why don't you try educating yourself instead of just sticking your head in the ground and saying "I don't see anything wrong."  I keep answering every question you post by doing research and you just close your eyes and refuse to even look at the problem.  

I guess ignorance really is bliss.