Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on August 20, 2014, 01:28:22 PM
-
Dr. Ben Carson just pointed out 100 blacks were killed by police officers last year. Horrible, right? The he asked how many blacks were killed by other blacks during the same period? 5,000.
Crickets from Obama, Holder, Sharpton and Jackson.
-
Farrakhan cares, ...and actually does something about it, ...but the powers that be won't let him.
Instead they are so fearful of him and his influence that they seek to silence him at every turn, and twist his words
-
Farrakhan cares, ...and actually does something about it, ...but the powers that be won't let him.
Instead they are so fearful of him and his influence that they seek to silence him at every turn, and twist his words
b/c without the "white racist hate monger" the liberals dont have much to stand on in elections
-
What is staggering is that blacks commit assaults against whites twenty-fives more than whites on blacks. In terms of aggravated assault, the number is two-hundred times more. The National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black-on-white rapes and 39,000 black-on-white robberies – both violent crimes. The statistics show that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was zero. This is the reality we live in and not the fantasy land perpetuate by fools where racist white cops killing blacks is an epidemic.
-
What is staggering is that blacks commit assaults against whites twenty-fives more than whites on blacks. In terms of aggravated assault, the number is two-hundred times more. The National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black-on-white rapes and 39,000 black-on-white robberies – both violent crimes. The statistics show that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was zero. This is the reality we live in and not the fantasy land perpetuate by fools where racist white cops killing blacks is an epidemic.
How many racist cop killings is tolerable in your eyes? I think just one is too many.
Whether its a racist white cop, or a racist Black cop, racist Asian, Latino, etc., racist have no business being cops, but that is the foundational history & legacy of policing in Missouri isn't it?
Missouri Officer Under Review For Not Hiding His Racism-
Embarrassing Department
AUGUST 19, 2014
(http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/26310700_BG1.jpg)
“Remember how white people rioted after OJ’s acquittal? Me neither,” Officer Catron wrote.
Kansas City police officer, Marc Catron, is currently under review for posting a photo of an accused killer from Oregon- claiming it was Mike Brown, followed by racially charged comments.
“I’m sure young Michael Brown is innocent and just misunderstood. I’m sure he is a pillar of the Ferguson community.” Officer Catron wrote.
The photo has been making its rounds on social media by people attempting to character assassinate the 18-year-old who was unarmed when executed by Officer Darren Wilson. However, the photo is actually of Joda Cain, who has been charged with killing his great grandmother with a sledge hammer last year, in Oregon.
Catron didn’t just stop there though, he continued, posting-
“Remember how white people rioted after OJ’s acquittal? Me neither,”
The department’s social media policy states that officers should not post images or make statements that “ridicule, malign, disparage or otherwise express bias against any race, any religion or other protected class of individuals.” according to KCTV5.
Before anyone starts on the “Free speech” rant, here is what the first amendment really means.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That means the government can’t (shouldn’t) come after you for expressing your opinion, it does NOT mean you can say whatever you want and not get fired from your job or be called out for being a jerk. This seems to be a common misconception.
Public statements like this from the boys in blue certainly do not help their case against claims of racism.
If there is one thing that can actually get you in trouble as a cop, its embarrassing your department (killing unarmed people is A-OK). It will be interesting to see if he faces a greater punishment than the killer cops we see back on the streets every day.
-
How many racist cop killings is tolerable in your eyes? I think just one is too many.
Whether its a racist white cop, or a racist Black cop, racist Asian, Latino, etc., racist have no business being cops, but that is the foundational history & legacy of policing in Missouri isn't it?
Missouri Officer Under Review For Not Hiding His Racism-
Embarrassing Department
AUGUST 19, 2014
(http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/26310700_BG1.jpg)
“Remember how white people rioted after OJ’s acquittal? Me neither,” Officer Catron wrote.
Kansas City police officer, Marc Catron, is currently under review for posting a photo of an accused killer from Oregon- claiming it was Mike Brown, followed by racially charged comments.
“I’m sure young Michael Brown is innocent and just misunderstood. I’m sure he is a pillar of the Ferguson community.” Officer Catron wrote.
The photo has been making its rounds on social media by people attempting to character assassinate the 18-year-old who was unarmed when executed by Officer Darren Wilson. However, the photo is actually of Joda Cain, who has been charged with killing his great grandmother with a sledge hammer last year, in Oregon.
Catron didn’t just stop there though, he continued, posting-
“Remember how white people rioted after OJ’s acquittal? Me neither,”
The department’s social media policy states that officers should not post images or make statements that “ridicule, malign, disparage or otherwise express bias against any race, any religion or other protected class of individuals.” according to KCTV5.
Before anyone starts on the “Free speech” rant, here is what the first amendment really means.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That means the government can’t (shouldn’t) come after you for expressing your opinion, it does NOT mean you can say whatever you want and not get fired from your job or be called out for being a jerk. This seems to be a common misconception.
Public statements like this from the boys in blue certainly do not help their case against claims of racism.
If there is one thing that can actually get you in trouble as a cop, its embarrassing your department (killing unarmed people is A-OK). It will be interesting to see if he faces a greater punishment than the killer cops we see back on the streets every day.
You have to first prove the cops are racist and the person was shot because of race. You can't assume because the cop was white hes a racist. That's a form of prejudice. You have no proof. All you have is your paranoia and bias.
And, when are you going to do something about the black crime rate? When are you going to do something about the number of rapes committed by blacks against whites? When are you going to riot over the disproportionate number of whites attacked, murdered and raped by blacks?
-
Which makes you wonder... where is the outcry for 13,000 black on white rape victims?
Not to say that if Wilson wrongfully shot Brown isn't significant or that Brown dying isn't significant.
But to try and use "race" in the media with those black on white numbers makes it look beyond stupid.
-
Which makes you wonder... where is the outcry for 13,000 black on white rape victims?
Not to say that if Wilson wrongfully shot Brown isn't significant or that Brown dying isn't significant.
But to try and use "race" in the media with those black on white numbers makes it look beyond stupid.
Not if you take into account how dubious those numbers are. This study has been discussed in detail for years on the net. The entire thing can be found here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
The table relevant to this discussion is number 46 and the methodology of the study is discussed on the final pages.
Firstly, the "rapes" are not rapes. They are statistics of COMBINED reported and unreported rapes, attempted rapes, threats of rapes and sexual assaults that include anything from verbal assaults to fondling.
Secondly, these statistics are derived from weighted samples. The methodology is discussed at the end of the report, but as you can see just from table 46, several of the statistics Archer sites are based on samples with fewer than 10 case studies. Just looking at the stats for rape and sexual assualt, you see that the sample to get the breakdowns-for all included crimes across race- likely was fewer than 100 people.
-
Not if you take into account how dubious those numbers are. This study has been discussed in detail for years on the net. The entire thing can be found here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
The table relevant to this discussion is number 46 and the methodology of the study is discussed on the final pages.
Firstly, the "rapes" are not rapes. They are statistics of COMBINED reported and unreported rapes, attempted rapes, threats of rapes and sexual assaults that include anything from verbal assaults to fondling.
Secondly, these statistics are derived from weighted samples. The methodology is discussed at the end of the report, but as you can see just from table 46, several of the statistics Archer sites are based on samples with fewer than 10 case studies. Just looking at the stats for rape and sexual assualt, you see that the sample to get the breakdowns-for all included crimes across race- likely was fewer than 100 people.
You've taken this directly from a afro-centric black power website, 24k. You ripped this off and presented it as your own just like you did with your inside source business in the other thread. I've read it before.
111,490 white victims of sexual assault
36,620 black victims of sexual assault
But only 56 people surveyed reported sexaul assault.
So that is 36620/(36620+111490) = 14 black victims and 56-14 = 42 white victims
The table says that 100% of black victims said that black men were the perps so all 14 black women were victimized by black men.
The qualifier “Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases” is confusing to some people.
10 or fewer black women reported white perps and because they all reported black perps we must conclude that the number of white perps is zero.
56 cases is a small figure and we cannot infer the real amount of rapes committed by white men on black women.
But lets say for argument’s sake that one of those 14 black women reported a white perp.
Then (1/14)*36620 = 2615 black victims of white rapists
And 33.6% * 111490 = 37 460 white victims of black rapists
So blacks are (37460/2615) = 14.3 times more likely to rape white women than white men are to rape black women in our hypothetical scenario.
RAINN reports that only 7.5% of sexual assaults are actual rapes but that doesn't affect the ratio that we computed. Only the absolute number of victims.
As my example illustrates the ratio is at the very least maybe 14 to 1 and in all likelihood much higher. I see that blacks are 27.5 times more likely to rob whites than the other way around so this figure might be closest to the truth for rapes.
-
You've taken this directly from a afro-centric black power website, 24k. You ripped this off and presented it as your own just like you did with your inside source business in the other thread. I've read it before.
111,490 white victims of sexual assault
36,620 black victims of sexual assault
But only 56 people surveyed reported sexaul assault.
So that is 36620/(36620+111490) = 14 black victims and 56-14 = 42 white victims
The table says that 100% of black victims said that black men were the perps so all 14 black women were victimized by black men.
The qualifier “Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases” is confusing to some people.
10 or fewer black women reported white perps and because they all reported black perps we must conclude that the number of white perps is zero.
56 cases is a small figure and we cannot infer the real amount of rapes committed by white men on black women.
But lets say for argument’s sake that one of those 14 black women reported a white perp.
Then (1/14)*36620 = 2615 black victims of white rapists
And 33.6% * 111490 = 37 460 white victims of black rapists
So blacks are (37460/2615) = 14.3 times more likely to rape white women than white men are to rape black women in our hypothetical scenario.
RAINN reports that only 7.5% of sexual assaults are actual rapes but that doesn't affect the ratio that we computed. Only the absolute number of victims.
As my example illustrates the ratio is at the very least maybe 14 to 1 and in all likelihood much higher. I see that blacks are 27.5 times more likely to rob whites than the other way around so this figure might be closest to the truth for rapes.
I don't know what "inside source" business you are talking about. I linked DIRECTLY to the study. And you're one to talk about trying to pass shit off as your own... you took your last post almost word for word from this article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/race-riots-in-ferguson/
The stats in your post aren't even accurate. The table doesn't say that 100% of black women said perpetrators were black. The 10 or fewer
qualifier means that there were fewer than 10 cases studies available. There were asterisks in EVERY column for black women. There were not 14 black victims interviewed. There were less than 10. And as I said earlier, the report itself clarifies that these aren't all incidents of rape.
-
I don't know what "inside source" business you are talking about. I linked DIRECTLY to the study. And you're one to talk about trying to pass shit off as your own... you took your last post almost word for word from this article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/race-riots-in-ferguson/
The stats in your post aren't even accurate. The table doesn't say that 100% of black women said perpetrators were black. The 10 or fewer
qualifier means that there were fewer than 10 cases studies available. There were asterisks in EVERY column for black women. There were not 14 black victims interviewed. There were less than 10. And as I said earlier, the report itself clarifies that these aren't all incidents of rape.
Yes you took this from a black power site. They have to round up to 100% because there are no reported cases of white on black rape. That is why in order to calculate the totals they have to round the number of white on black crimes to the nearest number which is zero.
-
Until we have that honest discussion that holder keeps talking about - nothing will ever change.
-
Until we have that honest discussion that holder keeps talking about - nothing will ever change.
We have to remove the feeling of moral superiority that is used to manipulate white guilt and excuse bad behavior.
-
Yes you took this from a black power site. They have to round up to 100% because there are no reported cases of white on black rape. That is why in order to calculate the totals they have to round the number of white on black crimes to the nearest number which is zero.
I linked directly to the study. The study does not round up to 100%, it rounds to 75% black, 25% undetermined, with less than 10 case studies TOTAL available.
-
Until we have that honest discussion that holder keeps talking about - nothing will ever change.
Fools can't even understand statistics. They definitely aren't about to change shit with "honesty".
-
I linked directly to the study. The study does not round up to 100%, it rounds to 75% black, 25% undetermined, with less than 10 case studies TOTAL available.
The point Dr. Carson made is 100% accurate. every single weekend all across this country blacks wage war on each other and kill dozens of themselves, others, etc and no one says a freaking word.
Two druggie oversized thugs, one who just robbed cigars and the other w a history of being a thug, walking around like gangstas get killed and Da Community melts down like no ones business.
FNG pathetic and the reason no one else gives a shit whatsoever
-
Fools can't even understand statistics. They definitely aren't about to change shit with "honesty".
While I will give you the point that sexual assault and rape shouldn't be combined, the overwhelming proportion of black on white crime is staggering.
-
So.then Al, what's the actual statistic? Black on white rape?
-
The point Dr. Carson made is 100% accurate. every single weekend all across this country blacks wage war on each other and kill dozens of themselves, others, etc and no one says a freaking word.
Two druggie oversized thugs, one who just robbed cigars and the other w a history of being a thug, walking around like gangstas get killed and Da Community melts down like no ones business.
FNG pathetic and the reason no one else gives a shit whatsoever
Most blacks who are killed are killed by blacks. Most whites who are killed are killed by whites. Murder, in most instances, is a crime of proximity. These highly publicized police cases don't exist in a vacuum. They occur at the boiling point. 100 police killings isn't the extent of police/community tensions.
-
So.then Al, what's the actual statistic? Black on white rape?
Beats me. The one Archer cited is definitely not accurate.
-
Most blacks who are killed are killed by blacks. Most whites who are killed are killed by whites. Murder, in most instances, is a crime of proximity. s.
This is true, however the rate of interracial crime committed by blacks against whites is disproportionately high. And if they are as you claim, crimes of proximity, this would indicate that black criminals are seeking out white victims.
Beats me. The one Archer cited is definitely not accurate.
If other crime stats are indicative of anything it is still disproportionately high.
-
Most blacks who are killed are killed by blacks. Most whites who are killed are killed by whites. Murder, in most instances, is a crime of proximity. These highly publicized police cases don't exist in a vacuum. They occur at the boiling point. 100 police killings isn't the extent of police/community tensions.
Guess what - the amount of time you come into cops and law enforcement if you go to work every day, go to the gym afterwards, your family and home after that, and if you conduct yourself like a decent human being and not a thug on drugs with your pants around your ass dragging your lazy self across the middle of the street w a ghetto slide is next no nil.
I have less and less sympathy whatsoever for these constant complainers who want it both ways.
-
The FBI obscures the data by first lumping hispanics and whites together and secondly by not providing the race of the offender. In 1988 Dr. William Wilbanks looked through the data and found there were 9406 black on white rapes and fewer than ten cases of white on black. His findings seem to validate the numbers.
-
Guess what - the amount of time you come into cops and law enforcement if you go to work every day, go to the gym afterwards, your family and home after that, and if you conduct yourself like a decent human being and not a thug on drugs with your pants around your ass dragging your lazy self across the middle of the street w a ghetto slide is next no nil.
Not true at all. Black, college educated male in early 30s living in NYC with solidly middle/upper middle class income, absolutely no criminal record. Have been stopped and frisked 11 times since 2009. All in different parts of the city- midtown, Harlem , UES, Billyburg . Yes, if you are white, it is easy to have next to nil contact with cops.
-
The FBI obscures the data by first lumping hispanics and whites together and secondly by not providing the race of the offender. In 1988 Dr. William Wilbanks looked through the data and found there were 9406 black on white rapes and fewer than ten cases of white on black. His findings seem to validate the numbers.
Please post link to study.
-
Not true at all. Black, college educated male in early 30s living in NYC with solidly middle/upper middle class income, absolutely no criminal record. Have been stopped and frisked 11 times since 2009. All in different parts of the city- midtown, Harlem , UES, Billyburg . Yes, if you are white, it is easy to have next to nil contact with cops.
And do you know why? They are stopped more frequently because blacks and Hispanics commit the overwhelming number of gun crimes in New York city and are more likely to be in high risk areas where gun crimes have occurred.
The Crime Enforcement Activity in New York City,” shows that minority-group members also represent 89% of murder victims — and 86% of murder suspects. There are similar numbers for felony assaults — 81% of victims are minorities, as are 88% of the suspects.
But there is a sharp disparity for robberies, with blacks described as suspects in 70% of the cases, while they are victims in 33% of the crimes.
You want to find a rich guy who is engaging in insider trading you don't go to Harlem.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/2012_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf
-
Please post link to study.
It's a book
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=135589
-
Not true at all. Black, college educated male in early 30s living in NYC with solidly middle/upper middle class income, absolutely no criminal record. Have been stopped and frisked 11 times since 2009. All in different parts of the city- midtown, Harlem , UES, Billyburg . Yes, if you are white, it is easy to have next to nil contact with cops.
Who you? 11 times? Come on now.
-
And do you know why? They are stopped more frequently because blacks and Hispanics commit the overwhelming number of gun crimes in New York city and are more likely to be in high risk areas where gun crimes have occurred.
The Crime Enforcement Activity in New York City,” shows that minority-group members also represent 89% of murder victims — and 86% of murder suspects. There are similar numbers for felony assaults — 81% of victims are minorities, as are 88% of the suspects.
But there is a sharp disparity for robberies, with blacks described as suspects in 70% of the cases, while they are victims in 33% of the crimes.
You want to find a rich guy who is engaging in insider trading you don't go to Harlem.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/2012_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf
AG released a report not too long ago that less than 5% of s&Fs result in arrest and conviction. Statistically, your post isn't a justifiable explanation. It's as bad as saying cops should be allowed to go into homes on fishing expeditions in certain neighborhoods. They'd probably have a higher arrest and conviction rate.
-
AG released a report not too long ago that less than 5% of s&Fs result in arrest and conviction. Statistically, your post isn't a justifiable explanation. It's as bad as saying cops should be allowed to go into homes on fishing expeditions in certain neighborhoods. They'd probably have a higher arrest and conviction rate.
On the flip side - not saying one way or the other - the fear of being tossed led a lot of the dealers and thugs to no longer carry.
-
It's a book
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=135589
So, no context, no explanation of methodology, no explanation of the study's conclusions, not even an excerpt of the study's finding verbatim. Worthless reference. Every mention of the study that I found that popped up on google basically parroted the same few sentences with the same agenda. And you've shown that you are willing to buy into any interpretation of a dataset as long as it fits what you already believe.
-
AG released a report not too long ago that less than 5% of s&Fs result in arrest and conviction. Statistically, your post isn't a justifiable explanation. It's as bad as saying cops should be allowed to go into homes on fishing expeditions in certain neighborhoods. They'd probably have a higher arrest and conviction rate.
It's a wide net for sure but it explains why your being stopped. The intent of stop and frisk isn't just to arrest but to deter. Do I believe stop and frisk is constitutional, I do not. Do I think your being stopped because of racist cops, nope. It's a numbers game and your demographic just so happens to be the ones most likely to commit a gun crime.
-
On the flip side - not saying one way or the other - the fear of being tossed led a lot of the dealers and thugs to no longer carry.
By that logic, you can make sure no one commits a crime if police can just do mass housesweeps at their discretion. Legally, what is the difference?
-
So, no context, no explanation of methodology, no explanation of the study's conclusions, not even an excerpt of the study's finding verbatim. Worthless reference. Every mention of the study that I found that popped up on google basically parroted the same few sentences with the same agenda. And you've shown that you are willing to buy into any interpretation of a dataset as long as it fits what you already believe.
"AG released a report not too long ago that less than 5% of s&Fs result in arrest and conviction"
And you provided a very concise breakdown of this particular report?
-
It's a wide net for sure but it explains why your being stopped. The intent of stop and frisk isn't just to arrest but to deter. Do I believe stop and frisk is constitutional, I do not. Do I think your being stopped because of racist cops, nope. It's a numbers game and your demographic just so happens to be the ones most likely to commit a gun crime.
Whether or not the cop is racist, the policy is racist, so it makes no substantive difference.
-
Whether or not the cop is racist, the policy is racist, so it makes no substantive difference.
It would be racist to unnecessarily stop and frisk whites when blacks and Hispanics disproportionately commit crimes in the city of New York by a wide margin. You go where the crime and perpetrators are.
-
"AG released a report not too long ago that less than 5% of s&Fs result in arrest and conviction"
And you provided a very concise breakdown of this particular report?
If you want to find those statistics or statistics or if you have info that those stats are wrong, you can easily find it with google. You are referencing a decades old study that is not available in even excerpted form online to try to grasp at some straws from an earlier post.
-
If you want to find those statistics or statistics or if you have info that those stats are wrong, you can easily find it with google. You are referencing a decades old study that is not available in even excerpted form online to try to grasp at some straws from an earlier post.
Show a little initiative. I don't know why its so hard for you to acknowledge that blacks commit crimes against whites at a much higher rate than whites against blacks, in all categories.
-
See this gets me, We "say" were Americans and want to protect the constitution but then we praise the total violation of the 4th Ammendment. And think the ends justify the means. Thats the exact shit that made our forfathers create this nation. Ends Dont Justify the Means. We have a set of laws and rights that cant be violated.
Amazing
-
It would be racist to unnecessarily stop and frisk whites when blacks and Hispanics disproportionately commit crimes in the city of New York by a wide margin. You go where the crime and perpetrators are.
No, that would not be racist. Not by any definition.
-
By that logic, you can make sure no one commits a crime if police can just do mass housesweeps at their discretion. Legally, what is the difference?
I get what you are saying and agree - but the sad truth is that left to their own devices - most people can live and function and not need fear of being arrested or tossed to live like a normal person.
Not true for certain populations in NYC.
Again - I live here too remember?
If the animals and barbarians would behave themselves - no need for any of this shit
-
Show a little initiative. I don't know why its so hard for you to acknowledge that blacks commit crimes against whites at a much higher rate than whites against blacks, in all categories.
Initiative? You mean like you? Just making things up? Pulling numbers out of my ass. You posted exact statistics which were a lie. If you want to make the argument that black on white crime rates are higher than white on black, then you might have a case. When you say that black crime rates are greater by exponentials of 10 and whites are so miniscule that they have to be rounded down to zero, that's obvious bullshit.
-
No, that would not be racist. Not by any definition.
Yes it would be. By stopping more whites, you are singling out a particular demographic not because they commit the crimes in high numbers but exclusively because of their race.
-
Initiative? You mean like you? Just making things up? Pulling numbers out of my ass. You posted exact statistics which were a lie. If you want to make the argument that black on white crime rates are higher than white on black, then you might have a case. When you say that black crime rates are greater by exponentials of 10 and whites are so miniscule that they have to be rounded down to zero, that's obvious bullshit.
Absolutely not. Relative to their population size, crimes against whites by blacks is exponentially higher. There is no way around it.
-
I get what you are saying and agree - but the sad truth is that left to their own devices - most people can live and function and not need fear of being arrested or tossed to live like a normal person.
Not true for certain populations in NYC.
Again - I live here too remember?
If the animals and barbarians would behave themselves - no need for any of this shit
Yes, I do remember that you live here. I also remember that you belong to one of the populations that this type of stuff has often been said about.
-
Yes it would be. By stopping more whites, you are singling out a particular demographic not because they commit the crimes in high numbers but exclusively because of their race.
NIce try ::)
-
Absolutely not. Relative to their population size, crimes against whites by blacks is exponentially higher. There is no way around it.
Arguable and definitely not anywhere near the epidemic levels claimed in your first post in this thread.
-
NIce try ::)
What other reason would there be to stop more white people when they aren't the demographic committing the crimes other than their race?
-
Arguable and definitely not anywhere near the epidemic levels claimed in your first post in this thread.
Its not arguable at all. The total numbers matter very little, its the percentage relative to the population size.
-
Let me start by saying that I believe stop and frisk is unconstitutional and abuse of authority, and is completely unacceptable....
BUT
no way in hell is the law racist. Its a law. If the majority of people being shot were being shot by white guys in blue collar suits, searching them using stop and frisk wouldnt be racist.
Similarly, if the majority of violent rapes and murders are committed by inner city thugs (whatever race they may be, latino, black, asian, etc), its certainly not racist to focus your attention there.
Thats why these metrics exist... to quantify and help narrow down who is causing what serious crimes. Why waste your time searching people who have an extremely low chance of being a perp when you can be focusing on the group that actually tends to commit the crimes? Itd be asinine to try and claim that its racist unless you search everyone equally, because everyone doesnt commit crimes equally.
Its simple facts and numbers. Facts cant be racist, numbers and stats cant be racist.
The fckn race card is so goddamn annoying.
-
What other reason would there be to stop more white people when they aren't the demographic committing the crimes other than their race?
The phrasing itself is specious! The "stopping more white people" would only come about as a result of IGNORING race, not by singling out whites, as well as blacks and asians. Because you can't single out everybody. Already, as it stands, these stop and frisks aren't incredibly effective at catching criminals. If their purpose is largely, then broadening the scope would not change that.
-
Its not arguable at all. The total numbers matter very little, its the percentage relative to the population size.
Bingo. Absolute numbers are useless, you have to use percentages to compare relative statistics in these type of cases.
-
The phrasing itself is specious! The "stopping more white people" would only come about as a result of IGNORING race, not by singling out whites, as well as blacks and asians. Because you can't single out everybody. Already, as it stands, these stop and frisks aren't incredibly effective at catching criminals. If their purpose is largely, then broadening the scope would not change that.
By ignoring race and targeting everyone equally you would no longer be targeting the demographic who commits the crime. The program would become even less effective. The program isn't intended primarily for arrests but as a deterrent. Whether the program works that way is anyone's guess but if it does, not targeting the demographic that commits the crime will decrease determent.
-
By ignoring race and targeting everyone equally you would no longer be targeting the demographic who commits the crime. The program would become even less effective. The program isn't intended primarily for arrests but as a deterrent. Whether the program works that way is anyone's guess but if it does, not targeting the demographic that commits the crime will decrease determent.
Well, obviously, I don't agree with what you consider logic, but regardless, it's =/= "racist against white people".
-
Bingo. Absolute numbers are useless, you have to use percentages to compare relative statistics in these type of cases.
It's simple, you have 100 people, 70 of which are purple, 13 orange and 12 blue and the remainder 5 yellow. If the orange group attacks the purple group 10 times while the purple group attacks the orange group nine times, the initial reaction from most people is to say, look there isn't much of a different in the numbers of attacks but in reality the number of attacks is multiple times higher for the orange group.
-
Yes, I do remember that you live here. I also remember that you belong to one of the populations that this type of stuff has often been said about.
And if guidos are dealing in the middle of the day - toss em! If there is a mafia hangout and the dealers and pimps are there to make payment - toss em.
-
Well, obviously, I don't agree with what you consider logic, but regardless, it's =/= "racist against white people".
You would be targeting Caucasians and Asians simply because of their race. There would be no other reason to stop and frisk more whites other than their race.
-
You would be targeting Caucasians and Asians simply because of their race. There would be no other reason to stop and frisk more whites other than their race.
Yeah, there are no white or asian criminals in NYC ::)
-
And if guidos are dealing in the middle of the day - toss em! If there is a mafia hangout and the dealers and pimps are there to make payment - toss em.
Yes! Fine! But please don't pretend these problems are concentrated to one group of people and that without that one group, NYC is a self-governing utopia.
-
It's simple, you have 100 people, 70 of which are purple, 13 orange and 12 blue and the remainder 5 yellow. If the orange group attacks the purple group 10 times while the purple group attacks the orange group nine times, the initial reaction from most people is to say, look there isn't much of a different in the numbers of attacks but in reality the number of attacks is multiple times higher for the orange group.
Except you literally just reposted some made up, random numbers and tried to pass it off as a shocking epidemic that the media underreports.
-
Yeah, there are no white or asian criminals in NYC ::)
Of course there are White and Asian criminals but they aren't the ones disproportionately committing gun crimes and live in high crime areas where gun crimes most often occur.
-
Hebrews trying to get coverage risking their lives and others.
-
Except you literally just reposted some made up, random numbers and tried to pass it off as a shocking epidemic that the media underreports.
I didn't make any numbers up. I'm sorry you won't acknowledge the facts that blacks commit crimes against whites considerably more. More blacks commit a variety of crimes against whites than white cops shoot blacks and I guarantee you think cop killings of young black men is an epidemic
-
Of course there are White and Asian criminals but they aren't the ones disproportionately committing gun crimes and live in high crime areas where gun crimes most often occur.
You would be targeting Caucasians and Asians simply because of their race. There would be no other reason to stop and frisk more whites other than their race.
::) ::) ::)
-
I didn't make any numbers up. I'm sorry you won't acknowledge the facts that blacks commit crimes against whites considerably more. More blacks commit a variety of crimes against whites than white cops shoot blacks and I guarantee you think cop killings of young black men is an epidemic
I know you didn't make them up yourself. You took them from another site and that WILDLY misinterpreted them.
You can guarantee what I'm thinking? You're a mindreader now? You can barely read a study. Master the basics first ;)
-
You would be targeting Caucasians and Asians simply because of their race. There would be no other reason to stop and frisk more whites other than their race.
::) ::) ::)
And? Why target demographic groups who don't commit the vast majority of gun crimes?
-
You would be targeting Caucasians and Asians simply because of their race. There would be no other reason to stop and frisk more whites other than their race.
::) ::) ::)
His point stands though... if 1 in 10 white guys are committing murder and 5 in 10 blacks are, they should be stopping 5 black guys for every 1 white guy.
Im sure if the situation was reversed and 5 white guys were being stopped for every 1 black due to whites committing murder on a 5:1 basis, youd think it was perfectly fine, and no one would complain. (As it should be)
-
I know you didn't make them up yourself. You took them from another site and that WILDLY misinterpreted them.
You can guarantee what I'm thinking? You're a mindreader now? You can barely read a study. Master the basics first ;)
Even if the study only included ten random people it still demonstrates disproportionate number of black on white sexual assaults/rapes. Thats how statistics are done. You take a sample size and interpret the data. You would think they would find at least one example of white on black sexual assault/rape but they didn't, not a single instance.
-
Even if the study only included ten random people it still demonstrates disproportionate number of black on white sexual assaults/rapes. Thats how statistics are done. You take a sample size and interpret the data. You would think they would find at least one example of white on black sexual assault/rape but they didn't, not a single instance.
No, this isn't accurate, but you didn't even get this far. The source you cited was wrong on what the parameters of the data were and even what the actual data was.
-
No, this isn't accurate, but you didn't even get this far. The source you cited was wrong on what the parameters of the data were and even what the actual data was.
Nope, try again. Why cant you admit blacks commit crimes against whites at a disproportionate rate? What are you going to do about it? If crimes are related to proximity doesnt that mean blacks are seeking out white victims
-
Nope, try again. Why cant you admit blacks commit crimes against whites at a disproportionate rate? What are you going to do about it? If crimes are related to proximity doesnt that mean blacks are seeking out white victims
That's exactly what happened. ::)
And I said MURDER is predominately a crime of proximity.
-
And I said MURDER is predominately a crime of proximity.
Does that mean your people are actually going out of their way to disproportionately seek out white victims? ???
-
Does that mean your people are actually going out of their way to seek out white victims? ???
Most blacks who are killed are killed by blacks.
Most whites who are killed are killed by whites.
-
Does that mean your people are actually going out of their way to disproportionately seek out white victims? ???
Thats what I want to know. Blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks. Doesnt this mean blacks are seeking out whites to get within "proximity" of?
-
Thats what I want to know. Blacks murder more whites than whites murder blacks. Doesnt this mean blacks are seeking out whites to get within "proximity" of?
It's even worse than we thought. According to Al they're actually going out of their way to disproportionately kill white people. ;D
-
Most blacks who are killed are killed by blacks.
Most whites who are killed are killed by whites.
cute
-
It's even worse than we thought. According to Al they're actually going out of their way to disproportionately kill white people. ;D
Seems like it.
-
cute
... and accurate.
-
... and accurate.
But more blacks kill whites and if proximity is the reason they must be seeking out whites.
-
But more blacks kill whites and if proximity is the reason they must be seeking out whites.
"...murder is predominately a crime of proximity"
Meaning most of the time, meaning in most cases, meaning a majority of the time.
-
"...murder is predominately a crime of proximity"
Meaning most of the time, meaning in most cases, meaning a majority of the time.
So your admitting that blacks are seeking out whites to murder or if whites happen to be in their proximity they choose whites far more often than whites choose blacks within the same proximity
-
So your admitting that blacks are seeking out whites to murder or if whites happen to be in their proximity they choose whites far more often than whites choose blacks within the same proximity
Or maybe I'm saying that murder is a crime of proximity in the majority of cases and in other cases it is not. ;)
-
So.... al logic....
Blacks kill blacks
Whites kill whites
EXCEPT when living near each other, then blacks kill blacks AND whites, while whites tend to only kill whites.
Reasonable conclusion = blacks are far more prone to kill anyone around them, byt ESPECIALLY whites given the opportunity.
Just going by Als logic.
Also, als logic of proximity seems to suggest thay seegregation is in order to prevent blacks from killing whites disproportionately.
Just going by his logic.
-
Or maybe I'm saying that murder is a crime of proximity in the majority of cases and in other cases it is not. ;)
So in those other cases blacks are targeting whites? Going out of their "proximity" to find them?
-
What is staggering is that blacks commit assaults against whites twenty-fives more than whites on blacks. In terms of aggravated assault, the number is two-hundred times more. The National Crime Victimization Survey reported approximately 13,000 black-on-white rapes and 39,000 black-on-white robberies – both violent crimes. The statistics show that the number of white on black rapes and violent robberies were so small that they had to be rounded to the nearest whole number, and that whole number was zero. This is the reality we live in and not the fantasy land perpetuate by fools where racist white cops killing blacks is an epidemic.
End thread.
Anything else is just emotional- based pushing of agendas and false narratives.
Also id bet the vast majority of those 100 blacks shot by cops were directly involved in criminal actions by the black including attacking the cop in the first place...not the 'racist executions' they want to make u think ::)
-
End thread.
Anything else is just emotional- based pushing of agendas and false narratives.
Also id bet the vast majority of those 100 blacks shot by cops were directly involved in criminal actions by the black including attacking the cop in the first place...not the 'racist executions' they want to make u think ::)
Those statistics are not accurate.
-
So in those other cases blacks are targeting whites? Going out of their "proximity" to find them?
People commit murders for a variety of reasons.
-
Those statistics are not accurate.
How about these stats. 49.4% for murder and nonnegligent homicide and 32.5% forcible rapes for blacks. Whites are at 48% and 65%. However, hispanics and middle easterners are included in the total for whites skewing the numbers upwards. So, a population of black males which is less than half of the total number of blacks in the unit3d statesis committing a disproportionate number of rapes and murders. Who are they murdering and raping? Cant all be black.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf
-
People commit murders for a variety of reasons.
But they disproportionately kill whites
-
No, that would not be racist. Not by any definition.
Hahah and thus gentlemen you see the stupidity of the libtard in full effect
-
Hahah and thus gentlemen you see the stupidity of the libtard in full effect
Great, Retardo is here! I was about to tune out hahaha! Posting stats that are wrong or make no sense is usually your steez, so I'm glad you're not feeling left out.
-
http://threepercenternation.com/2014/08/video-what-this-young-black-man-did-while-the-looting-in-ferguson-is-unbelievable/
-
Great, Retardo is here! I was about to tune out hahaha! Posting stats that are wrong or make no sense is usually your steez, so I'm glad you're not feeling left out.
Lol so let's get it straight fat Albert.
Stopping a person bc they are a part of a demographic that commits a disproportionately higher amount of crime is racist.
But stopping a person for no other reason other than their skin color is not racist.
Got it!!!
Liberalism must be bliss
-
Lol so let's get it straight fat Albert.
Stopping a person bc they are a part of a demographic that commits a disproportionately higher amount of crime is racist.
But stopping a person for no other reason other than their skin color is not racist.
Got it!!!
Liberalism must be bliss
:D
-
Lol so let's get it straight fat Albert.
Stopping a person bc they are a part of a demographic that commits a disproportionately higher amount of crime is racist.
But stopping a person for no other reason other than their skin color is not racist.
Got it!!!
Liberalism must be bliss
You're stupid as ever.
Where did I say that people should be stopped for no other reason than their skin color?
-
:D
Cram it. You know this guy's an idiot.
-
You're stupid as ever.
Where did I say that people should be stopped for no other reason than their skin color?
You want more whites to be stopped when all the facts indicate they arent the demographic overwhelmingly committing gun crimes.
-
You want more whites to be stopped when all the facts indicate they arent the demographic overwhelmingly committing gun crimes.
Please quote the post where I said I wanted more whites to be stopped.
-
You're stupid as ever.
Where did I say that people should be stopped for no other reason than their skin color?
I never said you thought ppl should be, what you did at though is that if it happend to white people it wouldn't be racist
-
The phrasing itself is specious! The "stopping more white people" would only come about as a result of IGNORING race, not by singling out whites, as well as blacks and asians. Because you can't single out everybody. Already, as it stands, these stop and frisks aren't incredibly effective at catching criminals. If their purpose is largely, then broadening the scope would not change that.
Ignoring race automatically leads to the unnecessary stopping of law abiding whites and asians. Your suggestion defacto calls for the stopping more whites and asians.
-
Archer I like the way you post and reason through issues. But on this race issue, I don't agree with you at all. You really want there to be some racially genetic component to intelligence and violence. It simply doesn't exist. Crime in particular is related to income, wealth, and education more than anything else. For example, if you were to look at all violent crime, the overwhelming majority of those criminals are not college educated people making decent income. This is a socioeconomic problem, that includes a failure of parents to properly raise their kids.
And at the end if the day, what do you expect to accomplish with your viewpoint? You want round up all people of a certain race (to include mixed race people) and treat them differently?
-
Archer I like the way you post and reason through issues. But on this race issue, I don't agree with you at all. You really want there to be some racially genetic component to intelligence and violence. It simply doesn't exist. Crime in particular is related to income, wealth, and education more than anything else. For example, if you were to look at all violent crime, the overwhelming majority of those criminals are not college educated people making decent income. This is a socioeconomic problem, that includes a failure of parents to properly raise their kids.
And at the end if the day, what do you expect to accomplish with your viewpoint? You want round up all people of a certain race (to include mixed race people) and treat them differently?
WTF? Who are you and what have you done with BB?
(Totally kidding, btw -- I can't recall ever reading knee-jerk racial stuff from ya, BB.)
-
WTF? Who are you and what have you done with BB?
(Totally kidding, btw -- I can't recall ever reading knee-jerk racial stuff from ya, BB.)
I don't talk about race issues all that much. Often a pointless discussion. But I usually say enough to offend everyone. :)
-
I don't talk about race issues all that much. Often a pointless discussion. But I usually say enough to offend everyone. :)
I agree.
If there's one subject about which no one's opinion is likely to be changed by rational discussion, it's race.
-
Archer I like the way you post and reason through issues. But on this race issue, I don't agree with you at all. You really want there to be some racially genetic component to intelligence and violence. It simply doesn't exist. Crime in particular is related to income, wealth, and education more than anything else. For example, if you were to look at all violent crime, the overwhelming majority of those criminals are not college educated people making decent income. This is a socioeconomic problem, that includes a failure of parents to properly raise their kids.
And at the end if the day, what do you expect to accomplish with your viewpoint? You want round up all people of a certain race (to include mixed race people) and treat them differently?
Disagree - there are extreme poor areas in many white areas w not even a fraction of the crime as in same type black areas
-
Archer I like the way you post and reason through issues. But on this race issue, I don't agree with you at all. You really want there to be some racially genetic component to intelligence and violence. It simply doesn't exist. Crime in particular is related to income, wealth, and education more than anything else. For example, if you were to look at all violent crime, the overwhelming majority of those criminals are not college educated people making decent income. This is a socioeconomic problem, that includes a failure of parents to properly raise their kids.
And at the end if the day, what do you expect to accomplish with your viewpoint? You want round up all people of a certain race (to include mixed race people) and treat them differently?
I believe the poverty answer is to simplistic. If poverty where the reason you would see the same level or close to it of violence across all economically challenged communities but thats not the case. Education is irrelevent when it comes to basic morality. Morality is the simpilist and earliest lesson any of us learns and society affirms those values throughout our lives. There is not one reason that justifies someone not understanding these basic values that keep society together.
I dont believe its genetic but I do believe its cultural. My aim is to take the weapons used to deflect attention away from taking responsibility for ones choices. The black community has made a religion out of finger pointing and its time they do a little self evaluation. They have constructed a false reality around themselves and thats whats keeping them down. As they say, clean up your own yard before you go knocking on your neighbors door.
-
I agree.
If there's one subject about which no one's opinion is likely to be changed by rational discussion, it's race.
And abortion.
-
Archer I like the way you post and reason through issues. But on this race issue, I don't agree with you at all. You really want there to be some racially genetic component to intelligence and violence. It simply doesn't exist. Crime in particular is related to income, wealth, and education more than anything else. For example, if you were to look at all violent crime, the overwhelming majority of those criminals are not college educated people making decent income. This is a socioeconomic problem, that includes a failure of parents to properly raise their kids.
And at the end if the day, what do you expect to accomplish with your viewpoint? You want round up all people of a certain race (to include mixed race people) and treat them differently?
When bad behavior is dismissed and excused as a product of poverty or a lack of education the person is saying blacks dont have the tools to make the right decisions. They make children out of them. If the way they behave is not their fault and the results of poverty and education, why punish them at all. What I'm saying is, I'm going to hold you to the same standard of behavior as I would anyone else. I dont think youre a child.
-
Disagree - there are extreme poor areas in many white areas w not even a fraction of the crime as in same type black areas
This would be relevant if I was making the point that all poor and uneducated people commit violent crime. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that when violent crimes does occur, it is related to income and education, not race. Sort of circular reasoning on my part, but I don't think there is some race-based component to violence or intelligence.
-
This would be relevant if I was making the point that all poor and uneducated people commit violent crime. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that when violent crimes does occur, it is related to income and education, not race. Sort of circular reasoning on my part, but I don't think there is some race-based component to violence or intelligence.
There is when using statistics to determine which group is more likely to commit violent crimes.
If you find that one race is 5x more likely to murder than another race, logically you should pay more attention to the group committing a the crimes.
Whethef its inherent in their race IMO is irrelevant. .. the facts say that 'x' grouo commits the murders, you focus on 'x'.
-
I believe the poverty answer is to simplistic. If poverty where the reason you would see the same level or close to it of violence across all economically challenged communities but thats not the case. Education is irrelevent when it comes to basic morality. Morality is the simpilist and earliest lesson any of us learns and society affirms those values throughout our lives. There is not one reason that justifies someone not understanding these basic values that keep society together.
I dont believe its genetic but I do believe its cultural. My aim is to take the weapons used to deflect attention away from taking responsibility for ones choices. The black community has made a religion out of finger pointing and its time they do a little self evaluation. They have constructed a false reality around themselves and thats whats keeping them down. As they say, clean up your own yard before you go knocking on your neighbors door.
Have you ever spent time in poor communities? I'm talking extensive amounts of time in homes and interacting with families? I've been doing that for decades doing volunteer work. I've also spent a lot of time in middle class and up neighborhoods and with people/parents in those groups. I agree that morality isn't income and education based. There are lots of decent people in poor communities. I think most of the them are good people, regardless of race.
But to deny that there are not a unique set of problems in poor communities is simply to deny reality. People from poor communities face enormous challenges that others do not. And poverty is cyclical. Very hard to break free, and the playing field is not level. Take the president for example. He went to the most expensive, exclusive private school in Hawaii; a school that is a feeder to Ivy League schools. Those kids have a tremendous advantage over kids who grow up on "the west side." If Obama went to Waianae High School on the west side, there is no way he would be president today.
Even the drug use is treated differently. A kid who smokes pot at Punahou (like Obama) will still graduate and go on to do great things. A kid smoking pot at a public school in the hood is destined to be a statistic.
I've been working with literacy programs for many years and you cannot tell me that education is not a predictor of success and failure (to include crime). It absolutely is. I see it all the time. And I don't have to twist and manipulate statistics to reach my conclusion.
So, to come back to my question, I'm not clear on exactly what you want to the government to do? Concentration camps? Special schools? Branding? What?
-
There is when using statistics to determine which group is more likely to commit violent crimes.
If you find that one race is 5x more likely to murder than another race, logically you should pay more attention to the group committing a the crimes.
Whethef its inherent in their race IMO is irrelevant. .. the facts say that 'x' grouo commits the murders, you focus on 'x'.
The numbers are meaningless if they don't account for socioeconomic status IMO.
And I'll ask you the same question I asked Archer: so then what? What do you think the government should do about it?
-
The numbers are meaningless if they don't account for socioeconomic status IMO.
And I'll ask you the same question I asked Archer: so then what? What do you think the government should do about it?
The context of the discussion was stop and frisk up until this point. (Which I think is illegal and unconstitutional)
So in tbat context, cops would be looking at the group with the highest chance of handgun violence.... which would be poor black youths. By its very nature their economic status will be taken into account, cops arent going to stop an executive looking black guy in a $ 500 suit.
When poor blacks are overwhelmingly commit the crimes, theyre going to get the attention. The socioeconomic point is a given. It gets rolled into 'who is committing the crimes'.
-
This would be relevant if I was making the point that all poor and uneducated people commit violent crime. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that when violent crimes does occur, it is related to income and education, not race. Sort of circular reasoning on my part, but I don't think there is some race-based component to violence or intelligence.
This reasoning is the safe, pc path...
How does it explain the continent of africa? It is the second largest continent on earth, vastly rich in resources, and mankind supposedly started there earlier that anywhere else. Yet despite this, aside from non-black egypt, there has never been any advanced civilizations anywhere, at any point in history, over millenia. Every other major racial group has at some point achieved a 'higher' culture...blacks are the lone exception.
There is no adequate explanation for this. This is not to say ALL of them are primitive, there are of course plenty of exceptional idividuals, and many of them are as smart and capable as anyone else. The problem is is that these individuals seem to represent a smaller proportion of their race than pretty much any other racial group; in other words the ratio of competent individuals to primitive ones has never been high enough to produce and maintain a higher civilization, anywhere. This is why although lots of black succeed and are quality, capable individuals, as a group they always get massively outnumbered by the incompetents; which is why virtually every black-majority community in america is a ghetto, why every city/state/country with all black or mostly black leadership always falls to corruption and poverty, why black africa has never had a higher civilization, why their crime rates for things like rape and theft are always way higher than other races...i mean all these things cant be ignored
-
This reasoning is the safe, pc path...
How does it explain the continent of africa? It is the second largest continent on earth, vastly rich in resources, and mankind supposedly started there earlier that anywhere else. Yet despite this, aside from non-black egypt, there has never been any advanced civilizations anywhere, at any point in history, over millenia. Every other major racial group has at some point achieved a 'higher' culture...blacks are the lone exception.
There is no adequate explanation for this. This is not to say ALL of them are primitive, there are of course plenty of exceptional idividuals, and many of them are as smart and capable as anyone else. The problem is is that these individuals seem to represent a smaller proportion of their race than pretty much any other racial group; in other words the ratio of competent individuals to primitive ones has never been high enough to produce a higher civilization, anywhere. This is why although lots of black succeed and are quality, capable individuals, as a group they always get massively outnumbered by the incompetents; which is why virtually every black-majority community in america is a ghetto, why every city/state/country with all black or mostly black leadership always falls to corruption and poverty, why black africa has never had a higher civilization, why their crime rates for things like rape and theft are always way higher than other races...i mean all these things cant be ignored
I don't know and don't care. I don't live in Africa and neither do any of the people we're talking about. It's no more relevant than looking at the carnage that the Japanese inflicted on much of Asia during the early 1900s. Completely irrelevant to what people of Japanese descent who were born and raised in America do or don't do.
But what do you mean by "all these things can't be ignored"? What exactly are we supposed to do in this country?
-
This reasoning is the safe, pc path...
How does it explain the continent of africa? It is the second largest continent on earth, vastly rich in resources, and mankind supposedly started there earlier that anywhere else. Yet despite this, aside from non-black egypt, there has never been any advanced civilizations anywhere, at any point in history, over millenia. Every other major racial group has at some point achieved a 'higher' culture...blacks are the lone exception.
There is no adequate explanation for this. This is not to say ALL of them are primitive, there are of course plenty of exceptional idividuals, and many of them are as smart and capable as anyone else. The problem is is that these individuals seem to represent a smaller proportion of their race than pretty much any other racial group; in other words the ratio of competent individuals to primitive ones has never been high enough to produce a higher civilization, anywhere. This is why although lots of black succeed and are quality, capable individuals, as a group they always get massively outnumbered by the incompetents; which is why virtually every black-majority community in america is a ghetto, why every city/state/country with all black or mostly black leadership always falls to corruption and poverty, why black africa has never had a higher civilization, why their crime rates for things like rape and theft are always way higher than other races...i mean all these things cant be ignored
Racist post reported.
-
Have you ever spent time in poor communities? I'm talking extensive amounts of time in homes and interacting with families? I've been doing that for decades doing volunteer work. I've also spent a lot of time in middle class and up neighborhoods and with people/parents in those groups. I agree that morality isn't income and education based. There are lots of decent people in poor communities. I think most of the them are good people, regardless of race.
But to deny that there are not a unique set of problems in poor communities is simply to deny reality. People from poor communities face enormous challenges that others do not. And poverty is cyclical. Very hard to break free, and the playing field is not level. Take the president for example. He went to the most expensive, exclusive private school in Hawaii; a school that is a feeder to Ivy League schools. Those kids have a tremendous advantage over kids who grow up on "the west side." If Obama went to Waianae High School on the west side, there is no way he would be president today.
Even the drug use is treated differently. A kid who smokes pot at Punahou (like Obama) will still graduate and go on to do great things. A kid smoking pot at a public school in the hood is destined to be a statistic.
I've been working with literacy programs for many years and you cannot tell me that education is not a predictor of success and failure (to include crime). It absolutely is. I see it all the time. And I don't have to twist and manipulate statistics to reach my conclusion.
So, to come back to my question, I'm not clear on exactly what you want to the government to do? Concentration camps? Special schools? Branding? What?
I grew up in a poor area in a poor family and the greatest lesson I gained from my experience was that these people are making their own lives harder. There is no external force keeping them down, its them. They are stuck in a mentality of failure and the things they are taught are keeping them bound to a life of nothingness. Trust me, they arent miserable. They love this life.
Concentration camps? Come on, thats hyperbole. What I want is for people to be responsible for their actions and contribute to society. I want these communities who so readily point fingers at others and moralize to be honest with themselves and be accountable. And thats my point, the government can't do anything. Its tried for decades making laws and pumping money with little results. Change can only come from within.
Personally I dont care how destructive someone if it doesnt involve me. The problem arises whrn these fools feel entitle to assistance while blaming everyone for their problems.
-
I don't know and don't care. I don't live in Africa and neither do any of the people we're talking about. It's no more relevant than looking at the carnage that the Japanese inflicted on much of Asia during the early 1900s. Completely irrelevant to what people of Japanese descent who were born and raised in America do or don't do.
But what do you mean by "all these things can't be ignored"? What exactly are we supposed to do in this country?
Im simply pointing out that while povery and 'socio-economic status' play an obvious role in crime-across the board for all races- that when it comes to blacks, there is simply more to it than that.
What can be done about it? Nothing really...other than openly recognising and discussing an issue that is an elephant in the room instead of burying it in political correctness and throwing endless billions of dollars at it and hoping it 'changes', which in this case it wont.
-
Im simply pointing out that while povery and 'socio-economic status' play an obvious role in crime-across the board for all races- that when it comes to blacks, there is simply more to it than that.
What can be done about it? Nothing really...other than openly recognising and discussing an issue that is an elephant in the room instead of burying it in political correctness and throwing endless billions of dollars at it and hoping it 'changes', which in this case it wont.
This is the problem. They dont want to talk about it. There is zero reflection and self evaluation. Its alway external forces, poverty, education, racism. ..take your pick. Do the poor in the United States even know what poverty is? According to the census those at poverty level have a lot of luxuries. Ive posted the data before. And no one can argue that Michael Brown wasnt eating.
-
This reasoning is the safe, pc path...
How does it explain the continent of africa? It is the second largest continent on earth, vastly rich in resources, and mankind supposedly started there earlier that anywhere else. Yet despite this, aside from non-black egypt, there has never been any advanced civilizations anywhere, at any point in history, over millenia. Every other major racial group has at some point achieved a 'higher' culture...blacks are the lone exception.
There is no adequate explanation for this. This is not to say ALL of them are primitive, there are of course plenty of exceptional idividuals, and many of them are as smart and capable as anyone else. The problem is is that these individuals seem to represent a smaller proportion of their race than pretty much any other racial group; in other words the ratio of competent individuals to primitive ones has never been high enough to produce and maintain a higher civilization, anywhere. This is why although lots of black succeed and are quality, capable individuals, as a group they always get massively outnumbered by the incompetents; which is why virtually every black-majority community in america is a ghetto, why every city/state/country with all black or mostly black leadership always falls to corruption and poverty, why black africa has never had a higher civilization, why their crime rates for things like rape and theft are always way higher than other races...i mean all these things cant be ignored
Wednesday 17 October 2007
"James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
Racist, white scientist. >:(
-
I grew up in a poor area in a poor family and the greatest lesson I gained from my experience was that these people are making their own lives harder. There is no external force keeping them down, its them. They are stuck in a mentality of failure and the things they are taught are keeping them bound to a life of nothingness. Trust me, they arent miserable. They love this life.
Concentration camps? Come on, thats hyperbole. What I want is for people to be responsible for their actions and contribute to society. I want these communities who so readily point fingers at others and moralize to be honest with themselves and be accountable. And thats my point, the government can't do anything. Its tried for decades making laws and pumping money with little results. Change can only come from within.
Personally I dont care how destructive someone if it doesnt involve me. The problem arises whrn these fools feel entitle to assistance while blaming everyone for their problems.
The mentality of failure is endemic in poor communities. It is not as easy as you are trying to make it out to be to get out of poverty. Are you really going to tell me that you didn't have to work harder than someone from an upper middle class or wealthy family who lived in a nice community and went to a private school?
But look, I'm not saying people are not responsible for their own choices at the end of the day. They absolutely are. I don't care what your background is, that doesn't justify poor decision making. It might explain it, but it's not an excuse. And life isn't fair. People from those backgrounds do have to work harder to succeed. That's just an unfortunate fact. But anyone who wants to get out can get out. It's just a lot easier if there is, for instance, a two parent household, educated parents, etc.
I want people to take personal responsibility too. I just wasn't sure where you end up with your race-based analysis, because as you know, most of the people using those statistics are just bigots trying to justify treating people differently. I believe in that crap.
-
This is the problem. They dont want to talk about it. There is zero reflection and self evaluation. Its alway external forces, poverty, education, racism. ..take your pick. Do the poor in the United States even know what poverty is? According to the census those at poverty level have a lot of luxuries. Ive posted the data before. And no one can argue that Michael Brown wasnt eating.
Exactly
-
There is when using statistics to determine which group is more likely to commit violent crimes.
If you find that one race is 5x more likely to murder than another race, logically you should pay more attention to the group committing a the crimes.
Whethef its inherent in their race IMO is irrelevant. .. the facts say that 'x' grouo commits the murders, you focus on 'x'.
Ignoring a major point of that. I dont think most people that are educated on race are anywhere stupid enough to suggest discriminating doesnt work.
You can apply that same logic into who you will rent to, who you will higher, and who you will believe, as I think its a fact that is exactly what 99 percent of the population does.
What your not admitting to is the fallout from your math.
If blacks are 5 x more likely to commit a crime they should be searched 5 times more often.
Your ignoring the fact that there are collateral crimes detected in a bust, that may have crime rates that are equal proportion with white folk.
I.E. just as many white pot smokers as black pot smokers.
And yet those profile searches dont ignore 80 percent of pot smokers to make the number fair.
So you have passive black potheads, getting busted at a rate that is five times higher than their white passive counterparts.
That may just seem like collateral damage but that shit adds up and will fuck someone over economically.
This is the part yall seem to skip over like it has absolutely no relevance to the situation.
-
The mentality of failure is endemic in poor communities. It is not as easy as you are trying to make it out to be to get out of poverty. Are you really going to tell me that you didn't have to work harder than someone from an upper middle class or wealthy family who lived in a nice community and went to a private school?
But look, I'm not saying people are not responsible for their own choices at the end of the day. They absolutely are. I don't care what your background is, that doesn't justify poor decision making. It might explain it, but it's not an excuse. And life isn't fair. People from those backgrounds do have to work harder to succeed. That's just an unfortunate fact. But anyone who wants to get out can get out. It's just a lot easier if there is, for instance, a two parent household, educated parents, etc.
I want people to take personal responsibility too. I just wasn't sure where you end up with your race-based analysis, because as you know, most of the people using those statistics are just bigots trying to justify treating people differently. I believe in that crap.
I didn't have to work harder on not raping, stealing and murdering because I was taught right from wrong. And all that wonderful knowledge was given for free.
Using these statistics is an attempt to instill a sense of reality, particularly during incidents like the recent riots. The reality of crime and abuse is much different than what the rioters would like to believe. They feel entitled to a false and unearned sense of self-righteousness and moral outrage.
-
Ignoring a major point of that. I dont think most people that are educated on race are anywhere stupid enough to suggest discriminating doesnt work.
You can apply that same logic into who you will rent to, who you will higher, and who you will believe, as I think its a fact that is exactly what 99 percent of the population does.
What your not admitting to is the fallout from your math.
If blacks are 5 x more likely to commit a crime they should be searched 5 times more often.
Your ignoring the fact that there are collateral crimes detected in a bust, that may have crime rates that are equal proportion with white folk.
I.E. just as many white pot smokers as black pot smokers.
And yet those profile searches dont ignore 80 percent of pot smokers to make the number fair.
So you have passive black potheads, getting busted at a rate that is five times higher than their white passive counterparts.
That may just seem like collateral damage but that shit adds up and will fuck someone over economically.
This is the part yall seem to skip over like it has absolutely no relevance to the situation.
Usually those black potheads are busted for other crimes and pot is found on them during that time. Another difference is that smoking pot is a passive endeavor while murder isn, the same with all drugs unless there is gang activity involved. Gang activity and association can also skew the numbers.
-
I didn't have to work harder on not raping, stealing and murdering because I was taught right from wrong. And all that wonderful knowledge was given for free.
Using these statistics is an attempt to instill a sense of reality, particularly during incidents like the recent riots. The reality of crime and abuse is much different than what the rioters would like to believe. They feel entitled to a false and unearned sense of self-righteousness and moral outrage.
No they are not. They are used to try and make the argument that certain ethnic groups are genetically prone to violence, less intelligent, etc.
You cannot reason with the idiots who are running around looting their own friggin neighborhood.
-
No they are not. They are used to try and make the argument that certain ethnic groups are genetically prone to violence, less intelligent, etc.
You cannot reason with the idiots who are running around looting their own friggin neighborhood.
They aren't always used for that purpose. I use them to demonstrate that those who try to assume the moral high ground need to step off their soap box.
Are they idiots? They are only idiots if they have understanding of right and wrong. Socioeconomic conditions prevent the development of that understanding.
-
They aren't always used for that purpose. I use them to demonstrate that those who try to assume the moral high ground need to step off their soap box.
Are they idiots? They are only idiots if they have understanding of right and wrong. Socioeconomic conditions prevent the development of that understanding.
Nobody is using them for that purpose.
Yes, I clearly said socioeconomic conditions prevent people from understanding right and wrong. That's the kind of comment you make when your position starts to crumble.
I know you don't want to embrace the white supremacy/minority inferiority underpinnings of your entire position on this subject, but you ought to just come out and be open about it. You know exactly how these "statistics" are used.
-
Usually those black potheads are busted for other crimes and pot is found on them during that time. Another difference is that smoking pot is a passive endeavor while murder isn, the same with all drugs unless there is gang activity involved. Gang activity and association can also skew the numbers.
You cant agree what I said is directly right can you.
Its not about pot smoking or anything else.
Its about the formulas we are working with.
You cant reference numbers and refuse to use the mathematics that goes along with them.
-
You cant agree what I said is directly right can you.
Its not about pot smoking or anything else.
Its about the formulas we are working with.
You cant reference numbers and refuse to use the mathematics that goes along with them.
Im pointing out that answers aren't always so simple. Sometimes there are details to consider. What a first might appear one way, will appear another when other things are taken into consideration.
-
Ignoring race automatically leads to the unnecessary stopping of law abiding whites and asians. Your suggestion defacto calls for the stopping more whites and asians.
first of all, I never suggested this! You brought it up out of the blue and oddly said it would be racist. I pointed out to you why it wouldn't be, but never said I thought it was the solution. Each of my previous posts was about how it was not an effective policy , so why would I think the solution was to use it on more people?
-
Archer nailing it as usual!
-
Ignoring a major point of that. I dont think most people that are educated on race are anywhere stupid enough to suggest discriminating doesnt work.
You can apply that same logic into who you will rent to, who you will higher, and who you will believe, as I think its a fact that is exactly what 99 percent of the population does.
What your not admitting to is the fallout from your math.
If blacks are 5 x more likely to commit a crime they should be searched 5 times more often.
Your ignoring the fact that there are collateral crimes detected in a bust, that may have crime rates that are equal proportion with white folk.
I.E. just as many white pot smokers as black pot smokers.
And yet those profile searches dont ignore 80 percent of pot smokers to make the number fair.
So you have passive black potheads, getting busted at a rate that is five times higher than their white passive counterparts.
That may just seem like collateral damage but that shit adds up and will fuck someone over economically.
This is the part yall seem to skip over like it has absolutely no relevance to the situation.
Truth.
-
Ignoring a major point of that. I dont think most people that are educated on race are anywhere stupid enough to suggest discriminating doesnt work.
You can apply that same logic into who you will rent to, who you will higher, and who you will believe, as I think its a fact that is exactly what 99 percent of the population does.
What your not admitting to is the fallout from your math.
If blacks are 5 x more likely to commit a crime they should be searched 5 times more often.
Your ignoring the fact that there are collateral crimes detected in a bust, that may have crime rates that are equal proportion with white folk.
I.E. just as many white pot smokers as black pot smokers.
And yet those profile searches dont ignore 80 percent of pot smokers to make the number fair.
So you have passive black potheads, getting busted at a rate that is five times higher than their white passive counterparts.
That may just seem like collateral damage but that shit adds up and will fuck someone over economically.
This is the part yall seem to skip over like it has absolutely no relevance to the situation.
Again let me reiterate that I dont believe that stop and frisk is legal nor right, I vehemently oppose it.
BUT, for the sake of argument, if the goal is to use stop and frisk to reduce the number of violent crimes, and that is the metric you're using to determine which group you're focusing on, then the number of people arrested for smaller crimes during the searches is largely irrelevant. You're not searching them to find pot, but if they do, they're still breaking the law. Its not like they're disproportionately searching blacks looking for pot, they're looking for murderers and happen to find pot. That's not racist or discriminatory, its just luck of the draw.
-
first of all, I never suggested this! You brought it up out of the blue and oddly said it would be racist. I pointed out to you why it wouldn't be, but never said I thought it was the solution. Each of my previous posts was about how it was not an effective policy , so why would I think the solution was to use it on more people?
Pointing out how it wouldn't be? An entire demographic of individuals would be searched unnecessarily. Whats the justification for searching them when you already know you not likely to find anything? How is that the least bit fairer and less racist?
-
Truth.
Do you know if he is exclusively being busted for pot because if you don't you can't make a proper comparison. You never did answer the question whether blacks are targeting whites?
-
Pointing out how it wouldn't be? An entire demographic of individuals would be searched unnecessarily. Whats the justification for searching them when you already know you not likely to find anything? How is that the least bit fairer and less racist?
It's less racist because it's not based on race. Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers. It finds drug users, people with warrants, etc most of the time. People of races other than black commit plenty of crimes.There is no reason to assume you are "not likely to find anything".
-
It's less racist because it's not based on race. Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers. It finds drug users, people with warrants, etc most of the time. People of races other than black commit plenty of crimes.There is no reason to assume you are "not likely to find anything".
It's without a doubt about race. You're intentionally targeting a particular race when it's unnecessary. Would you also suggest checking Harlem for stock market insider trading?
-
It's less racist because it's not based on race. Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers. It finds drug users, people with warrants, etc most of the time. People of races other than black commit plenty of crimes.There is no reason to assume you are "not likely to find anything".
I guess I just don't understand the logic....
'because they didn't fund guns but they found people with WARRANTS' makes it racist. Theyre targeting the group with the highest likely hood to commit 'x' crime, and they're finding 'y' crime instead. Just because they happening to be targeting 'x' grouo more because of a proclivity to commit the crime doesn't make 'y' crime any less of a crime.
Its not like theyre targeting them unfairly for 'y', they just happen to find it when searching for 'x'.
Nothing racist or discriminatory about it. The idea that 'unless theyre catching both races equally its racist' makes no sense as theyre not targeting them for that crime. Its simply a lottery.
When they start using stop and frisk to search for pot possesion and they're targeting blacks at a 5:1 ratio THEN you have an argument.
-
I guess I just don't understand the logic....
'because they didn't fund guns but they found people with WARRANTS' makes it racist. Theyre targeting the group with the highest likely hood to commit 'x' crime, and they're finding 'y' crime instead. Just because they happening to be targeting 'x' grouo more because of a proclivity to commit the crime doesn't make 'y' crime any less of a crime.
Its not like theyre targeting them unfairly for 'y', they just happen to find it when searching for 'x'.
Nothing racist or discriminatory about it. The idea that 'unless theyre catching both races equally its racist' makes no sense as theyre not targeting them for that crime. Its simply a lottery.
Which is precisely the reason the imaginary black guy is popped for pot possession. His post proves my point.
-
I guess I just don't understand the logic....
'because they didn't fund guns but they found people with WARRANTS' makes it racist. Theyre targeting the group with the highest likely hood to commit 'x' crime, and they're finding 'y' crime instead. Just because they happening to be targeting 'x' grouo more because of a proclivity to commit the crime doesn't make 'y' crime any less of a crime.
Its not like theyre targeting them unfairly for 'y', they just happen to find it when searching for 'x'.
Nothing racist or discriminatory about it. The idea that 'unless theyre catching both races equally its racist' makes no sense as theyre not targeting them for that crime. Its simply a lottery.
When they start using stop and frisk to search for pot possesion and they're targeting blacks at a 5:1 ratio THEN you have an argument.
The point is not that they find "X" instead of "Y", but that they rarely find either "X" or "Y".Never said anything about "unless they're catching both races equally, it's racist."
-
The point is not that they find "X" instead of "Y", but that they rarely find either "X" or "Y".Never said anything about "unless they're catching both races equally, it's racist."
You argued that it was racist not that its ineffective.
-
You argued that it was racist not that its ineffective.
Thats what I got from his earlier arguments as well.
-
It's without a doubt about race. You're intentionally targeting a particular race when it's unnecessary. Would you also suggest checking Harlem for stock market insider trading?
No, it's currently about race. Unnecessary? It's not as if other races don't commit crimes, or ever commit crimes in miniscule number in NYC.
-
Thats what I got from his earlier arguments as well.
I want a clarification on how its racist. If the majority of crimes are committed by particular groups wouldn't you want to focus on them?
-
Thats what I got from his earlier arguments as well.
What do you think this meant:
Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers.
-
What do you think this meant:
Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers.
Who cares as long as it harasses and upsets a few uppity blacks walking around like ghetto thugs and criminals. ;) :D ;D :( >:( :) :o
-
I want a clarification on how its racist. If the majority of crimes are committed by particular groups wouldn't you want to focus on them?
They aren't catching criminals in significant numbers. They are making stops of one demographic in significant numbers but it's not leading to actual arrests and convictions
-
Who cares as long as it harasses and upsets a few uppity blacks walking around like ghetto thugs and criminals. ;) :D ;D :( >:( :) :o
;D
-
No, it's currently about race. Unnecessary? It's not as if other races don't commit crimes, or ever commit crimes in miniscule number in NYC.
They don't commit gun crimes at nearly the same rate. Are you saying its not fair that 90% of the those stopped are hispanic and black when they commit 90% of the gun crime?
-
What do you think this meant:
Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers.
isn't that better than nothing? Maybe that 5% or 1% resulted in lives being saved
-
I live in NYC - it does not take a fool to know where the crime is concenrtated.
-
isn't that better than nothing? Maybe that 5% or 1% resulted in lives being saved
I've said it before, but by this logic you might as well just support random in home sweeps. How is it different legally?
5% is such a low number that the program is basically just randomly stopping and frisking males who are black or
hispanic. It's not catching criminals in significant numbers and it's not catching minority criminals committing crimes
that other groups likely commit in similar numbers.
-
They don't commit gun crimes at nearly the same rate. Are you saying its not fair that 90% of the those stopped are hispanic and black when they commit 90% of the gun crime?
When it has such a poor record of getting guns off the street, then yes.
-
When it has such a poor record of getting guns off the street, then yes.
Yawn - I have a gun permit w a lot of pistols, etc - I don't have my guns on the street why?
ghetto animals and thugs are that animals and pos and thugs - sorry deal with it - the rest of us don't give a fuck wen you kill each other or are killed by cops while being thugs
-
What do you think this meant:
Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers.
Thats not what you were arguing earlier when you started discussing vs other races.
Ive already stated over and over I think its illegal, unconstitutional, amd bullshit, but the law by itself is not discriminatory or racist imo.
-
Thats not what you were arguing earlier when you started discussing vs other races.
Ive already stated over and over I think its illegal, unconstitutional, amd bullshit, but the law by itself is not discriminatory or racist imo.
I posted the following on the second page of this thread:
AG released a report not too long ago that less than 5% of s&Fs result in arrest and conviction. Statistically, your post isn't a justifiable explanation. It's as bad as saying cops should be allowed to go into homes on fishing expeditions in certain neighborhoods. They'd probably have a higher arrest and conviction rate.
Argument can have multiple points.
-
I've said it before, but by this logic you might as well just support random in home sweeps. How is it different legally?
5% is such a low number that the program is basically just randomly stopping and frisking males who are black or
hispanic. It's not catching criminals in significant numbers and it's not catching minority criminals committing crimes
that other groups likely commit in similar numbers.
When it has such a poor record of getting guns off the street, then yes.
I wouldn't consider 5% and 1% percent insignificant. It only takes one person to kill or harm another person. The program is two fold, its meant to lead to arrests and its meant to be a deterrent. As a deterrent the number of arrests is of little value.
Explain to me why is it racist to focus on the groups that cause the most problems? If one armed midgets committed a disproportionate number of ankle attacks would you focus on finding two armed giants?
If I were you I wouldn't be upset at the cops, they are just doing their jobs. I would be mad at all the brothas who behavior like fools and make your life more difficult.
-
Explain to me why is it racist to focus on the groups that cause the most problems? If one armed midgets committed a disproportionate number of ankle attacks would you focus on finding two armed giants?
If I was stopping so many one-armed midgets that it turned out I was finding less than .05% who committed ankle attacks, I'd think my midget hunting system wasn't very good.
-
Whether or not the cop is racist, the policy is racist, so it makes no substantive difference.
This is the post I was referring to.
-
I posted the following on the second page of this thread:
AG released a report not too long ago that less than 5% of s&Fs result in arrest and conviction. Statistically, your post isn't a justifiable explanation. It's as bad as saying cops should be allowed to go into homes on fishing expeditions in certain neighborhoods. They'd probably have a higher arrest and conviction rate.
Argument can have multiple points.
If I was stopping so many one-armed midgets that it turned out I was finding less than .05% who committed ankle attacks, I'd think my midget hunting system wasn't very good.
5% is pretty good
-
5% is pretty good
5% arrests, about 2% convictions, .5% recovered guns on half a million to a million stops. That's pretty bad.
-
5% arrests, about 2% convictions, .5% recovered guns on half a million to a million stops. That's pretty bad.
2% of half a million is ten-thousand. For a million its twenty-thousand. .5% of a million stops is 5000 guns.
-
2% of half a million is ten-thousand. For a million its twenty-thousand. .5% of a million stops is 5000 guns.
These are terrible numbers.
-
These are terrible numbers.
Sound good to me. 5000 guns off the streets. 10-20,000 criminals locked up.
-
Sound good to me. 5000 guns off the streets. 10-20,000 criminals locked up.
If these numbers existed in a vacuum, they wouldn't even be particularly impressive. The fact that these are the results of what are supposed to be targeted searches is horrendous. And the NYPD released a gun seizure report yesterday. The actual percentage isn't .5, it's .1. The numbers have fluctuated between .1 and .2 for the last 10 years. The program just is not effective.
-
If the program is 'ineffective', why has NYC's crime rate apparently dropped significantly since it has been implemented?
-
If the program is 'ineffective', why has NYC's crime rate apparently dropped significantly since it has been implemented?
That's a nationwide trend.
-
Whether or not the cop is racist, the policy is racist, so it makes no substantive difference.
remember yall its racists, except when you do it to white folk ;)
-
remember yall its racists, except when you do it to white folk ;)
If I want to find the most Chinese I go to China.
-
If I want to find the most Chinese I go to China.
And if you were looking for Chinese, that wouldn't be a bad plan. But if you're looking for people carrying porcelain chopsticks, then stopping every Chinese person you see isn't a good plan. Especially when it turns out you have to stop 200 Chinese people before you find a pair of chopsticks. 50 before you even find someone who can tell you where to get a spork.
-
And if you were looking for Chinese, that wouldn't be a bad plan. But if you're looking for people carrying porcelain chopsticks, then stopping every Chinese person you see isn't a good plan. Especially when it turns out you have to stop 200 Chinese people before you find a pair of chopsticks. 50 before you even find someone who can tell you where to get a spork.
Those porcelain chopsticks are carried by Chinese men from Beijing 90+% of the time. Stopping Norwegians from New Jersey wouldn't be the best place to start.
I do agree its unconstitutional but the logic of searching blacks and Hispanics more often is sound.
-
And, when are you going to do something about the black crime rate? When are you going to do something about the number of rapes committed by blacks against whites? When are you going to riot over the disproportionate number of whites attacked, murdered and raped by blacks?
You're asking ME what I'm going to do about it? Seriously? Are you kidding me?
Are you seriously asking me what I'm going to do about Black American males who commit rape against women?
Considering the fact that any rapes you may be referring to were committed by African American Men, , and I happen to be a Jamaican Canadian woman, I would think that 2 out of 3 fits the profile a little closer than 0 out of 3. What are YOU going to do about rapes committed by YOUR countrymen & YOUR gender.
And secondly, I don't riot, ...that's not my style. Although, if you decided to hold a demonstration denouncing that only to be greeted by tank & soldiers decked out like they were ready to take on ISIS, we'll see how calm you remain. No one is glorifying rioting, least of all me, but only a fool is unable to see why the rioting occurred given the circumstances, and the messed up way it was subsequently handled.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10603328_759968047394356_1530720784556763697_n.jpg?oh=201e455b58754edcac984080a8900024&oe=54695335&__gda__=1416660877_43251274cd936292b9060ee337a7c59a)
4900 Assault rifles and 36 mine -resistant vehicles were just gifted to Police Depts. in Ohio.
That includes State's Troopers, City police, and University police. How soon before we see another Kent State incident?
Do you really think this sort of equipment should be used to patrol & police your neighbourhoods or campuses?
I weep for your country ...cause Karma is a BIYOTCH!!!
http://www.abc22now.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/wkef_vid_21860.shtml
-
I can remember a time when military surplus consisted of clothing... flack jackets, fatigues & boots.
...maybe the occasional canteen, or Swiss Army knife, ...now it's freaking tanks! ::)
-
You're asking ME what I'm going to do about it? Seriously? Are you kidding me?
Are you seriously asking me what I'm going to do about Black American males who commit rape against women?
Considering the fact that any rapes you may be referring to were committed by African American Men, , and I happen to be a Jamaican Canadian woman, I would think that 2 out of 3 fits the profile a little closer than 0 out of 3. What are YOU going to do about rapes committed by YOUR countrymen & YOUR gender.
And secondly, I don't riot, ...that's not my style. Although, if you decided to hold a demonstration denouncing that only to be greeted by tank & soldiers decked out like they were ready to take on ISIS, we'll see how calm you remain. No one is glorifying rioting, least of all me, but only a fool is unable to see why the rioting occurred given the circumstances, and the messed up way it was subsequently handled.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10603328_759968047394356_1530720784556763697_n.jpg?oh=201e455b58754edcac984080a8900024&oe=54695335&__gda__=1416660877_43251274cd936292b9060ee337a7c59a)
4900 Assault rifles and 36 mine -resistant vehicles were just gifted to Police Depts. in Ohio.
That includes State's Troopers, City police, and University police. How soon before we see another Kent State incident?
Do you really think this sort of equipment should be used to patrol & police your neighbourhoods or campuses?
I weep for your country ...cause Karma is a BIYOTCH!!!
http://www.abc22now.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/wkef_vid_21860.shtml
The tanks have nothing to do with the stealing. The stealing and destruction begin before the national guard showed up. Stop making excuses for these thieves. What are you going to do about the violence?
-
I can remember a time when military surplus consisted of clothing... flack jackets, fatigues & boots.
...maybe the occasional canteen, or Swiss Army knife, ...now it's freaking tanks! ::)
Those aren't tanks. Stop being sensational. Theyre armored trucks. Also, all PDs already have assault rifles. They're really not anything to worry about anyway, they're just semi-auto rifles.
What concerns me is the kevlar helmets with night vision, multiple optics, ceramic plate armor, LBVs and camelbaks on regular untrained officers.
Its the wannabe para-military quasi special forces attitude that irks me. If they were legit trained and a part of a SWAT team, thats one thing. But in the news recently ive seen so many fat ass untrained regular officers sporting full tac gear at regular patrols and walking around like theyre in fucking iraq. That attitude needs to be curbed quickly. They're not an aggressor force and tbeyre not in hostile territory. Thats SWATs job.
-
Those porcelain chopsticks are carried by Chinese men from Beijing 90+% of the time. Stopping Norwegians from New Jersey wouldn't be the best place to start.
I do agree its unconstitutional but the logic of searching blacks and Hispanics more often is sound.
Regardless of whether men from Beijing carry the chopsticks 90% of the time, you're only finding them .01% of the time.
You admit the policy itself is unconstitutional. It targets certain ethnic groups disproportionately, thus it's RACIST. If the numbers were better, then you could argue that there was some logic behind targeted searches, but as it stands it is literally just a program that violates people en masse while-statistically- almost never achieving its objective.
The actual numbers from NYPD stop and frisk program last year are about 192,000 stops uncovering about 400 guns.(Not incidentally, stop numbers have consistently and dramatically dropped each year since 2011 and crime still continues to plummet.) So, that's roughly 500 stops a day uncovering 1 gun a day. You can pretend that any illegal gun seized makes the program worth it, but just be real. Those numbers are piss poor and the program is a flop. If you had a high school with 1000 students and you searched each student and uncovered 2 guns in the search, it's debatable whether you have a particularly bad high school. If you are the police department for a major metropolitan city and you have instituted a program that systematically violates the civil liberties of your citizens with a program that allegedly focuses those violation on suspicious people who are statistically likely to commit crimes, and you're still only finding 1 gun for every 500 people you stop, then the program is SHIT!
-
It targets certain ethnic groups disproportionately, thus it's RACIST. If the numbers were better, then you could argue that there was some logic behind targeted searches, but as it stands it is literally just a program that violates people en masse while-statistically- almost never achieving its objective.
You may argue its ineffective but its not racist. Those who commit gun crimes are disproportionately black and hispanic by a wide margin. If you stop more whites and asians or in the same numbers as blacks and hispanics are stopped, you would be stopping these two groups disproportionately in comparison to the number of gun crimes they commit. According to your own logic this would be racist.
-
Those aren't tanks. Stop being sensational. Theyre armored trucks. Also, all PDs already have assault rifles. They're really not anything to worry about anyway, they're just semi-auto rifles.
What concerns me is the kevlar helmets with night vision, multiple optics, ceramic plate armor, LBVs and camelbaks on regular untrained officers.
Its the wannabe para-military quasi special forces attitude that irks me. If they were legit trained and a part of a SWAT team, thats one thing. But in the news recently ive seen so many fat ass untrained regular officers sporting full tac gear at regular patrols and walking around like theyre in fucking iraq. That attitude needs to be curbed quickly. They're not an aggressor force and tbeyre not in hostile territory. Thats SWATs job.
The really sad thing about the shitbags looting over another dead shitbag is it's tainted the national debate against militarizing the police
The loony left decided to enshrine the lies told about a piece of shit gang member as their patron saint of the cause so it polarized things badly .. I wish these protests were against legitimate police abuse, fat local PD kicking in doors and throwing flash bangs at 2am and killing golden retrievers in the name of The War On Drugs and getting away with it
But oh no, it had to become about a fat retard attacking a cop and his friends lies about what happened "hands up let's loot"
-
You may argue its ineffective but its not racist. Those who commit gun crimes are disproportionately black and hispanic by a wide margin. If you stop more whites and asians or in the same numbers as blacks and hispanics are stopped, you would be stopping these two groups disproportionately in comparison to the number of gun crimes they commit. According to your own logic this would be racist.
NO, it wouldn't be racist. It wouldn't be a policy based on race. Ignoring race does not make something racist. Not focusing on race, not using race as a deciding factor does not mean racist. If race is the determining factor when a stop is made, then THAT is racist. If race is not the determining factor when a stop is made, then that is NOT racist. The fact that, as it stands, race is a large part of why these stops are made and they still rarely result in any arrests or convictions IS racist.
-
NO, it wouldn't be racist. It wouldn't be a policy based on race. Ignoring race does not make something racist. Not focusing on race, not using race as a deciding factor does not mean racist. If race is the determining factor when a stop is made, then THAT is racist. If race is not the determining factor when a stop is made, then that is NOT racist. The fact that, as it stands, race is a large part of why these stops are made and they still rarely result in any arrests or convictions IS racist.
Its called disparate impact.
Adverse effect of a practice or standard that is neutral and non-discriminatory in its intention but, nonetheless, disproportionately affects individuals having a disability or belonging to a particular group based on their age, ethnicity, race, or sex.
-
I believe the poverty answer is to simplistic. If poverty where the reason you would see the same level or close to it of violence across all economically challenged communities but thats not the case. Education is irrelevent when it comes to basic morality. Morality is the simpilist and earliest lesson any of us learns and society affirms those values throughout our lives. There is not one reason that justifies someone not understanding these basic values that keep society together.
I dont believe its genetic but I do believe its cultural. My aim is to take the weapons used to deflect attention away from taking responsibility for ones choices. The black community has made a religion out of finger pointing and its time they do a little self evaluation. They have constructed a false reality around themselves and thats whats keeping them down. As they say, clean up your own yard before you go knocking on your neighbors door.
Agreed. When a culture glorifies having served prison time, having "kills" under one's belt, being financially irresponsible, committing domestic violence, joining criminal enterprises such as street gangs, and has an entertainment subculture that continuously glorifies and encourages these things as well, there are bound to be endless problems within such a culture.
-
NO, it wouldn't be racist. It wouldn't be a policy based on race. Ignoring race does not make something racist. Not focusing on race, not using race as a deciding factor does not mean racist. If race is the determining factor when a stop is made, then THAT is racist. If race is not the determining factor when a stop is made, then that is NOT racist. The fact that, as it stands, race is a large part of why these stops are made and they still rarely result in any arrests or convictions IS racist.
the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.
They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.
Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.
-
the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.
They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.
Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.
Bingo.
Focusing on the element that commits the higher percentage of the crime isnt racist.
-
the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.
They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.
Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.
To the Left, objectively analyzing data is racist.
Why? Because racist.
-
the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.
They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.
Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.
Then why are the resulting arrest and conviction numbers so low? Why are the gun seizure numbers so low? Ranging from
single digit percentage points to fractions of percentage points on hundreds of thousands of stops? Because it's irrelevant if blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate. It's like saying "Most of the world's billionaires are white people, so we should tax all white people at a billionaire's rate." Neither of those statements has anything to do with the other.
-
Its called disparate impact.
Adverse effect of a practice or standard that is neutral and non-discriminatory in its intention but, nonetheless, disproportionately affects individuals having a disability or belonging to a particular group based on their age, ethnicity, race, or sex.
This definition doesn't apply. A big part of why people are stopped is their race. The situation that you claim would be racism- if stops were more evenly distributed it would be racist against white people- might actually be considered disparate impact. Assuming that fewer of the other races stopped weren't found to be committing crimes, which is not a given.
-
Then why are the resulting arrest and conviction numbers so low? Why are the gun seizure numbers so low? Ranging from
single digit percentage points to fractions of percentage points on hundreds of thousands of stops? Because it's irrelevant if blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate. It's like saying "Most of the world's billionaires are white people, so we should tax all white people at a billionaire's rate." Neither of those statements has anything to do with the other.
Thats a bad comparison. A better one would be most billionaires in new york city are white and live on park avenue therefore if we want to find a billionaire we should look for a white guy who lives on park avenue and tax him.
-
Then why are the resulting arrest and conviction numbers so low? Why are the gun seizure numbers so low? Ranging from
single digit percentage points to fractions of percentage points on hundreds of thousands of stops? Because it's irrelevant if blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate. It's like saying "Most of the world's billionaires are white people, so we should tax all white people at a billionaire's rate." Neither of those statements has anything to do with the other.
simply b/c blacks commit a disproportionately higher level of crime doesnt mean all blacks do. That doesnt mean that if youre looking for certain criminal elements you dont have a higher chance of finding it in the black demographic.
I am not arguing for or against the legality or results of stop and frisk albert, only that it not fucking racist........
-
This definition doesn't apply. A big part of why people are stopped is their race. The situation that you claim would be racism- if stops were more evenly distributed it would be racist against white people- might actually be considered disparate impact. Assuming that fewer of the other races stopped weren't found to be committing crimes, which is not a given.
In an attempt to be fair you would be stopping more whites unnecessarily thus whites would be subjected to disparate impact.
-
Thats a bad comparison. A better one would be most billionaires in new york city are white and live on park avenue therefore if we want to find a billionaire we should look for a white guy who lives on park avenue and tax him.
No, that's a worse comparison. It ignores the fact that the stop and frisk program is an illogical numbers game, which is why mine was more accurate.
-
In an attempt to be fair you would be stopping more whites unnecessarily thus whites would be subjected to disparate impact.
And right in the definition you posted, it explains why that is not racism.
-
No, that's a worse comparison. It ignores the fact that the stop and frisk program is an illogical numbers game, which is why mine was more accurate.
you disagree then that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate?
-
simply b/c blacks commit a disproportionately higher level of crime doesnt mean all blacks do. That doesnt mean that if youre looking for certain criminal elements you dont have a higher chance of finding it in the black demographic.
I am not arguing for or against the legality or results of stop and frisk albert, only that it not fucking racist........
Whether or not there is a higher likelihood of finding criminals among blacks stopped, the NYPD doesn't really
do so in significant numbers. What they do do in significant numbers is unconstitutionally stop people who are
not in the process of committing a crime, and the disproportionate majority of those people are minorities. And that is not by chance, it is by design.
You and Archer are trying to make the argument that this is somehow based in reason and logic, but if that were
true then they'd be making more arrests. It's an unconstitutional policy AND a racist policy.
-
you disagree then that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate?
Blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than whites.
-
Whether or not there is a higher likelihood of finding criminals among blacks stopped, the NYPD doesn't really
do so in significant numbers. What they do do in significant numbers is unconstitutionally stop people who are
not in the process of committing a crime, and the disproportionate majority of those people are minorities. And that is not by chance, it is by design.
You and Archer are trying to make the argument that this is somehow based in reason and logic, but if that were
true then they'd be making more arrests. It's an unconstitutional policy AND a racist policy.
It may be ineffective and unconstitutional but it isnt racist. If suddenly cambodians were committing 90% of the crime in NYC blacks and hispanics would no longer be searched as frequently. How effective the policy is isnt relevant to the reasoning behind who is stopped. There are other factors to consider.
-
Blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than whites.
Oh I see, its all a conspiracy by the white judicial system. Same old conspiracy BS .
-
Blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than whites.
not what I asked...
Whether or not there is a higher likelihood of finding criminals among blacks stopped, the NYPD doesn't really
do so in significant numbers. What they do do in significant numbers is unconstitutionally stop people who are
not in the process of committing a crime, and the disproportionate majority of those people are minorities. And that is not by chance, it is by design.
You and Archer are trying to make the argument that this is somehow based in reason and logic, but if that were
true then they'd be making more arrests. It's an unconstitutional policy AND a racist policy.
The fact is that it is based on numbers, now you can argue that those numbers are wrong or they mislead but the fact is the actions are based on numbers.
The results dont speak to the reasoning and its validity. Again the numbers show that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate. If you are looking for a certain criminal element you have a better chance of finding it in the black demographic. What those chances are if you randomly stop a black person doesnt negate the fact you have a higher chance of finding it by stopping a black person.
-
not what I asked...
The fact is that it is based on numbers, now you can argue that those numbers are wrong or they mislead but the fact is the actions are based on numbers.
The results dont speak to the reasoning and its validity. Again the numbers show that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate. If you are looking for a certain criminal element you have a better chance of finding it in the black demographic. What those chances are if you randomly stop a black person doesnt negate the fact you have a higher chance of finding it by stopping a black person.
Hes a conspiracy nut who thinks the system is keeping brothas down.
-
It may be ineffective and unconstitutional but it isnt racist. If suddenly cambodians were committing 90% of the crime in NYC blacks and hispanics would no longer be searched as frequently. How effective the policy is isnt relevant to the reasoning behind who is stopped. There are other factors to consider.
It actually is. Because if the stops are supposed to be targeted and don't result in arrests on a significant scale, then the reasoning is flawed.
-
not what I asked...
The fact is that it is based on numbers, now you can argue that those numbers are wrong or they mislead but the fact is the actions are based on numbers.
The results dont speak to the reasoning and its validity. Again the numbers show that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate. If you are looking for a certain criminal element you have a better chance of finding it in the black demographic. What those chances are if you randomly stop a black person doesnt negate the fact you have a higher chance of finding it by stopping a black person.
It does when the program basically comes down to stopping as many minorities as possible and seeing what sticks. And even then , it comes out to almost nothing, statistically. It does negate the validity of the reasoning.
-
Oh I see, its all a conspiracy by the white judicial system. Same old conspiracy BS .
Oh, come on. One of stop and frisks hallmarks is that it targets minorities and, even with its rockbottom arrest rate, those arrests are usually low-level crimes. It's not at all unlikely that crime rates aren't as disparate in regards to those crimes. And it's a fact that blacks are sent away longer and more frequently for drug charges than whites who commit comparable drug offenses. Those are just two examples. Let's not forget, the whole reason I jumped into this thread was the bullshit statistics you posted on the first page.
-
It does when the program basically comes down to stopping as many minorities as possible and seeing what sticks. And even then , it comes out to almost nothing, statistically. It does negate the validity of the reasoning.
hahahaha whatever you say fat albert. Its obvious that the very idea that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime is so repulsive to you that you are willing to overlook facts.
-
Oh, come on. One of stop and frisks hallmarks is that it targets minorities and, even with its rockbottom arrest rate, those arrests are usually low-level crimes. It's not at all unlikely that crime rates aren't as disparate in regards to those crimes. And it's a fact that blacks are sent away longer and more frequently for drug charges than whites who commit comparable drug offenses.
do you think the arrest rate would be higher or lower if they targeted more whites?
-
It actually is. Because if the stops are supposed to be targeted and don't result in arrests on a significant scale, then the reasoning is flawed.
The ineffectiveness of the program cant be attributed to the race of those who are searched. There are other factors. Youre arguing because the arrest rates are low the program is racist. That makes no sense. Do you think arrest and conviction rates would go up or down if the searches became random?
-
do you think the arrest rate would be higher or lower if they targeted more whites?
It would likely stay flat.
-
The ineffectiveness of the program cant be attributed to the race of those who are searched. There are other factors. Youre arguing because the arrest rates are low the program is racist. That makes no sense. Do you think arrest and conviction rates would go up or down if the searches became random?
If race is a major factor in why people are stopped, then it can be blamed as one of the reasons the program is a failure. There are other factors, but race is a major indicator. And the argument makes perfect sense. The low arrest rate vs. the massive number of stops prove that the targets are faulty.
-
Oh, come on. One of stop and frisks hallmarks is that it targets minorities and, even with its rockbottom arrest rate, those arrests are usually low-level crimes. It's not at all unlikely that crime rates aren't as disparate in regards to those crimes. And it's a fact that blacks are sent away longer and more frequently for drug charges than whites who commit comparable drug offenses. Those are just two examples. Let's not forget, the whole reason I jumped into this thread was the bullshit statistics you posted on the first page.
Correlation does not imply causation. But lets assume you are right. Have you considered they are sent away longer and more frequently because prior convictions and being charged with multiple crimes simultaneously. You cant compare a black guy who is busted for drugs with prior convictions and who is also being charged with other crimes to a white guy with no priors
For crimes like, assault, murder and rape the victims and witnesses are likely to be black. Are they racist? Also, the race of those arrested matches the percentages given by victims.
-
It would likely stay flat.
So the effectiveness would go down or up?
-
Give this a read
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html
-
It would likely stay flat.
if the arrest rate would likely stay flat then youre saying it is more effective to perform stop and frisk on blacks than whites....WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING!!!!!
-
The tanks have nothing to do with the stealing. The stealing and destruction begin before the national guard showed up. Stop making excuses for these thieves. What are you going to do about the violence?
Do you actually read something before you react? Those vehicles depicted have nothing to do with the uprising in Ferguson. Those were vehicles gifted to various Police Depts in Ohio, including campus police.
Do you really think university campuses have need for these. Do you really think they'll make the trek over to the chemistry lab a little safer?
Yes, it was the uprising in Ferguson that resulted in the National Guard being called in, however, it was the piss poor response of a militarized police force violating the rates of the citizens of Ferguson that lit the fuse to the rioting in the first place. That's what so many people seem to be missing.
The people in Ferguson... both Black & White, had had enough of being oppressed by a police that treats them and their community like a foreign war zone. The blatant violation & suppression of their constitutional & civil rights, while peacefully protesting and demanding accountability from the police was the straw that broke the camel's back for many. This is what caused tensions to reach the boiling point resulting in a riot. Nothing but screw ups from the Police since the shooting.
And you or others dare to refer to them as thieving animals?
I don't condone the rioting, but at least when the residents of Ferguson rose up only property was damaged. The same can not be said for those who rose up against the BLM. They came locked & loaded, and ready to kill & be killed. Had the 23,000 residents of Ferguson or perhaps even the small group who did riot instead chose armed confrontation, what would have been the result?
-
Agreed. When a culture glorifies having served prison time, having "kills" under one's belt, being financially irresponsible, committing domestic violence, joining criminal enterprises such as street gangs, and has an entertainment subculture that continuously glorifies and encourages these things as well, there are bound to be endless problems within such a culture.
The only "cultures" glorifying having served prison time, or having "kills" under one's belt, being financially irresponsible, committing domestic violence etc., etc., are "criminal cultures" & "military".
That's not Black culture. That's criminal culture. Your comments reveal an unstated mindset that says simply because the majority of Ferguson's residents are Black, they support these things. Free your mind! ::)
-
Do you actually read something before you react? Those vehicles depicted have nothing to do with the uprising in Ferguson. Those were vehicles gifted to various Police Depts in Ohio, including campus police.
Do you really think university campuses have need for these. Do you really think they'll make the trek over to the chemistry lab a little safer?
Yes, it was the uprising in Ferguson that resulted in the National Guard being called in, however, it was the piss poor response of a militarized police force violating the rates of the citizens of Ferguson that lit the fuse to the rioting in the first place. That's what so many people seem to be missing.
The people in Ferguson... both Black & White, had had enough of being oppressed by a police that treats them and their community like a foreign war zone. The blatant violation & suppression of their constitutional & civil rights, while peacefully protesting and demanding accountability from the police was the straw that broke the camel's back for many. This is what caused tensions to reach the boiling point resulting in a riot. Nothing but screw ups from the Police since the shooting.
And you or others dare to refer to them as thieving animals?
I don't condone the rioting, but at least when the residents of Ferguson rose up only property was damaged. The same can not be said for those who rose up against the BLM. They came locked & loaded, and ready to kill & be killed. Had the 23,000 residents of Ferguson or perhaps even the small group who did riot instead chose armed confrontation, what would have been the result?
You live in an alternative reality. This is the story in a nut shell. Obese idiot robs liquor store, assaults cop, gets killed resulting in more idiots stealing stuff. This isn't an uprising. It's only a matter of time before they return to killing and robbing each without any respect for human life. They didnt rebel, they stole.
-
Give this a read
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html
So, the very first sentence of that article shows where the author's agenda lies,
but I still skimmed it to see if the piece contained any worthwhile information.
It appears to contain all of the same distortions and misinterpretations as the
earlier piece you posted.
I'm not gonna do a line by line analysis, which wouldn't be worth it, as I'm sure you are already typing
your response about my selective liberal comprehension, but here are two things that jumped out.
He says that Michael Tonry wrote this:
“Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,”
...but glosses over the fact that the very next sentence in the book is this:
"Those on the far right are likely to be offended by my conclusion that cynical policies of the Bush and Reagan administrations,
and not racial differences in patters of offending, are the principal reason that racial disparities in the justice system
steadily worsened after 1980."
...which is what I said.
The author of that piece also says this:
The media’s favorite criminologist, Alfred Blumstein, found in 1993 that blacks were significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their presence in arrest.
Though he seems to think that info supports his case, it actually does the opposite, if blacks are being arrested significantly more than they are being convicted, that means they are being falsely arrested at significantly higher levels.
For the record, I never said that blacks don't commit crimes at a higher proportional rate. I have actually agreed with that a few times in this thread. That doesn't change the fact that we are also arrested falsely more often, targeted for minor offenses more often, sentenced disproportianately,etc.
-
if the arrest rate would likely stay flat then youre saying it is more effective to perform stop and frisk on blacks than whites....WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING!!!!!
That is not what I said. I said the arrest rate would likely stay flat. Not increase, not drop, likely stay flat. And still, that's beside the point.
-
This thread is a classic example of what goes on in every political debate:
Facts/data/evidence is presented that counters the Lefty's stance, so he just cries racism.
They have nothing but emotion and the race card.
-
This thread is a classic example of what goes on in every political debate:
Facts/data/evidence is presented that counters the Lefty's stance, so he just cries racism.
They have nothing but emotion and the race card.
Almost every "fact" that Archer has presented has been inaccurate. The original article he posted was wildly inaccurate, his assertion that stop and frisk was effective was wrong, this latest article just ignored whatever facts were inconvenient, even when they were contained within the very article. But, yeah, when being preached to while sitting in the front row of the choir, those "facts" must seem pretty convincing ::)
-
Almost every "fact" that Archer has presented has been inaccurate. The original article he posted was wildly inaccurate, his assertion that stop and frisk was effective was wrong, this latest article just ignored whatever facts were inconvenient, even when they were contained within the very article. But, yeah, when being preached to while sitting in the front row of the choir, those "facts" must seem pretty convincing ::)
He's an idiot, which is all too obvious for anyone who has eyes to see.