06-08-2021, 08:18 PM
(06-08-2021, 07:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 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.
Therein lies the rub with this type of thing. You can't target crime without targeting criminals. If one ethnic group commits a largely disproportionate amount of crime how do you target criminals without disproportionately contacting that group? Of course, there's a vast range of possible actions within that framework.
Quote: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.
But is it a perception driven by facts? The statistics would indicate that it is.
Quote: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.
They absolutely did not foresee this and are fighting that logical conclusion tooth and nail.
Quote: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.
Oh, they absolutely did claim otherwise. At the very least they will deny any correlation. Try and find just one Dem politician on the national level who equates the major crime spike with "defund the police", demonizing law enforcement and soft on crime positions.
Quote: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."
See, that's a position I could at least respect, while completely disagreeing with it. But I can't find a single person of prominence, or any Dem politicians for that matter, who is actually saying that.
Quote: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.
I've said before that having Trump was worth the conservative SCOTUS. I can't imagine how severely curtailed our liberties would be if Hillary got to appoint three justices. To me that was worth four years of Trump. Also, I don't think Trump did anything but bring people who were already racist out from under their rock, people of all ethnicities btw.
