The Fight Against Fascists (I Can't Believe This Exists)

[CJD]

(06-08-2021, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here we get into a dangerous area.  You and I can discuss this like adults, but others will read nefarious intent into this discussion.  To start this discussion, let's get the ethnic breakdown of New York City, the setting for the study in your link.  We'll use 2019 as that is the last "normal" year on record.  

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/newyorkcitynewyork?

White alone:  32.1%
Black alone: 24.3%
Native American:  0.4%
Asian alone: 14.1%
Pacific Islander:  0.1%
Hispanic:  29.1%

Now, let's look at the crime statistics for the same year.

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2019-enforcement-report.pdf

Murder by arrestee:

Black: 58%
Hispanic: 35.2%
White: 3.3%
Asian/PI: 3%

Rape by arrestee:

Black:  40.7%
Hispanic:  45.4%
White:  6.7%
Asian/PI: 7%

Robbery:

Black:  59.4%
Hispanic: 35.2%
White:  5.2%
Asian/PI: 3.2%

Felony Assault:

Black:  51.8%
Hispanic:  33.1%
White:  8.3%
Asian/PI:   6.4%

Shootings:

Black:  71.6%
Hispanic:  24.1%
White:  2.7%
Asian/PI:  1.5%

Firearms arrests:

Black:  70.9%
Hispanic:  23.1%
White:  4.3%
Asian/PI:  1.6%

Now, armed with these numbers, where would you focus your efforts if you were implementing stop and frisk?  You do see some extremely disproportionate numbers in these crime statistics, yes?  Stop and Frisk is attempt to implement the hardest type of policing, proactive.  I can tell you that I, personally, have stopped crime by nothing people about to engage in it by their body language and other factors.  I am sure there are some that would label my suspicions, although proven correct, to be motivated by "problematic" factors.  Of course it's an easy bridge to cross, for some at least, to go from reasonable suspicion to, "hey what is that black kid doing here?"  This is where the practice falls apart and opens itself up to attack.  

But that's what I'm saying. The perception of who is dangerous is what dictated who the police stopped. Black people are arrested for violent crimes more often, so police will perceive black people as more dangerous and therefore enact a neutrally written policy in a racialized manner, like Stop and Frisk. Like I said, I'm not calling police racist for carrying out Stop and Frisk the way they did. It just had racialized consequences. In that same study, I believe it references the likelihood of finding contraband/firearms/some evidence of illegal activity.

Quote:In the period for which we have data, 1 in 7.9 whites stopped were arrested, compared with approximately 1 in 8.8 Hispanics and 1 in 9.5 blacks. These data are consistent with our general conclusion that the police are disproportionately stopping minorities; the stops of whites are more “efficient” and are more likely to lead to arrests, whereas those for blacks and Hispanics are more indiscriminate, and fewer of the persons stopped in these broader sweeps are actually arrested. It is perfectly reasonable for the police to make many stops that do not lead to arrests; the issue here is the comparison between ethnic groups

So, despite stopping white people less often, whenever they did stop white people they were more likely to find them worthy of arrest. This could be an indication that, in the rare times that they did stop a white person, it was for more suspicious circumstances relative to the times they stopped the black and Hispanic people. That, or black and Hispanic people act suspicious more than white people when they are doing nothing wrong. This is a possibility, given those groups' general skepticism of cops. Cops could interpret their awareness of the cops as fear of being caught. 

I don't believe you can draw conclusions from studies like this about the mindset of the police, but you can definitely derive some understanding of the general perceptions of the different races, in my opinion. Not just the perception of the police, by the way. This perception appears to stretch across the entire country.

Quote:Democrats have caused a rise in crime by buying into defunding the police.  By electing DA's who are soft on crime (see Philly, Portland, San Francisco, St. Louis, Chicago and Los Angeles).  By creating an atmosphere in which law enforcement is bad, and systemically racist, while criminals are just victims. 


By publicly stating we should abolish the police and incarceration. 

https://news.yahoo.com/rashida-tlaib-calls-no-more-221355507.html

By defending or downplaying riots and helping raise bail money for rioters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

Don't take my word for it, just look at the rising crime rates in pretty much every city in the nation.

Fair enough. But I don't think this is comparable to a law not intended to be racist having racist consequences. It seems like a lot of those policies and stances are intended to sway favor towards those perceived to be criminals. That will have (hopefully foreseeable) side effects of more crime, but that isn't necessarily exclusive to what may be the intended goal of broadening rights and protections for not-yet-convicted suspects of crime.

Quote:Sure, but you're basically conceding the point I'm making.  

I mean yea. I think we may have a minor disconnect here. I'm saying a policy doesn't have to be intentionally racist to have racist consequences and those racist consequences should be considered when voting for someone with a history of racism. So, a person isn't necessarily racist if they vote for Trump but they are responsible for racism in that Trump was openly racist. 

You're countering with policies that had an intention that came to bear. More protections for criminals and suspects and more protections for illegal immigrants. This will have the side effect of more crime and more illegal immigrants, but I don't think those policies ever tried to claim those wouldn't happen. They seem like pretty A to B connections for those policies. 

The apples to apples comparison would be that people who vote democrat are responsible for more crime in cities and more illegal immigrants in this country, which I don't believe I ever refuted. If I did, it was not intentional.

The difference, in my opinion, is that I believe most Democrats would say "the increase in crime and illegal immigrants is worth the increased civil rights for those groups of people, especially in the case that they are not guilty."

I don't think people voting for Trump would admit that the racism they caused was worth...whatever Trump accomplished. I doubt the majority of them would even admit Trump was racist haha.