"Blue Lives Matter"

[SKL]

And blacks are more likely to be "randomly" stopped to be frisked or have their car searched or whatever. So... they have more confrontations with police? But most of them are BS, and so nothing comes of it?

 

I was expecting someone to argue that the black crime rate is a complete myth.  Sorry.  Until I see a petition signed by all the black moms asking that their neighborhoods stop being patrolled by police, that's not going to work on me.

 

We hear about some eggregious cases of stop & frisk ending up with someone dead, but those are news because they are not normal.  However many fake stop & frisks there may be, they make up a very small % of the shootings by cops.  They don't explain why white people in a confrontation with cops are significantly more likely to be shot.

Edited May 2, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

 

One study. That's hardly evidence. There are multiple studies showing just the opposite, and other studies that are unclear. However, when we look at who gets shot in America by the cops - not experiments in different settings, but the demographic data - we see that some people are much more likely to get shot than others. That's a fact.

 

There are multiple studies and statistical analyses that show what I said.  Some locations are skewed differently than others.  It seems Chicago, for example, is pretty horrible for blacks.  New York and iirc Baltimore are statistically skewed the other way.

 

I'm supposed to be working on a bunch of work deadlines, so no links.  Some of the studies were linked or mentioned in links that are already in this thread.  Others are easy to find via google.

 

So yes, if you only look at whole population, blacks are more likely to be shot by police.  Similarly, adults are more likely to be killed in single-occupant car accidents - but not if they don't drive.  Boys are more likely to get a football scholarship - but not if they don't play.  Rural people are more  likely to be harmed by a wild animal.

[Carol in Cal.]

Right after 9/11 a police officer in a nice neighborhood in San Jose pulled over a car for a routine traffic stop.  Speeding or something. I don't recall the details.  The driver shot him dead in his car and fled.  

 

Several hours later, not having heard about this, we were driving to church in that neighborhood and the hills next to the expressway were absolutely crawling with police with what looked like machine guns in their hands.  They were determined to find this guy.  And, I would argue, rightfully so.  Someone killing a police officer by definition is killing a preserver of order, which is an escalation up from killing a regular citizen, which is already wrong, egregious, and criminal.  I think that it's right and even proper for 'cop killers' to be prosecuted more strongly than other murderers for that reason.  This is something to keep in mind as we discuss the blue lives matter issue.

 

In addition, I think that police officers who misuse that authority are by definition betraying their public trust, and should be prosecuted more strongly for that reason.  That is really crucial to having a just society.

 

(DD, who was 4 at the time, thought that this was escalation of the 9/11 stuff in our very own city, a conclusion that she did not discuss with me until months later.  I was horrified.)  

[Guest]

Real live (dead) people > simulations

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Right after 9/11 a police officer in a nice neighborhood in San Jose pulled over a car for a routine traffic stop.  Speeding or something. I don't recall the details.  The driver shot him dead in his car and fled.  

 

Several hours later, not having heard about this, we were driving to church in that neighborhood and the hills next to the expressway were absolutely crawling with police with what looked like machine guns in their hands.  They were determined to find this guy.  And, I would argue, rightfully so.  Someone killing a police officer by definition is killing a preserver of order, which is an escalation up from killing a regular citizen, which is already wrong, egregious, and criminal.  I think that it's right and even proper for 'cop killers' to be prosecuted more strongly than other murderers for that reason.  This is something to keep in mind as we discuss the blue lives matter issue.

 

In addition, I think that police officers who misuse that authority are by definition betraying their public trust, and should be prosecuted more strongly for that reason.  That is really crucial to having a just society.

 

(DD, who was 4 at the time, thought that this was escalation of the 9/11 stuff in our very own city, a conclusion that she did not discuss with me until months later.  I was horrified.)  

 

I agree 100% on both counts.

 

[Tanaqui]

I was expecting someone to argue that the black crime rate is a complete myth.  Sorry.  Until I see a petition signed by all the black moms asking that their neighborhoods stop being patrolled by police, that's not going to work on me.

 

What the heck IS it with people on this thread diving off that slippery slope? Wanting to stop "stop and frisk" is NOT the same as wanting to stop all police patrols. (Not to mention the egregrious jump from "blacks are more likely to be stopped over bs" to "therefore, the black crime rate is a complete myth". Seriously, if you can't argue in good faith, it starts to look like you're being deliberately mendacious.)

 

Also.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Tanaqui

[JeanM]

This article has some interesting data. It shows a lack of correlation between the amount of violent crime in a city and the number of police killings. Chicago surprisingly does not have *that* many police killings per million people.

 

"St. Louis Police Department had a rate of 9.5 police killings per one million residents, while Baltimore’s was 4.8 per one million. Chicago sits at 2.9 per one million and Minneapolis’ rate is 2.5 per million."

[Slojo]

I was expecting someone to argue that the black crime rate is a complete myth.  Sorry.  Until I see a petition signed by all the black moms asking that their neighborhoods stop being patrolled by police, that's not going to work on me.

 

We hear about some eggregious cases of stop & frisk ending up with someone dead, but those are news because they are not normal.  However many fake stop & frisks there may be, they make up a very small % of the shootings by cops.  They don't explain why white people in a confrontation with cops are significantly more likely to be shot.

Why would anyone argue that the black crime rate is a complete myth? That's not the basis of any one's argument that I've seen. So pardon me while I tag this with a WTF!  And really, ALL THE BLACK MOMS? - I could probably get maybe 30 - 40% of them, but I've gotta keep it 100? Really? Or the whole deal's off? 

 

Okay, now that we are going to drop ridiculous petition idea before any conversation can move forward, maybe we can continue on with a real discussion? Plenty of black people want reasonable patrols without unnecessary and unwarranted search and seizure. Plenty of black people want cops who know the area well, have good relationships with the vast majority of law-abiding folks; know the hot spots and focus their efforts on those (gee, there we go again, wanting the same things white people want). The current dynamic has got to stop, and we need to stop pretending as if there are no options for doing things differently. Perhaps that's a better use of time than petitioning all the black moms in America?

 

There are multiple studies and statistical analyses that show what I said.  Some locations are skewed differently than others.  It seems Chicago, for example, is pretty horrible for blacks.  New York and iirc Baltimore are statistically skewed the other way.

 

I'm supposed to be working on a bunch of work deadlines, so no links.  Some of the studies were linked or mentioned in links that are already in this thread.  Others are easy to find via google.

 

So yes, if you only look at whole population, blacks are more likely to be shot by police.  Similarly, adults are more likely to be killed in single-occupant car accidents - but not if they don't drive.  Boys are more likely to get a football scholarship - but not if they don't play.  Rural people are more  likely to be harmed by a wild animal.

 

So on the whole, whites are more likely to be shot by police -- you're stating this in raw numbers, am I correct? So more whites die at the hands of police. Could that be because there are more of them? There are far more whites than blacks, and the data on random stops suggests that blacks are stopped with greater frequency in scenarios in which no weapon or contraband is found. Literally, "nothing to see, here" folks (yes, I get that some of those folks may have records - but we don't stop or arrest people based on crimes they may have committed in the past that they've already "paid" for; and many people are literally stopped for nothing, having no record at all). So whites may be shot more times, but not in numbers disproportionate to their share of the population or even in proportion of those engaged in a "confrontation" with the police (which itself includes a wide range of combative behavior -- anything from "sarcasm and lack of respect in the tone of one's voice" (not worth being killed over) to guns pointed at police officers, and yelling "No, you drop your ***ing gun" (that person lived [white guy], though I could hear the argument for him getting shot, and have made my peace with that one). The odds of being shot, adjusting for the numbers, are still nationally skewed in favor of blacks having greater odds of getting shot, though not greater numbers. Which leads back to the original issue of bias - whether, in the seconds in which police have to make that kind of decision on threat, there is bias, and to what effect?  

 

But more importantly than the chance of getting shot by police (which is infinitesimally small for any one random person), is the corrosive effect of "one kind of policing" for white communities, and another kind for communities of color. It takes a toll, and has been going on for decades. It's been rooted in a history from the foundations of this country in which one type of policing and set of laws applied to blacks and another to whites. And if you can't give thoughtful understanding to that dynamic, then you're missing a pretty big part of the picture -- the part where "big data" meets "thick data."  

 

So, indeed, the shooting of unarmed individuals is not the entire picture, but no one claimed to be tackling the entire picture in this issue, just as I'm not tackling all of environmental change by buying a Prius or reducing my household waste (but I should probably do it anyway if I can). We'd never make headway on anything if that was the standard for any and all issues. No other community is asked to have the entire picture explained or addressed before one part of the picture must be. That's not how problems are addressed in your personal life - unless you're claiming perfection, and it's certainly not smart public policy.  Do not ask the black community to adhere to a standard that would not hold up in your own community (and I've lived in both truly multi-racial/no majority communities - of which there are very few in this country -- and majority white communities. I can personally attest to the "hot messes" living and lurking in those communities as well). 

[Haiku]

(gee, there we go again, wanting the same things white people want)

 

The audacity!  :glare:

[SKL]

Why would anyone argue that the black crime rate is a complete myth? That's not the basis of any one's argument that I've seen. So pardon me while I tag this with a WTF!  And really, ALL THE BLACK MOMS? - I could probably get maybe 30 - 40% of them, but I've gotta keep it 100? Really? Or the whole deal's off? 

 

Okay, now that we are going to drop ridiculous petition idea before any conversation can move forward, maybe we can continue on with a real discussion? Plenty of black people want reasonable patrols without unnecessary and unwarranted search and seizure. Plenty of black people want cops who know the area well, have good relationships with the vast majority of law-abiding folks; know the hot spots and focus their efforts on those (gee, there we go again, wanting the same things white people want). The current dynamic has got to stop, and we need to stop pretending as if there are no options for doing things differently. Perhaps that's a better use of time than petitioning all the black moms in America?

 

 

So on the whole, whites are more likely to be shot by police -- you're stating this in raw numbers, am I correct? So more whites die at the hands of police. Could that be because there are more of them? There are far more whites than blacks, and the data on random stops suggests that blacks are stopped with greater frequency in scenarios in which no weapon or contraband is found. Literally, "nothing to see, here" folks (yes, I get that some of those folks may have records - but we don't stop or arrest people based on crimes they may have committed in the past that they've already "paid" for; and many people are literally stopped for nothing, having no record at all). So whites may be shot more times, but not in numbers disproportionate to their share of the population or even in proportion of those engaged in a "confrontation" with the police (which itself includes a wide range of combative behavior -- anything from "sarcasm and lack of respect in the tone of one's voice" (not worth being killed over) to guns pointed at police officers, and yelling "No, you drop your ***ing gun" (that person lived [white guy], though I could hear the argument for him getting shot, and have made my peace with that one). The odds of being shot, adjusting for the numbers, are still nationally skewed in favor of blacks having greater odds of getting shot, though not greater numbers. Which leads back to the original issue of bias - whether, in the seconds in which police have to make that kind of decision on threat, there is bias, and to what effect?  

 

But more importantly than the chance of getting shot by police (which is infinitesimally small for any one random person), is the corrosive effect of "one kind of policing" for white communities, and another kind for communities of color. It takes a toll, and has been going on for decades. It's been rooted in a history from the foundations of this country in which one type of policing and set of laws applied to blacks and another to whites. And if you can't give thoughtful understanding to that dynamic, then you're missing a pretty big part of the picture -- the part where "big data" meets "thick data."  

 

So, indeed, the shooting of unarmed individuals is not the entire picture, but no one claimed to be tackling the entire picture in this issue, just as I'm not tackling all of environmental change by buying a Prius or reducing my household waste (but I should probably do it anyway if I can). We'd never make headway on anything if that was the standard for any and all issues. No other community is asked to have the entire picture explained or addressed before one part of the picture must be. That's not how problems are addressed in your personal life - unless you're claiming perfection, and it's certainly not smart public policy.  Do not ask the black community to adhere to a standard that would not hold up in your own community (and I've lived in both truly multi-racial/no majority communities - of which there are very few in this country -- and majority white communities. I can personally attest to the "hot messes" living and lurking in those communities as well). 

 

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said.  It's all there, and I think it's pretty simple, so I am not going to attempt to explain it again.

 

I agree that most of what we want is the same.  So why do we need divisive slogans?  Look at all the time people are spending arguing about the extremes and manipulating the data instead of doing something about what we all agree needs fixed.

[SKL]

So , another great reason for better math instruction. I've had a few frustrating discussions with my mom about this exact thing. But she's a life long racist who sucks at mathematics so I gave it up.

 

I am very good at math and statistics, thanks.  If you care to discuss with mutual respect, re-read what I said.  The comparison is not raw numbers and it's not a % of the overall white / black population.  It's the % of black / white people in confrontations with the police who get shot.  If you cannot understand that distinction, it's not because of my math skills.

 

Seems more likely that some people find some of the facts inconvenient.  Oh well.

Edited May 3, 2016 by SKL

[Tanaqui]

I agree that most of what we want is the same.  So why do we need divisive slogans?  Look at all the time people are spending arguing about the extremes and manipulating the data instead of doing something about what we all agree needs fixed.

 

SKL, the slogan "Black Lives Matter" isn't divisive except in the minds of people who think that any mention of race or racism is "divisive" by its very nature.

[Slojo]

I am very good at math and statistics, thanks.  If you care to discuss with mutual respect, re-read what I said.  The comparison is not raw numbers and it's not a % of the overall white / black population.  It's the % of black / white people in confrontations with the police who get shot.  If you cannot understand that distinction, it's not because of my math skills.

 

Seems more likely that some people find some of the facts inconvenient.  Oh well.

I actually do understand your thinking, and your math. I think it's still (using math) the case that the odds are skewed against blacks (general population) in this area.  There are some critiques against that study, and, as I understand it, he ran the numbers again, and they didn't hold up. But a lot of conservative sites have glommed onto the study. In general, there is a lot of inexact in the crime and policing numbers for a range of reasons. I just sat in a conference with the head of NIJ, and four criminology professors last week - and I think they'd basically say the same thing.

 

Blacks have far more "interactions" with the police in cases where the police are pursuing a possible crime, so I am curious as to what was counted as a "confrontation" -- if I question the reason for the stop and show even a hint of emotion (and, it's possible that African Americans, given the history, might be more rankled by stops that feel totally unnecessary and seen as confrontational) is that a "confrontation" - and was it counted. Or do I have to have "guns blazing" and an absolute refusal to drop my weapon?  Who's defining "confrontation?" What's the range? 

 

Statistics are funny that way - there are actually a couple of ways to slice and dice them that might each have mathematical validity, but the social science behind them - either on the front end or in the interpretation may be flawed. It's kind of "the average family has 2.4 kids" problem - except if you go looking for that family and start building houses to accommodate 2.4 kids - you might have come away with the wrong conclusions, and you're not really going to find that family in real life. But really, is it that you don't believe that blacks have different experiences with policing in their communities than whites, or that you just want people to stop whining about it?  And are you suggesting that there hasn't been a corrosive effect in the history of policing communities of color? 

 

You're kind of all over the place on this, and come ever so close to "black folks deserve what they get" without ever really saying it (otherwise, really, WTF on the black moms petition "straw man"). I think you think if people just shut up about it, that you can go on believing that everything is alright in the world - and that's the only reality in which you can deal. It's cool, you're entitled to your worldview. Just don't plan on taking the top cop job in Chicago anytime soon. That wouldn't go well so for you. 

[JeanM]

I am very good at math and statistics, thanks.  If you care to discuss with mutual respect, re-read what I said.  The comparison is not raw numbers and it's not a % of the overall white / black population.  It's the % of black / white people in confrontations with the police who get shot.  If you cannot understand that distinction, it's not because of my math skills.

 

Seems more likely that some people find some of the facts inconvenient.  Oh well.

 

If it is really is the % of people in confrontations with the police who get shot though, you would expect to see at least some kind of correlation between number of people shot and violent crime rate. And in the article I linked above (linking again for convenience), there does not seem to be any pattern.

 

Also there are some cities, including St. Louis which has 9.5 police killings per million people, in which there are no white people shot. I really cannot believe that 0% of the police confrontations in St. Louis involve white people.

[SKL]

If it is really is the % of people in confrontations with the police who get shot though, you would expect to see at least some kind of correlation between number of people shot and violent crime rate. And in the article I linked above (linking again for convenience), there does not seem to be any pattern.

 

Also there are some cities, including St. Louis which has 9.5 police killings per million people, in which there are no white people shot. I really cannot believe that 0% of the police confrontations in St. Louis involve white people.

 

There are big regional differences.  There are places where no black people were shot by the police but white people were.  And vice versa.  The focus needs to be on where the problems are, or the problems will be a lot harder to solve.  If you have a splinter in your left thumb, your solution doesn't involve your right pinkie finger except maybe to help work on the left thumb.

 

It seems to me there are two really different problems though.  One, cops and other institutions in some places that systematically trample on black people.  Two, police policies in some places that may lead cops to shoot when shooting might not be the best response.  The locations where cops seem too willing to shoot are not necessarily the same as those where institutions trample on black people.  There are some places where both problems coincide.  There are probably some places free of both.

 

In my personal life, know at least 2 white people who were wrongfully shot dead by police.  In one case it was murder (officially unsolved), and in the other case it was a quick trigger finger where a guy was trying to climb in his own window after locking himself out of his house.  The trigger finger problem, and the occasional bad cop problem, are not necessarily connected with race.  That doesn't mean they aren't problems, it means a focus on race won't fix them.  Tamir Rice was shot by a bad cop who happened to be white.  The man should not have been wearing a uniform or carrying a gun.  Regardless of race.  I would not want him policiing my community regardless of the skin colors of my family.  There are bad cops who are black who periodically make the low-profile news around here too.  It has nothing to do with their skin color, it has to do with the human condition and probably poor hiring and HR practices.  But then again, maybe it's hard for the cops to attract and keep good employees because it's such a thankless and stressful job.  But more on-topic, everyone of all colors would benefit from policies that help cops make a different choice than shooting.  Even the cops, who generally prefer not to discharge their guns, would benefit from that.  There must be some best practices that could be learned from departments where shooting by cops is low compared to violent crime.  Regardless of race.

 

As for the race issues, in places where these are the worst, they aren't limited to the police department.  They are in the education stats, the unemployment stats, the justice stats, the housing stats etc. which contribute to the crime stats, which contribute to the law enforcement stats.  The problem of people dying because of racist trigger-happy cops seems to ignore the many more people who have lost or marginalized lives due to racism and its results.  Black lives matter regardless of whether they are shot by a cop or a neighbor, but more than that, black lives matter when they are alive, trying to contribute in a community, and raising kids of their own.  The nicest, best-trained cop in the world can't make a dent in the problems these families face.  I don't understand why people who understand these issues want to distract attention from them.

[Guest]

This is where I post my annual reminder that it's perfectly legal for potential police recruits to be rejected due to high IQs, a legality that is regularly taken advantage of.

 

So, hail to the NOPE on that 'retaining good employees' tip.

[maryanne]

This is where I post my annual reminder that it's perfectly legal for potential police recruits to be rejected due to high IQs, a legality that is regularly taken advantage of.

 

So, hail to the NOPE on that 'retaining good employees' tip.

 

From the linked article:

"But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training."

 

So how is discriminating against people with high IQs because they could get bored on the job any different from discriminating against women because they could get pregnant or choose to leave the work force to raise a family? Do average IQ people never get bored and change jobs?

 

It really blows me away that this sort of discrimination is legal!

[Guest]

 

 

So how is discriminating against people with high IQs because they could get bored on the job any different from discriminating against women because they could get pregnant or choose to leave the work force to raise a family? Do average IQ people never get bored and change jobs?

 

 

 

One ventures a guess that the reason they gave at the advice of a lawyer (and probably a PR consultant), and the reason they actually do it, are not one and the same. It's not just this one place that does this.

 

::shudder::

[Ravin]

The problem with that analysis is that they are comparing stats for the whole population - not for the people who are in confrontations with police.  In confrontations with police, white people are statistically more likely to be killed by police.  Even though police are more likely to be killed by black people.

 

Sure, let's back it up that far. Police are more likely to confront non-white people, and predominantly black communities are often policed differently than white communities. Socioeconomic factors also play a role. Reduce poverty, and you reduce crime, in about the same proportions whether the neighborhood is black or white or hispanic, etc. Guess who is more likely to be living in poverty?

 

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Ravin

[Tanaqui]

Sorry to bump, but I'm the one who brought up stop-and-frisk as one reason that blacks are more likely to have police encounters than whites, and I want to bring up this article I just read that states that stop-and-frisk may actually be counterproductive.
 

But police department data reveal a complicated picture. The records, obtained by WBEZ through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, show negative trends as officers reported more stops: Gun seizures dropped, detectives solved fewer murders, and a decade-long decline in gun violence ended.

 

Those numbers did not improve as the department developed one of the most intense stop-and-frisk programs in the nation.