Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on January 04, 2015, 06:36:12 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/black-brunch-protests-nyc-berkeley-oakland-190212742.html
Apparently they go into eating establishments with mostly white patrons during breakfast/lunch periods and read the names of black people killed by cops.
hahaha seriously the delusion of these fuckwits. If they think that cops are the issue and not the moral/family values of the black community its no wonder black communities are in such disarray.
I wonder why they have never read the names of blacks killed by blacks at the resteraunts with black patrons, probably b/c they would be there until the place shuts down.
-
Retarded.
Should white people then go into resteraunts with mostly black people and read lists of white people murdered by black people?
-
Retarded.
Should white people then go into resteraunts with mostly black people and read lists of white people murdered by black people?
No. Red lobster and popeyes chicken are not places any decent white person, or any person for that matter goes oo
-
No way, I love me some Popeyes
-
Retarded.
Should white people then go into resteraunts with mostly black people and read lists of white people murdered by black people?
That would take a lot longer. They might have to go in shifts.
If this shit keeps up I'm gonna join the Klan. :D
-
This type of behavior just polarizes race relations in this country
Can you imagine if White's started doing this ? shootings and riots and violence by the thugs would be incredible, then the media would defend it and say it's decades of bottled up grief and frustration by the thugs ... then a special would be run by one of the major broadcasting companies along the lines of '' thugs in America, people without hope..." and document all the inequalities the thugs face in America ::)
The double standard in America is unbelievable ???
Whitey goes out and conquers the world, brings prosperity, education, social institutions, medicine, science, the arts ... and then FEELS BAD ABOUT IT
And watches what he created be destroyed..... ???
-
This type of behavior just polarizes race relations in this country
Can you imagine if White's started doing this ? shootings and riots and violence by the thugs would be incredible, then the media would defend it and say it's decades of bottled up grief and frustration by the thugs ... then a special would be run by one of the major broadcasting companies along the lines of '' thugs in America, people without hope..." and document all the inequalities the thugs face in America ::)
The double standard in America is unbelievable ???
Whitey goes out and conquers the world, brings prosperity, education, social institutions, medicine, science, the arts ... and then FEELS BAD ABOUT IT
And watches what he created be destroyed..... ???
Epic truth. These fergusons should be on their knees thanking america- america has done more more blacks than any nation ever. The black race has never had it better, anywhere, at any point in history, than they do in modern day america.
-
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/01/04/no-respect-hands-up-dont-shoot-rabble-break-up-awards-ceremony-for-100-year-old-wwii-veteran-170406
This is the type of worthless scum and animals we are dealing with.
-
This is so stupid. And it's definitely polarizing. I am sure most of the people who are trying to enjoy some decent food get pretty upset by that kind of crap.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/black-brunch-protests-nyc-berkeley-oakland-190212742.html
Apparently they go into eating establishments with mostly white patrons during breakfast/lunch periods and read the names of black people killed by cops.
hahaha seriously the delusion of these fuckwits. If they think that cops are the issue and not the moral/family values of the black community its no wonder black communities are in such disarray.
I wonder why they have never read the names of blacks killed by blacks at the resteraunts with black patrons, probably b/c they would be there until the place shuts down.
you seem to be awfully interested in the lives of black people....ANOTHER BLACK OBSESSION THREAD ???
-
These so called protests are going to back fire. People are growing tired of it. The media that made this mess has put back into context the evidence that shows the officer was justified. You see the growing dissent of this 'argument' with the dislike of Sharpton and Deblasio.
-
These so called protests are going to back fire. People are growing tired of it. The media that made this mess has put back into context the evidence that shows the officer was justified. You see the growing dissent of this 'argument' with the dislike of Sharpton and Deblasio.
Anecdotally, it seems like it's just the opposite in NY. There was some backlash against DiBlasio immediately following the shootings, but more and more it seems like people are pointing out how childish and ridiculous the NYPD is acting. And from some pretty unexpected quarters, too.
-
Anecdotally, it seems like it's just the opposite in NY. There was some backlash against DiBlasio immediately following the shootings, but more and more it seems like people are pointing out how childish and ridiculous the NYPD is acting. And from some pretty unexpected quarters, too.
Nonsense - most people I deal w want these welfare thugs tossed in the harlem river where they belong.
-
Nonsense - most people I deal w want these welfare thugs tossed in the harlem river where they belong.
You mean your various personalities? I don't have any hardcore stats, but the political tension definitely feels like it died down a lot. Most people seem to realize that the funeral grandstanding is just that. The killings had nothing to do with anything DiBlasio has said or done.
-
You mean your various personalities? I don't have any hardcore stats, but the political tension definitely feels like it died down a lot. Most people seem to realize that the funeral grandstanding is just that. The killings had nothing to do with anything DiBlasio has said or done.
Of course they did. That's why the cops are protesting. He ran on an anti-cop platform, falsely blamed Garner's death on centuries of racism, and told the world that he feeds his son the lie that he should be afraid of the police. All of that helped create a toxic atmosphere and all but invited people to disobey and disrespect law enforcement.
-
Of course they did. He ran on an anti-cop platform, falsely blamed Garner's death on centuries of racism, and told the world that he feeds his son the lie that he should be afraid of the police. All of that helped create a toxic atmosphere and all but invited people to disobey and disrespect law enforcement.
::) This post is inaccurate in it's entirety, but I'll stick with that last sentence. DiBlasio had nothing to do with creating a "toxic environment". I'm not sure what fantasy world you dingbats who say stuff like this live in, but tension between cops and certain minority communities is not some imaginary problem that exists only become DiBlasio and Al Sharpton want to be on the news.
-
::) This post is inaccurate in it's entirety, but I'll stick with that last sentence. DiBlasio had nothing to do with creating a "toxic environment". I'm not sure what fantasy world you dingbats who say stuff like this live in, but tension between cops and certain minority communities is not some imaginary problem that exists only become DiBlasio and Al Sharpton want to be on the news.
::). I live in the world that allows political extremists like you to have free speech, while wearing wear blinders, and plugging your ears. It's delusional radicals like who walk around spouting that "hands up don't shoot" canard, while wearing an "I can't breath" t-shirt.
What's truly imaginary is that centuries of racism caused Garner's death. Unmitigated BS.
-
::) This post is inaccurate in it's entirety, but I'll stick with that last sentence. DiBlasio had nothing to do with creating a "toxic environment". I'm not sure what fantasy world you dingbats who say stuff like this live in, but tension between cops and certain minority communities is not some imaginary problem that exists only become DiBlasio and Al Sharpton want to be on the news.
I'm pretty sure nobody hated cops, nobody killed cops, and nobody felt any kind of police abuse until that idiot shoplifted cigars and teh NY Mayor stuck his nose in.
Therefore we can now blame the mayor for every police death that ever happens. It's cool to protest at funerals now - it's not just for Westboro folks anymore!
-
No fucks given, they did it in Berkley hipster food joints that are filled with weak, self hating betas who actually stood up and did a raised fist as these turds bullied the other patrons.
When they try this shit in a working mans diner or taqueria let me know...
-
Of course they did. That's why the cops are protesting. He ran on an anti-cop platform, falsely blamed Garner's death on centuries of racism, and told the world that he feeds his son the lie that he should be afraid of the police. All of that helped create a toxic atmosphere and all but invited people to disobey and disrespect law enforcement.
Yeah, he ran on an anti-cop platform and was ELECTED. NYPD might want to think about that.
-
Yeah, he ran on an anti-cop platform and was ELECTED. NYPD might want to think about that.
That's partly why they don't like him. I don't blame them.
-
::). I live in the world that allows political extremists like you to have free speech, while wearing wear blinders, and plugging your ears. It's delusional radicals like who walk around spouting that "hands up don't shoot" canard, while wearing an "I can't breath" t-shirt.
What's truly imaginary is that centuries of racism caused Garner's death. Unmitigated BS.
This is the kind of insanity that explains why you would think a negative view of the police is something that only came into existence about a year ago. ::) Relations were so great that someone who ran on what you describe as an "anti-cop" platform won the election. Gee, I wonder why that would be?
-
This is the kind of insanity that explains why you would think a negative view of the police is something that only came into existence about a year ago. ::) Relations were so great that someone who ran on what you describe as an "anti-cop" platform won the election. Gee, I wonder why that would be?
Who said that? lol
-
That's partly why they don't like him. I don't blame them.
Yeah, they should just hate on him rather than consider maybe their doing something wrong, lol.
Strong logic.
You amuse me! (in a Joe Pesci voice)
-
doh...I meant 'they are'!
self-ownage.
-
Yeah, they should just hate on him rather than consider maybe their doing something wrong, lol.
Strong logic.
You amuse me! (in a Joe Pesci voice)
No. They should condemn his actions and engage in peaceful protests. Didn't say anything about hate. And I completely understand why they don't like him.
But then again, aren't you one of those who believe we live in a police state?
-
No. They should condemn his actions and engage in peaceful protests. Didn't say anything about hate. And I completely understand why they don't like him.
But then again, aren't you one of those who believe we live in a police state?
Or, they should accept they are doing something wrong. Apparently the majority of NY's - you know, the one's actually dealing with NYPD - clearly feel there is a serious problem.
And no, but I think we're trending in that direction. Probably won't happen in my life time or my kids, but on the present course, I think that's the inevitable result of continuously putting thousands upon thousands of new laws, rules, and regulations from multiple levels of government.
-
Or, they should accept they are doing something wrong. Apparently the majority of NY's - you know, the one's actually dealing with NYPD - clearly feel there is a serious problem.
And no, but I think we're trending in that direction. Probably won't happen in my life time or my kids, but on the present course, I think that's the inevitable result of continuously putting thousands upon thousands of new laws, rules, and regulations from multiple levels of government.
Yeah they're doing something wrong like helping dramatically reduce crime. The horror.
Who says the voters made their decision on de Blasio because of, rather than in spite of, his anti-cop views?
I don't think we're anywhere near a police state, unless you have your own definition.
-
Yeah, they should just hate on him rather than consider maybe their doing something wrong, lol.
Strong logic.
You amuse me! (in a Joe Pesci voice)
same could be said for the fucknuts that voted for in as a result of his anti police policy....what do you think causes more issues, police abusing their powers or fucknuts breaking the law?
-
Nothing but an pointless empty gesture. If they value black lives they need to work harder on improving black communities. All the effort invested in meaningless and useless "protesting" could have been funneled into community improvement programs. These protests are nothing but ego trips by fools desperate to be part of something bigger than themselves.
-
you seem to be awfully interested in the lives of black people....ANOTHER BLACK OBSESSION THREAD ???
LMFAO are you serious kid?
the inferiority complex that most blacks have causes them to obsess over whites all the time. You dont see whites rioting when a black kills a white do you? you dont see black people rioting when a black kills a black do you?
I have said it for a long time now, the worst problem facing blacks is their own mindsets/values in their communities.
-
Yeah they're doing something wrong like helping dramatically reduce crime. The horror.
Who says the voters made their decision on de Blasio because of, rather than in spite of, his anti-cop views?
I don't think we're anywhere near a police state, unless you have your own definition.
Yeah, that's all their doing, fighting crime, lol.
There is no standard definition for police state and your opinion carries the same weight as mine or any other. In fact, when I was getting my grad degree in government, it's hard as hell just to define our own government. And, it often rests on the opinion of the person doing the evaluation.
That's why I typically avoid such arguments as they go nowhere.
-
same could be said for the fucknuts that voted for in as a result of his anti police policy....what do you think causes more issues, police abusing their powers or fucknuts breaking the law?
Not sure what that has to do with it. A problem is a problem. Comparing it to a bigger problem changes nothing. Both need a resolution.
-
Not sure what that has to do with it. A problem is a problem. Comparing it to a bigger problem changes nothing. Both need a resolution.
in many instances both of these problems are intertwined with one another.
Do you really think garner would have been put in a "choke hold" if he had not resisted arrest?
-
in many instances both of these problems are intertwined with one another.
Do you really think garner would have been put in a "choke hold" if he had not resisted arrest?
The difference is that police corruption or brutality is something that is rarely dealt with. That is why the Ferguson thread iI posted earlier today is notable, even if you don't see any problems with the outcome. The prosecutor didn't put on a thorough case but is presenting it to the media like he did. It's an open secret that cases with cops aren't prosecuted vigorously. Why you think this issue begins and ends with blacks being killed is beyond me.
-
The difference is that police corruption or brutality is something that is rarely dealt with. That is why the Ferguson thread iI posted earlier today is notable, even if you don't see any problems with the outcome. The prosecutor didn't put on a thorough case but is presenting it to the media like he did. It's an open secret that cases with cops aren't prosecuted vigorously. Why you think this issue begins and ends with blacks being killed is beyond me.
there you go sticking words in my mouth again. I never said the issue begins and ends with blacks killing blacks but you do realize that is a much bigger issue for the black communities than aggressive policing dont you? I mean its not even on the map in comparison to blacks killing blacks.
I can agree that police brutality is something that is dealt with at a lower rate and needs to be addressed. The issue that the protestors should have is with the bigger problem however. How many protests have their been for blacks killed by blacks?
how many protests have their been for whites killed by blacks?
this is just another issue in the long line of issues that the black community has placed out in front to keep from addressing the root of the issues in their communities.
-
Nothing but an pointless empty gesture. If they value black lives they need to work harder on improving black communities. All the effort invested in meaningless and useless "protesting" could have been funneled into community improvement programs. These protests are nothing but ego trips by fools desperate to be part of something bigger than themselves.
I guess seems to be the move now.
Every Joe Schmoe and his 90 year old grandmother are labeled "white supremecists" while just trying to eat a peaceful lunch at a restaurant.
-
there you go sticking words in my mouth again. I never said the issue begins and ends with blacks killing blacks but you do realize that is a much bigger issue for the black communities than aggressive policing dont you? I mean its not even on the map in comparison to blacks killing blacks.
I never said that, either. What I did say is that the issue of police brutality doesn't begin and end with blacks being killed. Blacks aren't the only ones who are victims of over-aggressive police. Death isn't the only outcome of overaggressive policing tactics.
(For the record, even though it's completely unrelated to my point, most people- of ANY race are killed by people of the same race.)
I can agree that police brutality is something that is dealt with at a lower rate and needs to be addressed. The issue that the protestors should have is with the bigger problem however. How many protests have their been for blacks killed by blacks?
Why? Because you say so?
how many protests have their been for whites killed by blacks?
How many blacks go to trial and are acquitted of killing whites? How many blacks killed cops and got off?
this is just another issue in the long line of issues that the black community has placed out in front to keep from addressing the root of the issues in their communities.
Naw. Overpolicing is a pretty serious problem and these recent cases are just tipping points.
-
Why? Because you say so?
LMFAO not b/c I say so bc it is a much bigger problem than overpolicing for the black community
How many blacks go to trial and are acquitted of killing whites? How many blacks killed cops and got off?
Why dont you tell us albert?
what % of blacks are guilty? what % of the cops are guilty?
Naw. Overpolicing is a pretty serious problem and these recent cases are just tipping points.
you seriously think that overpolicing is a bigger issue than black on black crime in the black community?
-
LMFAO not b/c I say so bc it is a much bigger problem than overpolicing for the black community
LOL then because you say so. ::) You don't get to dictate what is an important issue to others.
Why dont you tell us albert?
what % of blacks are guilty? what % of the cops are guilty?
::)
you seriously think that overpolicing is a bigger issue than black on black crime in the black community?
It is a pretty serious issue. Whether or not it's a bigger issue than " black on black crime in the black community" (a completely stupid turn of phrase), is really beside the point.
-
Yeah, that's all their doing, fighting crime, lol.
There is no standard definition for police state and your opinion carries the same weight as mine or any other. In fact, when I was getting my grad degree in government, it's hard as hell just to define our own government. And, it often rests on the opinion of the person doing the evaluation.
That's why I typically avoid such arguments as they go nowhere.
By and large, yes, they fight crime. And in NYC they have done it remarkably well according to the statistics I've heard.
Actually there is a standard definition of "police state," unless you don't consider the dictionary to be standard:
"a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police%20state
-
By and large, yes, they fight crime. And in NYC they have done it remarkably well according to the statistics I've heard.
No, they don't. They mostly collect revenue. In the last couple of weeks, the decline in summonses and petty arrests isn't them not fighting crime. It's them not collecting revenue.
-
No, they don't. They mostly collect revenue. In the last couple of weeks, the decline in summonses and petty arrests isn't them not fighting crime. It's them not collecting revenue.
Good Lord. ::)
Take a look at Ferguson. Those animals would have overrun the entire friggin city without the cops enforcing the law.
As I've said before, we are one step removed from anarchy. Law enforcement is one of the primary reasons who maintain that one step.
-
By and large, yes, they fight crime. And in NYC they have done it remarkably well according to the statistics I've heard.
Actually there is a standard definition of "police state," unless you don't consider the dictionary to be standard:
"a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police%20state
C'mon Beach, I know you're smarter than that. The issue at hand is 'how' they are fighting the crime.
No, that is not a standard definition, it's a definition. And, I wouldn't even assign it common use. More commonly, you see something along the lines of how the CIA does it:
Government type
This entry gives the basic form of government. Definitions of the major governmental terms are as follows. (Note that for some countries more than one definition applies.):
Absolute monarchy - a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution, or legally organized opposition.
Anarchy - a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.
Authoritarian - a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives.
Commonwealth - a nation, state, or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.
Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).
Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces, or territories, that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.
Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government.
Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.
Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.
Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.
Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Dictatorship - a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).
Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.
Emirate - similar to a monarchy or sultanate, but a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.
Federal (Federation) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided - usually by means of a constitution - between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.
Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.
Islamic republic - a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.
Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.
Marxism - the political, economic, and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society - Communism.
Marxism-Leninism - an expanded form of communism developed by Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers' struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.
Monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign - such as a king, queen, or prince - with constitutionally limited authority.
Oligarchy - a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.
Parliamentary democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.
Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) - a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.
Parliamentary monarchy - a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor - who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).
Presidential - a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).
Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.
Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.
Sultanate - similar to a monarchy, but a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.
Theocracy - a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, but the Deity's laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.
Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html
Notice 'Police State' is not even on there.
Like I said, it's just an argument that goes in circles. Somebody will claim England is Socialist, someone else will claim England is a form of Capitalism (thinking back to two posters in particular, lol).
-
LOL then because you say so. ::) You don't get to dictate what is an important issue to others.
::)
It is a pretty serious issue. Whether or not it's a bigger issue than " black on black crime in the black community" (a completely stupid turn of phrase), is really beside the point.
no it is more important b/c it blacks killing blacks has a much more negative impact on the community than cops overpolicing.
no it is not beside the point. Why are blacks not protesting that? what are blacks not coming up with "blacklivesmatter" when its blacks killing blacks. More blacks are killed by other blacks than police by far!!!!
-
Good Lord. ::)
Take a look at Ferguson. Those animals would have overrun the entire friggin city without the cops enforcing the law.
As I've said before, we are one step removed from anarchy. Law enforcement is one of the primary reasons who maintain that one step.
I'm not even gonna take issue with the specifics of this statement. Ferguson, is not, "by and large", what most cops do on a daily basis. If you want to make the argument that the EXISTENCE of law enforcement maintains order, then... whatever. But at least 90% (and probably as high as 99%) of what the NYPD does is generating revenue.
-
no it is more important b/c it blacks killing blacks has a much more negative impact on the community than cops overpolicing.
That's not accurate.
Besides, the two problems and their respective solutions aren't even comparable.
no it is not beside the point. Why are blacks not protesting that? what are blacks not coming up with "blacklivesmatter" when its blacks killing blacks. More blacks are killed by other blacks than police by far!!!!
Yes, it is. The existence of one problem doesn't negate the existence of the other.
-
That's not accurate.
Besides, the two problems and their respective solutions aren't even comparable.
its incredibly accurate and youre right it is much easier to change your own behavior than to change someone elses.
Yes, it is. The existence of one problem doesn't negate the existence of the other.
completely agree and I think police abuse should be addressed but again the issues in the black community weigh much heavier on the prosperity of the average member than police actions.
You get a much bigger bang for your buck by addressing the issues in the community than the police....
-
its incredibly accurate and youre right it is much easier to change your own behavior than to change someone elses.
completely agree and I think police abuse should be addressed but again the issues in the black community weigh much heavier on the prosperity of the average member than police actions.
You get a much bigger bang for your buck by addressing the issues in the community than the police....
Nah. You're just uninformed. The draconian drug measures in this country and how they impact black and latino men in this country is not just an issue of protesting to change one's own behavior.
-
C'mon Beach, I know you're smarter than that. The issue at hand is 'how' they are fighting the crime.
No, that is not a standard definition, it's a definition. And, I wouldn't even assign it common use. More commonly, you see something along the lines of how the CIA does it:
Government type
This entry gives the basic form of government. Definitions of the major governmental terms are as follows. (Note that for some countries more than one definition applies.):
Absolute monarchy - a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution, or legally organized opposition.
Anarchy - a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.
Authoritarian - a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives.
Commonwealth - a nation, state, or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.
Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).
Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces, or territories, that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.
Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government.
Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.
Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.
Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.
Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Dictatorship - a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).
Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.
Emirate - similar to a monarchy or sultanate, but a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.
Federal (Federation) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided - usually by means of a constitution - between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.
Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.
Islamic republic - a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.
Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.
Marxism - the political, economic, and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society - Communism.
Marxism-Leninism - an expanded form of communism developed by Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers' struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.
Monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign - such as a king, queen, or prince - with constitutionally limited authority.
Oligarchy - a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.
Parliamentary democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.
Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) - a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.
Parliamentary monarchy - a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor - who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).
Presidential - a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).
Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.
Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.
Sultanate - similar to a monarchy, but a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.
Theocracy - a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, but the Deity's laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.
Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html
Notice 'Police State' is not even on there.
Like I said, it's just an argument that goes in circles. Somebody will claim England is Socialist, someone else will claim England is a form of Capitalism (thinking back to two posters in particular, lol).
What about the "how" they fight crime in NYC? They have been doing it pretty well. I understand there are abuses, but those are the exception. Also, most of their crime fighting is done in high crime areas, which are places where people are breaking the law.
How is the dictionary definition not standard?
I wouldn't use the CIA as an example, because they only deal with foreign governments/issues.
-
Nah. You're just uninformed. The draconian drug measures in this country and how they impact black and latino men in this country is not just an issue of protesting to change one's own behavior.
hahah as a minority myself I can tell you first hand that changing your own behavior is the key to rising above those small issues you mentioned. I have many friends who fell into that life and made shit decisions. I and many of my other friends for the most part stayed focused on becoming successful and guess what we are.....
-
hahah as a minority myself I can tell you first hand that changing your own behavior is the key to rising above those small issues you mentioned. I have many friends who fell into that life and made shit decisions. I and many of my other friends for the most part stayed focused on becoming successful and guess what we are.....
Nah. Like I said. You're just not a very well-informed guy.
-
Nah. Like I said. You're just not a very well-informed guy.
hahah sure boss sure ;)
-
hahah sure boss sure ;)
Your above post was idiocy. It has nothing to do with nothing. The fact that you would call huge systemic problems "small problems" and think whatever nonsense you got into as a kid has anything to do with that just proves how uninformed you are. Overpolicing is one of the most destructive forces in America right now and that destruction is falls disproportionately on minorities by design. Of course it is a subject that is deserving of protests and massive public outcry. You are an idiot. Just because you are an idiot, doesn't mean that the subjects your tiny brain can't comprehend shouldn't matter to anyone.
-
If you want to have an actual debate about this, I'd be glad to ;)
(Not about you being an idiot. There's no debate about that. About the destructiveness of overpolicing on minority communities )
-
If you want to have an actual debate about this, I'd be glad to ;)
(Not about you being an idiot. There's no debate about that. About the destructiveness of overpolicing on minority communities )
Is there data on this that indicates this "design"? If so why do you suppose it's this way?
It would seem to me an area with higher violent crime rates warrant more policing.
There are many neighborhoods I can walk around at night with little worry and there are neighborhoods I would never walk around at night in.
It seems to make better sense to focus police in areas with higher crimes rates.
I am interested in yours or another view on this.
I don't think I agree much with what you're saying, but I believe I could be just plain naive about it. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and have spent plenty of time in "minority neighborhoods" both affluent and poor, white, black, Hispanics and Asian.
-
LMFAO are you serious kid?
the inferiority complex that most blacks have causes them to obsess over whites all the time. You dont see whites rioting when a black kills a white do you? you dont see black people rioting when a black kills a black do you?
I have said it for a long time now, the worst problem facing blacks is their own mindsets/values in their communities.
He doesn't seem to realise that for the most part, whites don't give a flying fuck about blacks. They're just ... 'there'
-
hahah as a minority myself I can tell you first hand that changing your own behavior is the key to rising above those small issues you mentioned. I have many friends who fell into that life and made shit decisions. I and many of my other friends for the most part stayed focused on becoming successful and guess what we are.....
Didn't know you were a minority. Actually strange to see a minority with good values of responsibility, education and taking control of your own life. And never accepting BS excuses or pointing at others instead of yourself for your miserable fucking life.
There's some people on here that can learn from that
-
http://news.yahoo.com/black-brunch-protests-nyc-berkeley-oakland-190212742.html
Apparently they go into eating establishments with mostly white patrons during breakfast/lunch periods and read the names of black people killed by cops.
hahaha seriously the delusion of these fuckwits. If they think that cops are the issue and not the moral/family values of the black community its no wonder black communities are in such disarray.
I wonder why they have never read the names of blacks killed by blacks at the resteraunts with black patrons, probably b/c they would be there until the place shuts down.
WaPo debunked the "every 28 hours" narrative these miscreants were pushing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/24/the-viral-claim-that-a-black-person-is-killed-by-police-every-28-hours/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/24/the-viral-claim-that-a-black-person-is-killed-by-police-every-28-hours/)
-
If you want to have an actual debate about this, I'd be glad to ;)
(Not about you being an idiot. There's no debate about that. About the destructiveness of overpolicing on minority communities )
Over policing? Most areas dominated by "minorities" would be worse than Somalia within weeks without welfare checks and cops.
-
By: Patrick J. Buchanan
After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”
Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.
If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?
And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership.
Today, 73 percent of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Growing up, these kids drop out, use drugs, are unemployed, commit crimes and are incarcerated at many times the rate of Asians and whites — or Hispanics, who are taking the jobs that used to go to young black Americans.
Are white vigilantes or white cops really Black America’s problem?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.creators.com%2Fconservative%2Fpat-buchanan%2Fblack-america-s-real-problem-isn-t-white-racism.html&ei=LfGrVNqCOceegwS484PwBw&usg=AFQjCNF0zqOuzlinIJhqSjBlR9zIy12p_g
-
Anecdotally, it seems like it's just the opposite in NY. There was some backlash against DiBlasio immediately following the shootings, but more and more it seems like people are pointing out how childish and ridiculous the NYPD is acting. And from some pretty unexpected quarters, too.
We have a difference of opinion. I forgot the name of the term. But it's some legal term or sociology term that describes what certain people see on the news, television, etc. and how they alter it to fit their own bias. I feel the recent events are annoying people. It's black people basically targeting white stores or just interrupting day to day life.
Who wants their Christmas tree lighting event to be disrupted, their shopping, their meals, their errands, their sense of quiet and enjoyment?
I see it as people becoming annoyed be these protesters.
-
By: Patrick J. Buchanan
After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”
Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.
If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?
And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership.
Today, 73 percent of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Growing up, these kids drop out, use drugs, are unemployed, commit crimes and are incarcerated at many times the rate of Asians and whites — or Hispanics, who are taking the jobs that used to go to young black Americans.
Are white vigilantes or white cops really Black America’s problem?
Link please.
-
hahah as a minority myself I can tell you first hand that changing your own behavior is the key to rising above those small issues you mentioned. I have many friends who fell into that life and made shit decisions. I and many of my other friends for the most part stayed focused on becoming successful and guess what we are.....
a failure? :)
-
I guess seems to be the move now.
Every Joe Schmoe and his 90 year old grandmother are labeled "white supremecists" while just trying to eat a peaceful lunch at a restaurant.
It's always easier to scapegoat than deal with real problems. This is just a way for the black community to distract itself from the real problems they face and it gives them more attention than they would otherwise get. Meanwhile little Tray-Michael Browntin's life goes on as it always has.
-
It's always easier to scapegoat than deal with real problems. This is just a way for the black community to distract itself from the real problems they face and it gives them more attention than they would otherwise get. Meanwhile little Tray-Michael Browntin's life goes on as it always has.
you find that white supremacist site yet???
-
you find that white supremacist site yet???
Go whine to Ron, crybaby.
-
Go whine to Ron, crybaby.
You should only see the perverted shit he sends me
-
You should only see the perverted shit he sends me
I'm not sure I want to know. It could be anything with his depraved mind. I guess he's been whining to Ron about me. Andreaidawoman is a racist crybaby narc. I'd be careful about exchanging PM's with a narc like him.
-
Go whine to Ron, crybaby.
never went to Ron in my life, honey......I'm an old-timer...no need to....I can handle you myself
-
I'm not sure I want to know. It could be anything with his depraved mind. I guess he's been whining to Ron about me. Andreaidawoman is a racist crybaby narc. I'd be careful about exchanging PM's with a narc like him.
and also I don't mind you personally attacking me but don't spread an obvious lie about me going to Ron...unless you can show proof of that..you're a sissy compared to other guys on here....why would I waste time complaining about YOU???
-
never went to Ron in my life, honey......I'm an old-timer...no need to....I can handle you myself
And you're liar. You can't handle anything. You whine like a crybaby at the drop of a hat.
and also I don't mind you personally attacking me but don't spread an obvious lie about me going to Ron...unless you can show proof of that..you're a sissy compared to other guys on here....why would I waste time complaining about YOU???
Hey dumbass, you're the one that attack me first in this thread. You're the one who started this interaction so don't go playing the victim. You are so oblivious to reality it's sad. And here you go again wetting your diaper.
-
And you're liar. You can't handle anything. You whine like a crybaby at the drop of a hat.
me thinks I'm detecting tears from you now :'( :'( :'(
-
me thinks I'm detecting tears from you now :'( :'( :'(
This doesn't really work when you are the one going out of your way to attack me.
-
And you're liar. You can't handle anything. You whine like a crybaby at the drop of a hat.
Hey dumbass, you're the one that attack me first in this thread. You're the one who started this interaction so don't go playing the victim. You are so oblivious to reality it's sad. And here you go again wetting your diaper.
I'm not playing the victim at all...on getbig there are no victims.....I attacked you good-naturedly....you couldn't take it and stated crying
-
I'm not playing the victim at all...on getbig there are no victims.....I attacked you good-naturedly....you couldn't take it and stated crying
Care to take a poll of getbiggers to see who is the bigger cry baby whiner with a victim complex? Run alone and call the RONBULANCE!
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe
BOOOMMM
-
Care to take a poll of getbiggers to see who is the bigger cry baby whiner with a victim complex? Run alone and call the RONBULANCE!
you actually CARE what these other idiots think about you????....don't be ridiculous....I'm trying to help you....you're OBSESSED with blacks......ask yourself WHY???........why do black people have such ownage of your mind???....get over it and come back to reality man, before you drive yourslf insane....
-
you actually CARE what these other idiots think about you????....don't be ridiculous....I'm trying to help you....you're OBSESSED with blacks......ask yourself WHY???........why do black people have such ownage of your mind???....get over it and come back to reality man, before you drive yourslf insane....
I'm just calling you on your BS. I have important insights into the black mind and culture that I wish to share with getbig. You are to biased and paranoid to offer a subjective opinion on black people. As the Tarzan of getbig my years of study are of vital importance. I didn't address you in this thread at all until you felt compelled to make one of your whiny crybaby comments. I knew immediately that I struck a blow to your fragile ego. How's your marriage going? Do you see the kids?
-
Guys, can we get back to the debate at hand?
and stop the side tracks.
It's always easier to scapegoat than deal with real problems. This is just a way for the black community to distract itself from the real problems they face and it gives them more attention than they would otherwise get. Meanwhile little Tray-Michael Browntin's life goes on as it always has.
-
Guys, can we get back to the debate at hand?
and stop the side tracks.
I thought the comment you quoted was relevant to the issue. These vanity protest do nothing to solve real problems.
-
I'm just calling you on your BS. I have important insights into the black mind and culture that I wish to share with getbig. You are to biased and paranoid to offer a subjective opinion on black people. As the Tarzan of getbig my years of study are of vital importance. I didn't address you in this thread at all until you felt compelled to make one of your whiny crybaby comments. I knew immediately that I struck a blow to your fragile ego. How's your marriage going? Do you see the kids?
"fragile blow to my ego"..on a BODYBUILDING BOARD???...seriously???...you have insight into the black community???...from where??? the Ku Klx Klan website???as a white person you don't even know YOUR OWN history...get over it.....
as for "distractions"....upsetting the status quo is always a distraction for those who want things to remain the same......the vast majority of police shootings of blacks are NEVER DISPUTED by the black community...we do complain about the small number of shootings that appear unjustified....nothing wrong with that....its guys like you who think the criminal justice system is infallable, when every day people are being released from prison due to the innocense project.....also you act as if only blacks dispute shootings..there are an awful lot of whites in these on-going protests as well...
or are those whites just being "whiny"?
-
"fragile blow to my ego"..on a BODYBUILDING BOARD???...seriously???...you have insight into the black community???...from where??? the Ku Klx Klan website???as a white person you don't even know YOUR OWN history...get over it.....
as for "distractions"....upsetting the status quo is always a distraction for those who want things to remain the same......the vast majority of police shootings of blacks are NEVER DISPUTED by the black community...we do complain about the small number of shootings that appear unjustified....nothing wrong with that....its guys like you who think the criminal justice system is infallable, when every day people are ebignreleased from prison due to the innocense project.....also you act as if only blacks dispute shootings..there are an awful lot of whites in these on-going protests as well...
Complain about the small number of shootings that are unjustified? How do you define unjustified? What is your criteria? What percentage of police shootings would be unjustified? What justifies the recent protests? Why are people demonstrating such a strong reaction to a minimal problem-if it exists at all-when there are more pressing problems?
What is the status quo? You also have to prove your opinion on the status quo is factual. The whites participating in the protests are guilt ridden college kids and aging hippies. Having whites protesting doesn't validate or justify the protest at all.
-
"fragile blow to my ego"..on a BODYBUILDING BOARD???...seriously???...you have insight into the black community???...from where??? the Ku Klx Klan website???as a white person you don't even know YOUR OWN history...get over it.....
as for "distractions"....upsetting the status quo is always a distraction for those who want things to remain the same......the vast majority of police shootings of blacks are NEVER DISPUTED by the black community...we do complain about the small number of shootings that appear unjustified....nothing wrong with that....its guys like you who think the criminal justice system is infallable, when every day people are being released from prison due to the innocense project.....also you act as if only blacks dispute shootings..there are an awful lot of whites in these on-going protests as well...
or are those whites just being "whiny"?
I don't think very many people think the criminal justice system is infallible. In fact i don't know anyone that actually does. The system is far from perfect but what's the alternative? Sure there are people who are innocent that get incarcerated and thats why there is an appeal system also. Plus advances in science have helped.
I also don't think there is anything wrong with protests. But to go into restaurants is fucking stupid, unwelcome and should be illegal if it already isn't. It doesn't help what ever cuase and makes it look like its a way to flee from accountability
-
I thought the comment you quoted was relevant to the issue. These vanity protest do nothing to solve real problems.
I agree to a point. Protesting the Brown outcome is one thing. Trying to make this into a national epidemic is counter productive.
-
I agree to a point. Protesting the Brown outcome is one thing. Trying to make this into a national epidemic is counter productive.
Even the Brown protests are nonsensical. The protesters continue to base their outrage based on demonstrably false information.
-
Even the Brown protests are nonsensical. The protesters continue to base their outrage based on demonstrably false information.
They will never see it that way though. So let them protest, its their right. Move on.
-
The delusions of the protestor types, and the resident libs is beyond belief.
The real america is getting sick of putting up with it.
-
They will never see it that way though. So let them protest, its their right. Move on.
I'm not disrupting their ability to protest but I'm not encouraging it either. The problem is that myth is becoming reality for many people and they will use the Brown incident to justify further violence and destruction in the future.
-
I'm not disrupting their ability to protest but I'm not encouraging it either. The problem is that myth is becoming reality for many people and they will use the Brown incident to justify further violence and destruction in the future.
And that's scary. Good thing it didn't out as bad as the Rodney King thing.
-
And that's scary. Good thing it didn't out as bad as the Rodney King thing.
Very true, it is good.
-
Complain about the small number of shootings that are unjustified? How do you define unjustified? What is your criteria? What percentage of police shootings would be unjustified? What justifies the recent protests? Why are people demonstrating such a strong reaction to a minimal problem-if it exists at all-when there are more pressing problems?
What is the status quo? You also have to prove your opinion on the status quo is factual. The whites participating in the protests are guilt ridden college kids and aging hippies. Having whites protesting doesn't validate or justify the protest at all.
okay so you are the great mind reader who says that the whites who are protesting JUST ABSOLUTELY MUST be guilt ridden college kids and hippies...wow.thats not what I have seen since a lot of the protesters appear to be adults and over 30 types....but of course you know all, oh great mind reader.....also just because the shootings of unarmed blacks may be minsicule in number doesn't mean that there isn't a pattern and that we should just ignore it,.....the old quote goes "AN INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS AN INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE"
what I'd like to know is why youfeel the need to show up in EVERY SINGLE RACE THREAD to bestow your great wisdom about black people that is usually totally wrong and without merit???...that says more about you than you realize
-
okay so you are the great mind reader who says that the whites who are protesting JUST ABSOLUTELY MUST be guilt ridden college kids and hippies...wow.thats not what I have seen since a lot of the protesters appear to be adults and over 30 types....but of course you know all, oh great mind reader.....also just because the shootings of unarmed blacks may be minsicule in number doesn't mean that there isn't a pattern and that we should just ignore it,.....the old quote goes "AN INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS AN INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE"
what I'd like to know is why youfeel the need to show up in EVERY SINGLE RACE THREAD to bestow your great wisdom about black people that is usually totally wrong and without merit???...that says more about you than you realize
Why shouldn't I show up? I have as much a right to be here as you do. I also provide constructive criticism. Do you? What injustice? And why do black people seem so selective in what they choose to view as an injustice? Answer my questions please.
Complain about the small number of shootings that are unjustified? How do you define unjustified? What is your criteria? What percentage of police shootings would be unjustified? What justifies the recent protests? Why are people demonstrating such a strong reaction to a minimal problem-if it exists at all-when there are more pressing problems?
What is the status quo? You also have to prove your opinion on the status quo is factual. The whites participating in the protests are guilt ridden college kids and aging hippies. Having whites protesting doesn't validate or justify the protest at all.
-
okay so you are the great mind reader who says that the whites who are protesting JUST ABSOLUTELY MUST be guilt ridden college kids and hippies...wow.thats not what I have seen since a lot of the protesters appear to be adults and over 30 types....but of course you know all, oh great mind reader.....also just because the shootings of unarmed blacks may be minsicule in number doesn't mean that there isn't a pattern and that we should just ignore it,.....the old quote goes "AN INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS AN INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE"
what I'd like to know is why youfeel the need to show up in EVERY SINGLE RACE THREAD to bestow your great wisdom about black people that is usually totally wrong and without merit???...that says more about you than you realize
He shows up to point out your bullshit
-
http://news.yahoo.com/black-brunch-protests-nyc-berkeley-oakland-190212742.html
Apparently they go into eating establishments with mostly white patrons during breakfast/lunch periods and read the names of black people killed by cops.
hahaha seriously the delusion of these fuckwits. If they think that cops are the issue and not the moral/family values of the black community its no wonder black communities are in such disarray.
I wonder why they have never read the names of blacks killed by blacks at the resteraunts with black patrons, probably b/c they would be there until the place shuts down.
Now they're just blatant about their racism.
-
No. They should condemn his actions and engage in peaceful protests. Didn't say anything about hate. And I completely understand why they don't like him.
But then again, aren't you one of those who believe we live in a police state?
because hes calling for police to do their jobs?...
if you get defensive for someone pointing out something, maybe there is something to it
-
Retarded.
Should white people then go into resteraunts with mostly black people and read lists of white people murdered by black people?
isnt that a false equivalence
blacks by cops.
Whites by blacks
i swear racial tribal mentality is fucking sickening. Its damn near a mental defect to me. US vs Them...
I understand its been passed down from generation to generation, but in the information age.. you would expect more....
-
isnt that a false equivalence
blacks by cops.
Whites by blacks
i swear racial tribal mentality is fucking sickening. Its damn near a mental defect to me. US vs Them...
I understand its been passed down from generation to generation, but in the information age.. you would expect more....
Yet them targeting 'white spaces' is not that at all ::)
-
because hes calling for police to do their jobs?...
if you get defensive for someone pointing out something, maybe there is something to it
Because he stood in front of cameras and blamed Garner's death on centuries of racism and said he teaches his son to be afraid of the cops. That's not telling police to do their jobs. That is flat out dishonesty.
Oftentimes, when someone realizes their position is groundless, or they suffer from the very thing they are condemning, they use projection, or accuse people of being defensive.
-
Whitey goes out and conquers the world, brings prosperity, education, social institutions, medicine, science, the arts ... and then FEELS BAD ABOUT IT
And watches what he created be destroyed..... ???
Too much truth being told here. Too real.
Fuck these ignorant morons.
-
Yet them targeting 'white spaces' is not that at all ::)
Targeting white spaces
What is that
-
Targeting white spaces
What is that
From the link in the first post in this thread:
In a twist on sit-in-style protests, civil rights activists entered several restaurants in New York City and Oakland, Calif., on Sunday in what organizers billed as “Black Brunch.”
About three dozen people participated in demonstrations in New York, where they momentarily “disrupted” meals at popular midtown eateries, including Lallisse, Maialino and Pershing Square — places protesters identified as predominantly “white spaces.”
http://news.yahoo.com/black-brunch-protests-nyc-berkeley-oakland-190212742.html
Sounds like "racial tribal mentality" to me.
-
From the link in the first post in this thread:
In a twist on sit-in-style protests, civil rights activists entered several restaurants in New York City and Oakland, Calif., on Sunday in what organizers billed as “Black Brunch.”
About three dozen people participated in demonstrations in New York, where they momentarily “disrupted” meals at popular midtown eateries, including Lallisse, Maialino and Pershing Square — places protesters identified as predominantly “white spaces.”
http://news.yahoo.com/black-brunch-protests-nyc-berkeley-oakland-190212742.html
Sounds like "racial tribal mentality" to me.
it would...to you
-
it would...to you
"Thank you for the link."
"No worries."
-
"Thank you for the link."
"No worries."
is this white people doing this in white restaurants?
-
is this white people doing this in white restaurants?
I would cut and paste more of the article, but you aren't too appreciative when I spoon feed you stuff. :) Read the story.
-
I would cut and paste more of the article, but you aren't too appreciative when I spoon feed you stuff. :) Read the story.
so yes
-
so yes
lol
-
is this white people doing this in white restaurants?
White people are not stupid enough to act like that typically.
-
isnt that a false equivalence
blacks by cops.
Whites by blacks
i swear racial tribal mentality is fucking sickening. Its damn near a mental defect to me. US vs Them...
I understand its been passed down from generation to generation, but in the information age.. you would expect more....
Not exactly.
Assertions are the same: Innocent people died.
I point out that inexact equivalency because the results are the same. If some are going to cry out about innocent blacks getting killed by white cops, then why not cry out about innocent whites getting killed by blacks?
-
Because to the typical racist black person - there is no such thing as an innocent white person ever getting killed by a guilty black.
This is why this entire black lives matter thing is a laughable joke. Honestly - its a complete farce and sham on gullible idiots looking for the cause celeb of the moment. no different than Occupy Wall street, MoveOn, etc - just a bunch of idiot losers w nothing better to do but collect EBT checks and protest Da man
-
Not exactly.
Assertions are the same: Innocent people died.
I point out that inexact equivalency because the results are the same. If some are going to cry out about innocent blacks getting killed by white cops, then why not cry out about innocent whites getting killed by blacks?
The results aren't the same. Every single time I've seen a white victim/black perpetrator story posted and someone comments "Where's Al Sharpton now? He'd be all over the news if these people were black?" the black perpetrator is ALWAYS in police custody. The issue is not just innocent people of various races getting killed. The issue is that if those people are of certain races, their chances of legal repercussions drop drastically
-
I don't think very many people think the criminal justice system is infallible. In fact i don't know anyone that actually does. The system is far from perfect but what's the alternative? Sure there are people who are innocent that get incarcerated and thats why there is an appeal system also. Plus advances in science have helped.
I also don't think there is anything wrong with protests. But to go into restaurants is fucking stupid, unwelcome and should be illegal if it already isn't. It doesn't help what ever cuase and makes it look like its a way to flee from accountability
I never defended these people who go into reastaurants and disrupt the environment.....I don't see the purpose.....however I do take issue with all the unarmed black males who are gunned down by police...its a pattern that cant be ignored.....and if people want to protest about it then fine.....I don't feel a police officer should be taken at his word all the time...if the facts back it up then fine.....but if there is a question then it should be looked into...
Here in NY a guy was just released from serving 20 years in jail after being set up by police....it was found that these police officers who were partners were framing people for decades...yet many on this site see the police and infallable..all I'm saying is keep and open mind
-
The results aren't the same. Every single time I've seen a white victim/black perpetrator story posted and someone comments "Where's Al Sharpton now? He'd be all over the news if these people were black?" the black perpetrator is ALWAYS in police custody. The issue is not just innocent people of various races getting killed. The issue is that if those people are of certain races, there chances of legal repercussions drop drastically
much agreed....and I'm not defending Al Sharpton....I do think he is often a race hustler...BUT....people think ol' Al always comes running when there is a black victim/white perpetrator...actually the victims call Al sharpton because they don't feel they are getting a fair shake...so when people say "where's Al Sharpton when its a white victim, if they call him he will come as well...
However, whites don't feel the need to call.
-
much agreed....and I'm not defending Al Sharpton....I do think he is often a race hustler...BUT....people think ol' Al always comes running when there is a black victim/white perpetrator...actually the victims call Al sharpton because they don't feel they are getting a fair shake...so when people say "where's Al Sharpton when its a white victim, if they call him he will come as well...
However, whites don't feel the need to call.
Whites are better counseled to arm themselves and just shoot back.
-
The results aren't the same. Every single time I've seen a white victim/black perpetrator story posted and someone comments "Where's Al Sharpton now? He'd be all over the news if these people were black?" the black perpetrator is ALWAYS in police custody. The issue is not just innocent people of various races getting killed. The issue is that if those people are of certain races, their chances of legal repercussions drop drastically
They both result in an innocent victim, without it there isn't much an issue.
I don't see their legal repercussions dropping drastically. Perhaps there is some data you can show as i asked you earlier in the thread.
Is there data on this that indicates this "design"? If so why do you suppose it's this way?
It would seem to me an area with higher violent crime rates warrant more policing.
There are many neighborhoods I can walk around at night with little worry and there are neighborhoods I would never walk around at night in.
It seems to make better sense to focus police in areas with higher crimes rates.
I am interested in yours or another view on this.
I don't think I agree much with what you're saying, but I believe I could be just plain naive about it. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and have spent plenty of time in "minority neighborhoods" both affluent and poor, white, black, Hispanics and Asian.
-
I never defended these people who go into reastaurants and disrupt the environment.....I don't see the purpose.....
cool
however I do take issue with all the unarmed black males who are gunned down by police...its a pattern that cant be ignored.....
Ok show me some data on it. But the data you show shoudl also include unarmed whites, hispanics etc gunned down by police as well.
.I don't feel a police officer should be taken at his word all the time...if the facts back it up then fine.....but if there is a question then it should be looked into...
This is the core of the Wilson issue IMO. In the absence of facts and evidence, you only have a person's word. That absence of enough facts and evidence to go to trail may not be enough to win in court, and maybe not close enough even to have a trial.
Here in NY a guy was just released from serving 20 years in jail after being set up by police....it was found that these police officers who were partners were framing people for decades...yet many on this site see the police and infallable..all I'm saying is keep and open mind
Don't know anything about this. What you said here, to me, the peeps saying they are infallible is no different then saying brown was a gentle giant.
-
They both result in an innocent victim, without it there isn't much an issue.
That doesn't mean that it's the entirety of the issue, though.
I don't see their legal repercussions dropping drastically. Perhaps there is some data you can show as i asked you earlier in the thread.
Did not see your earlier post. I will put this in another post.
-
Not exactly.
Assertions are the same: Innocent people died.
I point out that inexact equivalency because the results are the same. If some are going to cry out about innocent blacks getting killed by white cops, then why not cry out about innocent whites getting killed by blacks?
nope..not so...the assertions are not the same in that we are talking about killings of unarmed civilians by a government representative sanctioned by law and authority....its a different argument.....blacks killing white is reprehensible but its a different argument...and if people want to talk about this topic then why don't people start a thread about it???......
-
White people are not stupid enough to act like that typically.
your absolute dumbness is amazing
-
That doesn't mean that it's the entirety of the issue, though.
Agreed
Did not see your earlier post. I will put this in another post.
yeah it got buried ;)
-
nope..not so...the assertions are not the same in that we are talking about killings of unarmed civilians by a government representative sanctioned by law and authority....
I disagree because that person is not sanctioned for unlawful or wrongful killing, just as a normal person is. If a cop pulls a gun and shots a baby for no reason and its caught on 18 video tapes and there are 30 witnesses, is he not going to be charged with murder?
Also, if a cop is found to wrongfully kill someone isn't there repercussions with that also? And isn't it true that if proven its deliberate or premeditated he can be charged with murder and face trial?
its a different argument.....blacks killing white is reprehensible but its a different argument...and if people want to talk about this topic then why don't people start a thread about it???......
maybe because we don't see people busting into restaurants reciting a list of whites murdered by blacks?
-
I disagree because that person is not sanctioned for unlawful or wrongful killing, just as a normal person is. If a cop pulls a gun and shots a baby for no reason and its cough on 18 video tapes and there are 30 witnesses, is he not going to charged with murder?
Also, if a cop is found to wrongfully kill someone isn't there repercussions with that also? And isn't it true that if proven its deliberate or premeditated he can be charge with murder and face trial?
maybe because we don't see people busting into restaurants reciting a list of whites murdered by blacks?
I disagree again....the fact of the matter is a policeman is sanctioned by law and authority to take life if necessary....they are armed for that purpose....not just for self defense....
and you are right when you say that if a policeman DOES take a life there are supposed to be repercussions.....and that's what this is about.....there are too many controversial shootings of unarmed black men where there have been no repercussions....no indictment,.... that's the assertion being made by the protesters....and there were a huge amount of mistakes in the Brown investigation....
also let me say that historically whites HAVE formed mobs to protest and lynch innocent blacks and guilty blacks as well.....whites may not do this today by and large but there is a historical basis for such
Brown was a dickhead, no question.....but did he deserve to die for jaywalking???
-
I disagree again....the fact of the matter is a policeman is sanctioned by law and authority to take life if necessary....they are armed for that purpose....not just for self defense....
I disagree that you disagree with me, we actually agree. they are not allowed take a life indiscriminately
and you are right when you say that if a policeman DOES take a life there are supposed to be repercussions.....and that's what this is about.....there are too many controversial shootings of unarmed black men where there have been no repercussions....no indictment,.... that's the assertion being made by the protesters....and there were a huge amount of mistakes in the Brown investigation....
Which goes back to the core of my argument. There isn't enough to charge him and may not be enough to show he wrongfully killed Brown. If they punish him, termination, suspension etc, on not enough evidence or proof he wrongfully shot brown can he not turn around and sue the city for it? Just because people "feel" it was wrongful doesn't mean is was or wasn't. Even if there are "mistakes" in the investigation it still comes down to whether or not there is enough evidence to punish or charge him.
I hope you are not trying to tell me that any time a white cop wrongfully shots an unarmed black man they always get off.
also let me say that historically whites HAVE formed mobs to protest and lynch innocent blacks and guilty blacks as well.....whites may not do this today by and large but there is a historical basis for such
but in restaurants?
Brown was a dickhead, no question.....but did he deserve to die for jaywalking???
So are you saying this for effect? in ignorance?
Or do you really believe Brown did absolutely nothing but cross the street without a crosswalk and Wilson saw that and shot him?
Seriously Andre, hard to have a good discussion with hyperbole like that. :)
-
Is there data on this that indicates this "design"? If so why do you suppose it's this way?
It would seem to me an area with higher violent crime rates warrant more policing.
There are many neighborhoods I can walk around at night with little worry and there are neighborhoods I would never walk around at night in.
It seems to make better sense to focus police in areas with higher crimes rates.
I am interested in yours or another view on this.
I don't think I agree much with what you're saying, but I believe I could be just plain naive about it. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and have spent plenty of time in "minority neighborhoods" both affluent and poor, white, black, Hispanics and Asian.
So, this is a topic that has a lot of information and a giant post could easily take up an entire page. Obviously, I welcome discourse and if you are really interested in examining a viewpoint you haven't considered, then this can just unfold conversationally, as opposed to a giant information dump. I have posted a lot of this stuff before.
First things first, poverty rates and crime rates are inextricably linked. That's something I've never denied on here. And the poverty rate among blacks is much higher than for the general population. However, people take these facts and distort them into exaggerations that they take for granted as fact. Even with the higher rates of crime and poverty, black=/= criminal, black =/= poor.
* Far and away, most black men who are incarcerated are behind bars on a drug charge. Drug incarceration rates and sentences are ridiculous across races. Since 1985, thanks to the war on drugs incarceration levels for drug offenders have swelled from 41,000 to over half a million. Arrest of blacks have Even though drug charges are ludicrous across races, they disproportionately affect poor and minorities. Multiple studies, some commissioned by government agencies, have concluded that whites are more likely to sell drugs and use drugs (by percentage, not sheer number) but blacks are exponentially more likely to face legal penalties.
-
So, this is a topic that has a lot of information and a giant post could easily take up an entire page. Obviously, I welcome discourse and if you are really interested in examining a viewpoint you haven't considered, then this can just unfold conversationally, as opposed to a giant information dump. I have posted a lot of this stuff before.
First things first, poverty rates and crime rates are inextricably linked. That's something I've never denied on here. And the poverty rate among blacks is much higher than for the general population. However, people take these facts and distort them into exaggerations that they take for granted as fact. Even with the higher rates of crime and poverty, black=/= criminal, black =/= poor.
* Far and away, most black men who are incarcerated are behind bars on a drug charge. Drug incarceration rates and sentences are ridiculous across races. Since 1985, thanks to the war on drugs incarceration levels for drug offenders have swelled from 41,000 to over half a million. Arrest of blacks have Even though drug charges are ludicrous across races, they disproportionately affect poor and minorities. Multiple studies, some commissioned by government agencies, have concluded that whites are more likely to sell drugs and use drugs (by percentage, not sheer number) but blacks are exponentially more likely to face legal penalties.
Cool, thanks Al. Any link on the studies that show whites sell and use drugs more blacks by percentage?
Btw...I think most drugs should be legal.
But go ahead and keep going. You are showing here a discrepancy in drug charges on whites vs blacks?
-
Brown was a dickhead, no question.....but did he deserve to die for jaywalking???
hey albert, do you see what I mean now?
HEY SKIP, DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN NOW???
-
isnt that a false equivalence
blacks by cops.
Whites by blacks
i swear racial tribal mentality is fucking sickening. Its damn near a mental defect to me. US vs Them...
I understand its been passed down from generation to generation, but in the information age.. you would expect more....
LMFAO malbert dont even try guy.
Where are these idiots when a black cop kills a black kid? Where are the riots when that happens?
The whole of these protests started as a result of white cops killing black kids.
-
Didn't know you were a minority. Actually strange to see a minority with good values of responsibility, education and taking control of your own life. And never accepting BS excuses or pointing at others instead of yourself for your miserable fucking life.
There's some people on here that can learn from that
technically Im a half breed half jap/half white but if obama is black I guess I am japanese lol
plenty of minorities like me, most of my friends are either minorities or half breeds such as myself and we are all hard working, educated people who have strong family values.
-
hey albert, do you see what I mean now?
HEY SKIP, DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN NOW???
You got me. Even a broken clock... ;)
-
Cool, thanks Al. Any link on the studies that show whites sell and use drugs more blacks by percentage?
Btw...I think most drugs should be legal.
But go ahead and keep going. You are showing here a discrepancy in drug charges on whites vs blacks?
Here is a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html
If you google, you can find several others.
Drug charges are just one aspect. I don't really have the time (or inclination) to write a thesis tonight, but I will respond to any debate/ clear up any questions. I'm just not gonna write thousand word posts like I might have been inclined to do last night. I legitimately welcome questions/debate on this subject because I think a lot of things that aren't true are taken for granted and exaggerated.
-
I actually got into this with another poster awhile back, but he declined to continue.
If you're interested in checking out the convo it's here, but I am posting two of my posts that I think are relevant:
You don't even have to make assumptions. Ignore incarceration rates. The numbers are even worse when you look at arrest rates. Even though multiple studies have shown that blacks and whites use marijuana at almost the same rate, the arrest rate 4 blacks is nearly 4 times as high.
Here's a link with some comprehensive charts (and, yes, the study was commissioned by that ACLU via federal data);
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nih
The Times also went over the data independently and verified it's accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html
From the Times:
Federal programs like the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program continue to provide incentives for racial profiling, the report said, by including arrest numbers in its performance measures when distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to local law enforcement each year.
Phillip Atiba Goff, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that police departments, partly driven by a desire to increase their drug arrest statistics, can concentrate on minority or poorer neighborhoods to meet numerical goals, focusing on low-level offenses that are easier, quicker and cheaper than investigating serious felony crimes.
“Whenever federal funding agencies encourage law enforcement to meet numerical arrest goals instead of public safety goals, it will likely promote stereotype-based policing and we can expect these sorts of racial gaps,” Professor Goff said.
-
From that same thread:
So here's a link to an article that discusses NY's marijuana arrests on HuffPo. We have this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/of-50000-marijuana-arrest_n_1078023.html
New York's lowest-level marijuana-possession charge – criminal possession of marijuana in the 5th degree, a misdemeanor – has been the most common arrest charge in the city for much of the past decade, and the numbers have been steadily rising. So far this year there have been 38,359 reported arrests. Last year, there were 50,377 arrests citywide, up from 46,492 in 2009, according to statistics from the state Division of Criminal Justice Services. That represents about 616 arrests per 100,000 city residents.
So, here in NYC the fact is that the majority of arrests-much less drug possession arrests- are made explicitly for that sole, low-level charge. Even if you want to try to make the argument that conviction rates reflect black men have more priors, the recidivism rate is artificially inflated by a policy of bullshit charges targeting a certain demographic. As the article points out, it is hard to make direct comparisons across state lines, but keeping in mind how federal funding is handed out and arrest patterns are pretty consistent nationwide, it is pretty likely that the same factors come into play.
-
I disagree again....the fact of the matter is a policeman is sanctioned by law and authority to take life if necessary....they are armed for that purpose....not just for self defense....
and you are right when you say that if a policeman DOES take a life there are supposed to be repercussions.....and that's what this is about.....there are too many controversial shootings of unarmed black men where there have been no repercussions....no indictment,.... that's the assertion being made by the protesters....and there were a huge amount of mistakes in the Brown investigation....
also let me say that historically whites HAVE formed mobs to protest and lynch innocent blacks and guilty blacks as well.....whites may not do this today by and large but there is a historical basis for such
Brown was a dickhead, no question.....but did he deserve to die for jaywalking???
Definitely agree with this. I think it's either dishonest or naive to pretend that there's not a difference between the way things ARE and the way they should be. That's why I posted that Ferguson jury thread yesterday. Even if you agree with the grand jury's outcome, it would be interesting to hear how the juror's impression of the trial differs from the prosecutors. It is an open secret that a case against a cop is not going to be prosecuted vigorously.
-
Here is a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html
If you google, you can find several others.
Drug charges are just one aspect. I don't really have the time (or inclination) to write a thesis tonight, but I will respond to any debate/ clear up any questions. I'm just not gonna write thousand word posts like I might have been inclined to do last night. I legitimately welcome questions/debate on this subject because I think a lot of things that aren't true are taken for granted and exaggerated.
Thanks for the link.
Al, Some of these differences are very marginal at best. For example, cocaine use in the past 12 months .2-.6% differences? Stimulate .1_.3%? Same with crack
Doesn't seem like much of a difference. Am I reading this wrong?
Having used cocaine and "usage" of cocaine are 2 different things. Usage is a better indicator and if you take into account the natural variance in any survey +/-% they are dead even.
-
These baboons protest at lilly white establishment filled with hipsters and old people who voted for liberals. Talk about courage without consequence. I would love to see these apes try to pull the same crap in a white ethnic neighborhood located in one of the outer boros. I can see the headline now: " "Albanians stomp black protestors to death, then finish breakfast."
-
Thanks for the link.
Al, Some of these differences are very marginal at best. For example, cocaine use in the past 12 months .2-.6% differences? Stimulate .1_.3%? Same with crack
Doesn't seem like much of a difference. Am I reading this wrong?
Having used cocaine and "usage" of cocaine are 2 different things. Usage is a better indicator and if you take into account the natural variance in any survey +/-% they are dead even.
Me pointing out the minor disparity between drug activity between races was not meant to imply that whites should be jailed at drastically higher rates than blacks. Just to highlight how odd it was that the incarceration rate for blacks was so much higher.
-
Me pointing out the minor disparity between drug activity between races was not meant to imply that whites should be jailed at drastically higher rates than blacks. Just to highlight how odd it was that the incarceration rate for blacks was so much higher.
Initially the thing that stuck out as strange was the assertion that whites use and sell more drugs at a much higher percentage than blacks.
Multiple studies, some commissioned by government agencies, have concluded that whites are more likely to sell drugs and use drugs
It doesn't seem to be the case and that huffington post article seemed to spin the actual 2011 study a little bit.
I agree (without researching it much) incarceration rates are higher. There may be reasons for this, that don't include a "pattern". Such as how the drugs are sold in these areas and police presence does to other factors.
My focus about this is more on the violent crime aspect, not the drug aspect, but i can see how it may play into over policing.
-
Initially the thing that stuck out as strange was the assertion that whites use and sell more drugs at a much higher percentage than blacks.
I never actually said "much higher" and, like I said, that was neither what I intended to imply nor the point of my argument.
-
I never actually said "much higher" and, like I said, that was neither what I intended to imply nor the point of my argument.
ok, but can we agree that:
Multiple studies, some commissioned by government agencies, have concluded that whites are more likely to sell drugs and use drugs
is really not the case? And that the huffington post article was being a bit untruthful?
-
I never actually said "much higher" and, like I said, that was neither what I intended to imply nor the point of my argument.
Actually whites on average DO use, sell, and possess drugs at a much higher rate than blacks but are not targetyed for such..all statistics state the same..even Rand Paul recently acknowledged this and even he wondered aloud why the descrepancy in arrest rates for blacks and whites.....
and in terms of drug use, whites use a variety of drugs that most blacks don't use...such as mushrooms, LSD, molly, ecstacy, crystal meth....even heroin.......these drugs are mostly prevalent in the white community...who is it that runs all of these illegal meth labs and other labs where synthetic drugs are manufactuired?......blacks are usually into Marijuana...crack cocaine, and heroin
-
Actually whites on average DO use, sell, and possess drugs at a much high rate than blacks but are not targetyed for such..all statistics state the same..even Rand Paul recently acknowledged this and even he wondered aloud why the descrepancy in arrest rates for blacks and whites.....
and in terms of drug use, whites use a variety of drugs that most blacks don't use...such as mushrooms, LSD, molly, ecstacy, crystal meth....even heroin.......these drugs are moslt prevalent in the white community...who is it that runs all of these illegal meth labs and other labs where synthetic drugs are manufactuired?......blacks are usually into Marijuana...crack cocaine, and heroin
NOT based on the study provided. According to the study .4 percent of whites used hallucinogens vs .3 of blacks in the last 30 days.
also cociane: black .6% vs .4% of whites in the last 30 days
I am just going by the study.... if you account for a =/- variance of all studies then they are pretty much even
PS: no need to quote Rand Paul to support your argument thinking i will trust his judgement, i play the 2 side game. i give both sides shit.
-
here's a good one for you:
recency of use in the last 30 days of pot:
whites: 7.2% Blacks 8.3%
Even though its a 1.1% difference the other way its still a very small insignificant difference.
-
misleading.......percent age of use is admittedly high among blacks due to other factiors such as untreated mental illness and poverty...the poor always use more as a percentage of population.......however because there are more whites, the number of whites using daily is higher in hard numbers, also white drug abuse is more varied and often takes the form of addiction to prescription pills, like valium, vicodin, Xanax, etc....
-
ok, but can we agree that:
is really not the case? And that the huffington post article was being a bit untruthful?
I presented that racial comparison that way not because whites outuse blacks by a large degree but because the usage rates are comparable and I assumed someone not familiar with the data would assume otherwise. In retrospect, I could've framed it better but the point was that the usage rates are similar, and if anything tilt slightly towards higher usage from whites, yet incarceration rates are drastically different.
Here is another link from the Brookings Institute.
This guy references a gov't survey.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2014/09/30-war-on-drugs-black-social-mobility-rothwell
For the record, I'm actually not entirely anti-drug prosecution. But the way drug enforcement operates today is a travesty.
-
misleading.......percentage of use is admittedly high among blacks due to other factiors such as untreated mental illness and poverty...the poor always use more as a percentage of population.......however because there are more whites, the number of whites using daily is higher in hard numbers, also white drug abuse is more varied and often takes the form of addiction to prescription pills, like valium, vicodin, Xanax, etc....
What's misleading was the article talking about the study. the study is simple facts.
What's not a fact, based on the study provided, is this:
Multiple studies, some commissioned by government agencies, have concluded that whites are more likely to sell drugs and use drugs
i think, Andre, you are just trying to hold on the your belief rather than actually look at data.
"White must use & sell drugs more, Black are unfairly targeted" right?
did you even look at the study?
-
I presented that racial comparison that way not because whites outuse blacks by a large degree but because the usage rates are comparable and I assumed someone not familiar with the data would assume otherwise. In retrospect, I could've framed it better but the point was that the usage rates are similar, and if anything tilt slightly towards higher usage from whites, yet incarceration rates are drastically different.
Here is another link from the Brookings Institute.
This guy references a gov't survey.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2014/09/30-war-on-drugs-black-social-mobility-rothwell
For the record, I'm actually not entirely anti-drug prosecution. But the way drug enforcement operates today is a travesty.
i will take that as a yes, whites are not "more" likely, just slightly if not insignificantly, inclined to use drugs than blacks.
If you want to keep going in this drug direction we can (and somewhat interested). but i am really interested more in the violent crime aspect because that was originally what i was talking about.
-
i will take that as a yes, whites are not "more" likely, just slightly if not insignificantly, inclined to use drugs than blacks.
If you want to keep going in this drug direction we can (and somewhat interested). but i am really interested more in the violent crime aspect because that was originally what i was talking about.
I feel like you're arguing with a point that was never made, but, technically, even "slightly more" is more.
You can bring up topic/ask question/ direct conversation anyway you like. What do you want to discuss about violent crime?
-
I feel like you're arguing with a point that was never made, but, technically, even "slightly more" is more.
You can bring up topic/ask question/ direct conversation anyway you like. What do you want to discuss about violent crime?
I thought part of your argument about over policing had to do with drug use/sale by whites being higher yet blacks are incarcerated more. I was pointing out that drug use wasn't really higher based on links your provided. And it was spin in the article.
This is what is was originally asking about:
Is there data on this that indicates this "design"? If so why do you suppose it's this way?
It would seem to me an area with higher violent crime rates warrant more policing.
There are many neighborhoods I can walk around at night with little worry and there are neighborhoods I would never walk around at night in.
It seems to make better sense to focus police in areas with higher crimes rates.
I am interested in yours or another view on this.
I don't think I agree much with what you're saying, but I believe I could be just plain naive about it. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and have spent plenty of time in "minority neighborhoods" both affluent and poor, white, black, Hispanics and Asian.
-
I actually got into this with another poster awhile back, but he declined to continue.
If you're interested in checking out the convo it's here, but I am posting two of my posts that I think are relevant:
You don't even have to make assumptions. Ignore incarceration rates. The numbers are even worse when you look at arrest rates. Even though multiple studies have shown that blacks and whites use marijuana at almost the same rate, the arrest rate 4 blacks is nearly 4 times as high.
Here's a link with some comprehensive charts (and, yes, the study was commissioned by that ACLU via federal data);
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nih
The Times also went over the data independently and verified it's accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html
From the Times:
Federal programs like the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program continue to provide incentives for racial profiling, the report said, by including arrest numbers in its performance measures when distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to local law enforcement each year.
Phillip Atiba Goff, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that police departments, partly driven by a desire to increase their drug arrest statistics, can concentrate on minority or poorer neighborhoods to meet numerical goals, focusing on low-level offenses that are easier, quicker and cheaper than investigating serious felony crimes.
“Whenever federal funding agencies encourage law enforcement to meet numerical arrest goals instead of public safety goals, it will likely promote stereotype-based policing and we can expect these sorts of racial gaps,” Professor Goff said.
Law enforcement and the penal system is a business.
-
I thought part of your argument about over policing had to do with drug use/sale by whites being higher yet blacks are incarcerated more. I was pointing out that drug use wasn't really higher based on links your provided. And it was spin in the article.
This is what is was originally asking about:
Is there data on this that indicates this "design"? If so why do you suppose it's this way?
It would seem to me an area with higher violent crime rates warrant more policing.
There are many neighborhoods I can walk around at night with little worry and there are neighborhoods I would never walk around at night in.
It seems to make better sense to focus police in areas with higher crimes rates.
I am interested in yours or another view on this.
I don't think I agree much with what you're saying, but I believe I could be just plain naive about it. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and have spent plenty of time in "minority neighborhoods" both affluent and poor, white, black, Hispanics and Asian.
He's using the old blacks and whites are sentenced differently for the same crime argument. It's a typical left wing talking point. He never takes into consideration other factors like criminal history and being charged with multiple crimes at the same time. He's just repeating what he heard.
-
What's misleading was the article talking about the study. the study is simple facts.
What's not a fact, based on the study provided, is this:
Multiple studies, some commissioned by government agencies, have concluded that whites are more likely to sell drugs and use drugs
i think, Andre, you are just trying to hold on the your belief rather than actually look at data.
"White must use & sell drugs more, Black are unfairly targeted" right?
did you even look at the study?
no..not trying to hold on to beliefs....all studies say the same thing..that whites use, possess and sell more drugs on a daily basis than blacks...I make no other assertion....
-
no..not trying to hold on to beliefs....all studies say the same thing..that whites use, possess and sell more drugs on a daily basis than blacks...I make no other assertion....
As a percentage of the population? Another question is the crime involved with drug use. Are whites committing as many drug related offences as blacks? Provide these studies
-
Law enforcement and the penal system is a business.
it is a business in some places.....and also cops often have unwritten quotas to fulfill.....now WHO are they going to arrest to fill such quotas???????????
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html
Bill Quigley Law Professor, Loyola University New Orleans, CCR Associate Legal Director
Email Fourteen Examples of Racism in Criminal Justice System
Posted: 07/26/2010 7:45 am EDT Updated: 05/25/2011 5:10 pm EDT Share Tweet Email
The biggest crime in the U.S. criminal justice system is that it is a race-based institution where African-Americans are directly targeted and punished in a much more aggressive way than white people.
Saying the US criminal system is racist may be politically controversial in some circles. But the facts are overwhelming. No real debate about that. Below I set out numerous examples of these facts.
The question is - are these facts the mistakes of an otherwise good system, or are they evidence that the racist criminal justice system is working exactly as intended? Is the US criminal justice system operated to marginalize and control millions of African Americans?
Information on race is available for each step of the criminal justice system - from the use of drugs, police stops, arrests, getting out on bail, legal representation, jury selection, trial, sentencing, prison, parole and freedom. Look what these facts show.
One. The US has seen a surge in arrests and putting people in jail over the last four decades. Most of the reason is the war on drugs. Yet whites and blacks engage in drug offenses, possession and sales, at roughly comparable rates - according to a report on race and drug enforcement published by Human Rights Watch in May 2008. While African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses - according to 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project.
Two. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City, where people of color make up about half of the population, 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked. When blacks and Latinos are stopped 85% were frisked according to information provided by the NYPD. The same is true most other places as well. In a California study, the ACLU found blacks are three times more likely to be stopped than whites.
Three. Since 1970, drug arrests have skyrocketed rising from 320,000 to close to 1.6 million according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.
African Americans are arrested for drug offenses at rates 2 to 11 times higher than the rate for whites - according to a May 2009 report on disparity in drug arrests by Human Rights Watch.
Four. Once arrested, blacks are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites. For example, the New York state division of criminal justice did a 1995 review of disparities in processing felony arrests and found that in some parts of New York blacks are 33% more likely to be detained awaiting felony trials than whites facing felony trials.
Five. Once arrested, 80% of the people in the criminal justice system get a public defender for their lawyer. Race plays a big role here as well. Stop in any urban courtroom and look a the color of the people who are waiting for public defenders. Despite often heroic efforts by public defenders the system gives them much more work and much less money than the prosecution. The American Bar Association, not a radical bunch, reviewed the US public defender system in 2004 and concluded "All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring...The fundamental right to a lawyer that America assumes applies to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the US."
Six. African Americans are frequently illegally excluded from criminal jury service according to a June 2010 study released by the Equal Justice Initiative. For example in Houston County, Alabama, 8 out of 10 African Americans qualified for jury service have been struck by prosecutors from serving on death penalty cases.
Seven. Trials are rare. Only 3 to 5 percent of criminal cases go to trial - the rest are plea bargained. Most African Americans defendants never get a trial. Most plea bargains consist of promise of a longer sentence if a person exercises their constitutional right to trial. As a result, people caught up in the system, as the American Bar Association points out, plead guilty even when innocent. Why? As one young man told me recently, "Who wouldn't rather do three years for a crime they didn't commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn't do?"
Eight. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project reports African Americans are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants and 20% more like to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants.
Nine. The longer the sentence, the more likely it is that non-white people will be the ones getting it. A July 2009 report by the Sentencing Project found that two-thirds of the people in the US with life sentences are non-white. In New York, it is 83%.
Ten. As a result, African Americans, who are 13% of the population and 14% of drug users, are not only 37% of the people arrested for drugs but 56% of the people in state prisons for drug offenses. Marc Mauer May 2009 Congressional Testimony for The Sentencing Project.
Eleven. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics concludes that the chance of a black male born in 2001 of going to jail is 32% or 1 in three. Latino males have a 17% chance and white males have a 6% chance. Thus black boys are five times and Latino boys nearly three times as likely as white boys to go to jail.
Twelve. So, while African American juvenile youth is but 16% of the population, they are 28% of juvenile arrests, 37% of the youth in juvenile jails and 58% of the youth sent to adult prisons. 2009 Criminal Justice Primer, The Sentencing Project.
Thirteen. Remember that the US leads the world in putting our own people into jail and prison. The New York Times reported in 2008 that the US has five percent of the world's population but a quarter of the world's prisoners, over 2.3 million people behind bars, dwarfing other nations. The US rate of incarceration is five to eight times higher than other highly developed countries and black males are the largest percentage of inmates according to ABC News.
Fourteen. Even when released from prison, race continues to dominate. A study by Professor Devah Pager of the University of Wisconsin found that 17% of white job applicants with criminal records received call backs from employers while only 5% of black job applicants with criminal records received call backs. Race is so prominent in that study that whites with criminal records actually received better treatment than blacks without criminal records!
So, what conclusions do these facts lead to? The criminal justice system, from start to finish, is seriously racist.
Professor Michelle Alexander concludes that it is no coincidence that the criminal justice system ramped up its processing of African Americans just as the Jim Crow laws enforced since the age of slavery ended. Her book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness sees these facts as evidence of the new way the US has decided to control African Americans - a racialized system of social control. The stigma of criminality functions in much the same way as Jim Crow - creating legal boundaries between them and us, allowing legal discrimination against them, removing the right to vote from millions, and essentially warehousing a disposable population of unwanted people. She calls it a new caste system.
Poor whites and people of other ethnicity are also subjected to this system of social control. Because if poor whites or others get out of line, they will be given the worst possible treatment, they will be treated just like poor blacks.
Other critics like Professor Dylan Rodriguez see the criminal justice system as a key part of what he calls the domestic war on the marginalized. Because of globalization, he argues in his book Forced Passages, there is an excess of people in the US and elsewhere. "These people", whether they are in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or US jails and prisons, are not productive, are not needed, are not wanted and are not really entitled to the same human rights as the productive ones. They must be controlled and dominated for the safety of the productive. They must be intimidated into accepting their inferiority or they must be removed from the society of the productive.
This domestic war relies on the same technology that the US uses internationally. More and more we see the militarization of this country's police. Likewise, the goals of the US justice system are the same as the US war on terror - domination and control by capture, immobilization, punishment and liquidation.
What to do?
Martin Luther King Jr., said we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.
A radical approach to the US criminal justice system means we must go to the root of the problem. Not reform. Not better beds in better prisons. We are not called to only trim the leaves or prune the branches, but rip up this unjust system by its roots.
We are all entitled to safety. That is a human right everyone has a right to expect. But do we really think that continuing with a deeply racist system leading the world in incarcerating our children is making us safer?
It is time for every person interested in justice and safety to join in and dismantle this racist system. Should the US decriminalize drugs like marijuana? Should prisons be abolished? Should we expand the use of restorative justice? Can we create fair educational, medical and employment systems? All these questions and many more have to be seriously explored. Join a group like INCITE, Critical Resistance, the Center for Community Alternatives, Thousand Kites, or the California Prison Moratorium and work on it. As Professor Alexander says "Nothing short of a major social movement can dismantle this new caste system."
-
ummmm why else do you think crime rates have plummeted? More blacks are in jail - not a surprise at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html
Bill Quigley Law Professor, Loyola University New Orleans, CCR Associate Legal Director
Email Fourteen Examples of Racism in Criminal Justice System
Posted: 07/26/2010 7:45 am EDT Updated: 05/25/2011 5:10 pm EDT Share Tweet Email
The biggest crime in the U.S. criminal justice system is that it is a race-based institution where African-Americans are directly targeted and punished in a much more aggressive way than white people.
Saying the US criminal system is racist may be politically controversial in some circles. But the facts are overwhelming. No real debate about that. Below I set out numerous examples of these facts.
The question is - are these facts the mistakes of an otherwise good system, or are they evidence that the racist criminal justice system is working exactly as intended? Is the US criminal justice system operated to marginalize and control millions of African Americans?
Information on race is available for each step of the criminal justice system - from the use of drugs, police stops, arrests, getting out on bail, legal representation, jury selection, trial, sentencing, prison, parole and freedom. Look what these facts show.
One. The US has seen a surge in arrests and putting people in jail over the last four decades. Most of the reason is the war on drugs. Yet whites and blacks engage in drug offenses, possession and sales, at roughly comparable rates - according to a report on race and drug enforcement published by Human Rights Watch in May 2008. While African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses - according to 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project.
Two. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City, where people of color make up about half of the population, 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked. When blacks and Latinos are stopped 85% were frisked according to information provided by the NYPD. The same is true most other places as well. In a California study, the ACLU found blacks are three times more likely to be stopped than whites.
Three. Since 1970, drug arrests have skyrocketed rising from 320,000 to close to 1.6 million according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.
African Americans are arrested for drug offenses at rates 2 to 11 times higher than the rate for whites - according to a May 2009 report on disparity in drug arrests by Human Rights Watch.
Four. Once arrested, blacks are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites. For example, the New York state division of criminal justice did a 1995 review of disparities in processing felony arrests and found that in some parts of New York blacks are 33% more likely to be detained awaiting felony trials than whites facing felony trials.
Five. Once arrested, 80% of the people in the criminal justice system get a public defender for their lawyer. Race plays a big role here as well. Stop in any urban courtroom and look a the color of the people who are waiting for public defenders. Despite often heroic efforts by public defenders the system gives them much more work and much less money than the prosecution. The American Bar Association, not a radical bunch, reviewed the US public defender system in 2004 and concluded "All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring...The fundamental right to a lawyer that America assumes applies to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the US."
Six. African Americans are frequently illegally excluded from criminal jury service according to a June 2010 study released by the Equal Justice Initiative. For example in Houston County, Alabama, 8 out of 10 African Americans qualified for jury service have been struck by prosecutors from serving on death penalty cases.
Seven. Trials are rare. Only 3 to 5 percent of criminal cases go to trial - the rest are plea bargained. Most African Americans defendants never get a trial. Most plea bargains consist of promise of a longer sentence if a person exercises their constitutional right to trial. As a result, people caught up in the system, as the American Bar Association points out, plead guilty even when innocent. Why? As one young man told me recently, "Who wouldn't rather do three years for a crime they didn't commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn't do?"
Eight. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project reports African Americans are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants and 20% more like to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants.
Nine. The longer the sentence, the more likely it is that non-white people will be the ones getting it. A July 2009 report by the Sentencing Project found that two-thirds of the people in the US with life sentences are non-white. In New York, it is 83%.
Ten. As a result, African Americans, who are 13% of the population and 14% of drug users, are not only 37% of the people arrested for drugs but 56% of the people in state prisons for drug offenses. Marc Mauer May 2009 Congressional Testimony for The Sentencing Project.
Eleven. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics concludes that the chance of a black male born in 2001 of going to jail is 32% or 1 in three. Latino males have a 17% chance and white males have a 6% chance. Thus black boys are five times and Latino boys nearly three times as likely as white boys to go to jail.
Twelve. So, while African American juvenile youth is but 16% of the population, they are 28% of juvenile arrests, 37% of the youth in juvenile jails and 58% of the youth sent to adult prisons. 2009 Criminal Justice Primer, The Sentencing Project.
Thirteen. Remember that the US leads the world in putting our own people into jail and prison. The New York Times reported in 2008 that the US has five percent of the world's population but a quarter of the world's prisoners, over 2.3 million people behind bars, dwarfing other nations. The US rate of incarceration is five to eight times higher than other highly developed countries and black males are the largest percentage of inmates according to ABC News.
Fourteen. Even when released from prison, race continues to dominate. A study by Professor Devah Pager of the University of Wisconsin found that 17% of white job applicants with criminal records received call backs from employers while only 5% of black job applicants with criminal records received call backs. Race is so prominent in that study that whites with criminal records actually received better treatment than blacks without criminal records!
So, what conclusions do these facts lead to? The criminal justice system, from start to finish, is seriously racist.
Professor Michelle Alexander concludes that it is no coincidence that the criminal justice system ramped up its processing of African Americans just as the Jim Crow laws enforced since the age of slavery ended. Her book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness sees these facts as evidence of the new way the US has decided to control African Americans - a racialized system of social control. The stigma of criminality functions in much the same way as Jim Crow - creating legal boundaries between them and us, allowing legal discrimination against them, removing the right to vote from millions, and essentially warehousing a disposable population of unwanted people. She calls it a new caste system.
Poor whites and people of other ethnicity are also subjected to this system of social control. Because if poor whites or others get out of line, they will be given the worst possible treatment, they will be treated just like poor blacks.
Other critics like Professor Dylan Rodriguez see the criminal justice system as a key part of what he calls the domestic war on the marginalized. Because of globalization, he argues in his book Forced Passages, there is an excess of people in the US and elsewhere. "These people", whether they are in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or US jails and prisons, are not productive, are not needed, are not wanted and are not really entitled to the same human rights as the productive ones. They must be controlled and dominated for the safety of the productive. They must be intimidated into accepting their inferiority or they must be removed from the society of the productive.
This domestic war relies on the same technology that the US uses internationally. More and more we see the militarization of this country's police. Likewise, the goals of the US justice system are the same as the US war on terror - domination and control by capture, immobilization, punishment and liquidation.
What to do?
Martin Luther King Jr., said we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.
A radical approach to the US criminal justice system means we must go to the root of the problem. Not reform. Not better beds in better prisons. We are not called to only trim the leaves or prune the branches, but rip up this unjust system by its roots.
We are all entitled to safety. That is a human right everyone has a right to expect. But do we really think that continuing with a deeply racist system leading the world in incarcerating our children is making us safer?
It is time for every person interested in justice and safety to join in and dismantle this racist system. Should the US decriminalize drugs like marijuana? Should prisons be abolished? Should we expand the use of restorative justice? Can we create fair educational, medical and employment systems? All these questions and many more have to be seriously explored. Join a group like INCITE, Critical Resistance, the Center for Community Alternatives, Thousand Kites, or the California Prison Moratorium and work on it. As Professor Alexander says "Nothing short of a major social movement can dismantle this new caste system."
-
Nothing you posted indicates anything, OptionD. It's the same old argument that lacks the particulars of the criminals. They are taking numbers and comparing them and drawing the conclusion the higher numbers for blacks is in and of itself proof of an unfair Justice system and its not. Essentially they are comparing apples and oranges. It's dishonest and politically motivated.
-
Nothing you posted indicates anything, OptionD. It's the same old argument that lacks the particulars of the criminals. They are taking numbers and comparing them and drawing the conclusion the higher numbers for blacks is in and of itself proof of an unfair Justice system and its not. Essentially they are comparing apples and oranges. It's dishonest and politically motivated.
Ohh ok.. i got you..
-
Ohh ok.. i got you..
Nice retort - bottom line is that more blacks in jail = less crime
-
You have to do a case by case break down to make an accurate comparison. For example, the part about criminal records and job application is inherently flawed. You can't compared two people with criminal records unless you know what is on their actual criminal record. The methodology is much to general to be accurate. One might have a minimal criminal record with minor offenses and the other a more extensive record. People like OptionD don't understand the nuance.
-
Nice retort - bottom line is that more blacks in jail = less crime
lol...youre so beneath our realm of adult debate its laughable and sad at the same time
As Far as archer, i can predict what his position on any given issue is based on a few factors. But atleast he attempts to be an adult.
His argument is basically "Yes blacks are targeted at a higher rate than whites for the same drug offenses but you have to look at some other shit"
Thats a better response (though its horseshit) than your looney shit
My favorite one is the crack vs coke jail time argument.
Under the current penalty structure, established during the so-called "crack epidemic" of the late 1980s, possession of crack can carry the same sentence as the possession of a quantity of cocaine that is 100 times larger. The Controlled Substances act established a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for a first-time trafficking offense involving over five grams of crack, as opposed to 500 grams of powder cocaine. The law imposed the same ratio for larger amounts: a minimum sentence of 10 years for amounts of crack over 50 grams, versus 5 kilograms of cocaine.
-
lol...youre so beneath our realm of adult debate its laughable and sad at the same time
As Far as archer, i can predict what his position on any given issue is based on a few factors. But atleast he attempts to be an adult.
His argument is basically "Yes blacks are targeted at a higher rate than whites for the same drug offenses but you have to look at some other shit"
Thats a better response (though its horseshit) than your looney shit
My favorite one is the crack vs coke jail time argument.
Under the current penalty structure, established during the so-called "crack epidemic" of the late 1980s, possession of crack can carry the same sentence as the possession of a quantity of cocaine that is 100 times larger. The Controlled Substances act established a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for a first-time trafficking offense involving over five grams of crack, as opposed to 500 grams of powder cocaine. The law imposed the same ratio for larger amounts: a minimum sentence of 10 years for amounts of crack over 50 grams, versus 5 kilograms of cocaine.
I would never use the word targeted because that would imply they hold no responsibility and their arrest is unfair. I can't make that judgement.
-
And the reason it has not changed is because it works. Sorry - it is what it is. More thugs and ghetto pos in jail = less crime
lol...youre so beneath our realm of adult debate its laughable and sad at the same time
As Far as archer, i can predict what his position on any given issue is based on a few factors. But atleast he attempts to be an adult.
His argument is basically "Yes blacks are targeted at a higher rate than whites for the same drug offenses but you have to look at some other shit"
Thats a better response (though its horseshit) than your looney shit
My favorite one is the crack vs coke jail time argument.
Under the current penalty structure, established during the so-called "crack epidemic" of the late 1980s, possession of crack can carry the same sentence as the possession of a quantity of cocaine that is 100 times larger. The Controlled Substances act established a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for a first-time trafficking offense involving over five grams of crack, as opposed to 500 grams of powder cocaine. The law imposed the same ratio for larger amounts: a minimum sentence of 10 years for amounts of crack over 50 grams, versus 5 kilograms of cocaine.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--ZHHvwKPGv8/Uol49YgIcdI/AAAAAAAAKmE/qcvAHz7zIW4/s1600/IMG_0260.PNG)
-
As a percentage of the population? Another question is the crime involved with drug use. Are whites committing as many drug related offences as blacks? Provide these studies
I already talked about the percentages and conceded that as a percentage of the population it is probably true that blacks use more drugs than whites...in terms of just sheer numbers, then whites use, possess and sell more on a daily basis...
In terms of whites committing more drug rellated offenses..hard to say but my guess would be no
-
Nice retort - bottom line is that more blacks in jail = less crime
I'm quite sure thats true...in your twisted mind
-
I would never use the word targeted because that would imply they hold no responsibility and their arrest is unfair. I can't make that judgement.
They are targeted....why can't you understand that????
-
I already talked about the percentages and conceded that as a percentage of the population it is probably true that blacks use more drugs than whites...in terms of just sheer numbers, then whites use, possess and sell more on a daily basis...
In terms of whites committing more drug rellated offenses..hard to say but my guess would be no
Then whats your point? It's percentage of the population not total numbers. Where did you get your numbers, FBI? Notice no category for Hispanic or Middle Eastern?
Where are your numbers for whites selling and possessing more drugs? Whats the crime associated with white drug use?
They are targeted....why can't you understand that????
Why can't you understand that blacks commit more crime? Cops go where the problem is.
-
Then whats your point? It's percentage of the population not total numbers. Where did you get your numbers, FBI? Notice no category for Hispanic or Middle Eastern?
Where are your numbers for whites selling and possessing more drugs? Whats the crime associated with white drug use?
I don't really ant to go on and on about this...no matter what studies or statistics you are shown you will NEVER concede your point so lets move on
-
I don't really ant to go on and on about this...no matter what studies or statistics you are shown you will NEVER concede your point so lets move on
You haven't shown anything. You just repeat stuff you hear and read. And the same could be said of you. No matter the statistics and number of studies published you are still going to believe the victim narrative.
-
You haven't shown anything. You just repeat stuff you hear and read. And the same could be said of you. No matter the statistics and number of studies published you are still going to believe the victim narrative.
not true.....I conceded above that blacks use more drugs as a percentage of the pop and that whites probably do not commit more drug related offenses than blacks.....I concede when its seems that the theory has validity...you on the other hand.................... ....................
::)
-
not true.....I conceded above that blacks use more drugs as a percentage of the pop and that whites probably do not commit more drug related offenses than blacks.....I concede when its seems that the theory has validity...you on the other hand.................... ....................
::)
What's your point then? Blacks commit more crime and on average live in more centralized communities than whites. Cops go where the problems are. It seems like the mystery is solved.
-
What's your point then? Blacks commit more crime and on average live in more centralized communities than whites. Cops go where the problems are. It seems like the mystery is solved.
in your limited mind, yes
-
in your limited mind, yes
You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Sorry but conspiracy theories and whining about being a victim are evidence.
-
You haven't shown anything. You just repeat stuff you hear and read. And the same could be said of you. No matter the statistics and number of studies published you are still going to believe the victim narrative.
::)If the statistics and studies are posted by you, then of course not!! You'll just make up whatever you want them to mean anyway. This thread should give you the perfect opportunity to explain how "this data is imprecise" means "this data is infallible" and then post 10 pages of unrelated text to "support" that.
-
::)If the statistics and studies are posted by you, then of course not!! You'll just make up whatever you want them to mean anyway. This thread should give you the perfect opportunity to explain how "this data is imprecise" means "this data is infallible" and then post 10 pages of unrelated text to "support" that.
You're just mad because i made you look like a fool. All your whining about a sample size of ten demonstrated your ignorance. In the end my original statement was correct. You didn't read any of the information on methodology I provided and you looked like a bigger fool than usual. You gave me an early Christmas present.
-
You're just mad because i made you look like a fool. All your whining about a sample size of ten demonstrated your ignorance. In the end my original statement was correct. You didn't read any of the information on methodology I provided and you looked like a bigger fool than usual. You gave me an early Christmas present.
::) Every single person who posted in that thread said you were wrong.
-
::) Every single person who posted in that thread said you were wrong.
Nope. They agree with your idiotic argument that the stats were limited to a sample size of ten which its not. You set up a false argument based on your ignorance. I showed you exactly why you were wrong. Review the thread. Total backfire. Did read any of the information I gave you? Did you read anything about the methodology or did you stop at the number ten? Admit you were wrong.
-
Nope. They agree with your idiotic argument that the stats were limited to a sample size of ten which its not. You set up a false argument based on your ignorance. I showed you exactly why you were wrong. Review the thread. Total backfire. Did read any of the information I gave you? Did you read anything about the methodology or did you stop at the number ten? Admit you were wrong.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.0
That was not my argument. It was YOUR argument:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/table/tab_7_5/?report=objectonly
This explains why they use a sample size of ten. It's so serial incidents don't inflate the total number of rapes and sexual assaults. I may have made this point before.
It was wrong and everyone knew you were bullshitting:
I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.
-
::) Countdown to you posting 10 pages of unrelated text in a sad attempt to bury the last post.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.0
That was not my argument. It was YOUR argument:
It was wrong and everyone knew you were bullshitting:
Now you see what I go through :D
-
Now you see what I go through :D
I feel u, bruh! ;)
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.0
That was not my argument. It was YOUR argument:
It was wrong and everyone knew you were bullshitting:
You are wrong and I gave you the reason why in the thread you made. They limited the number of INCIDENTS to ten in order to prevent outliers effecting the national data. It's right in the information I posted for you. Review the information. This was my original argument. When I started to review the data I saw that my original argument was right. In summation, the data is accurate and you are wrong. Do you still believe the sample size was only ten? If you do you would be wrong.
I feel u, bruh! ;)
And the whining begins. Are you every going to provide any information to back up any of your claims?
-
::) Countdown to you posting 10 pages of unrelated text in a sad attempt to bury the last post.
-
Is the sample size limited to ten cases? I proved my position in the very thread you posted to attack me. Did you read your own thread?
-
Is the sample size limited to ten cases? I proved my position in the very thread you posted to attack me. Did you read your own thread?
LOL You didn't prove anything! That wasn't even the topic. You pulled it out of thin air to deflect. You claimed that the people who compiled the study that the results were virtually 100% accurate despite the fact that the statistics you were citing were accompanied by a warning to interpret them with caution.
This is the opening post from that thread:
So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.
A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?
So, not only didn't you prove your position, it wasn't even the topic of discussion and everyone in the thread could tell what you were doing!
-
LOL You didn't prove anything! That wasn't even the topic. You pulled it out of thin air to deflect. You claimed that the people who compiled the study that the results were virtually 100% accurate despite the fact that the statistics you were citing were accompanied by a warning to interpret them with caution.
This is the opening post from that thread:
So, not only didn't you prove your position, it wasn't even the topic of discussion and everyone in the thread could tell what you were doing!
You need to read your own thread on the subject. I can tell you didn't. As I expected you totally misinterpreted the data. And why did they say to interpret with caution? Because the data they posted didn't accurately represent series incidents. They admit that in the information I posted. You didn't read anything. You need to read the information again or more accurately for the first time. Everything you need is in your thread.
-
Read your own thread. Seriously, I can tell you didn't. By the way, I'm a better bodybuilder. From your photos your fat as fuck. What is hilarious is that you were whining about how I was misinterpreting the data but in the end you were completely clueless.
-
Read your own thread. Seriously, I can tell you didn't. By the way, I'm a better bodybuilder. From your photos your fat as fuck. What is hilarious is that you were whining about how I was misinterpreting the data but in the end you were completely clueless.
haha albert has posted photos?
where?
-
haha albert has posted photos?
where?
His real identity. He's a gimmick. I also recommend you read the thread he posted to make me look bad that made him look like a fool.
-
Read your own thread. Seriously, I can tell you didn't. By the way, I'm a better bodybuilder. From your photos your fat as fuck. What is hilarious is that you were whining about how I was misinterpreting the data but in the end you were completely clueless.
Meltdown mode complete !! ;D ;D ;D
Good god, man. I pray retardo actually does weigh in on that thread. The only thing that could make it more hilarious.
-
His real identity. He's a gimmick. I also recommend you read the thread he posted to make me look bad that made him look like a fool.
How many am I up to now? 5. Anyone who disagree with you basically.
-
Meltdown mode complete !! ;D ;D ;D
Good god, man. I pray retardo actually does weigh in on that thread. The only thing that could make it more hilarious.
Read your own thread, Al. You're either as ignorant as you seem or lying. Get back to me when you actually do some reading. And your wife is an ugly pan faced beast.
so he posted pics of himself or of his gimmick?
where are said pics?
Someone sent them to me or says they are of him.
-
His real identity. He's a gimmick. I also recommend you read the thread he posted to make me look bad that made him look like a fool.
so he posted pics of himself or of his gimmick?
where are said pics?
-
Meltdown mode complete !! ;D ;D ;D
Good god, man. I pray retardo actually does weigh in on that thread. The only thing that could make it more hilarious.
dont worry brain child, if I am going to read any thing today its going to be for work so I can earn more to pay for your welfare payments ;)
-
I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.
-
dont worry brain child, if I am going to read any thing today its going to be for work so I can earn more to pay for your welfare payments ;)
Are you still pretending to be a college graduate? Here's a tip: it's more convincing if you run your posts through spellcheck first. The fact that you spell at a third grade level gives it away.
-
His comment is based on the false and ignorant claims you made about the study sample being limited to only ten people. You are wrong about that. I've shown you that you are wrong yet you keep holding on. Read your own thread. I don't know how I can help you anymore than I have.
The study sample isn't limited to ten but thousands
The cap of ten refers to the limit on series incidents to a total of ten in order to prevent outliars from tainting the national data.
All of this is in the thread your created. You did not bother to read it. PS, your wife is ugly.
-
Read your own thread, Al. You're either as ignorant as you seem or lying.
Oh, I read it LOL. In this very thread, you pretended to be making a different argument because your argument in that thread was so stupid! ;D
-
Are you still pretending to be a college graduate? Here's a tip: it's more convincing if you run your posts through spellcheck first. The fact that you spell at a third grade level gives it away.
lol 3 college degrees there boss, when I get a benefit from spelling correctly here I will do so.
Now where are these pics?
-
Oh, I read it LOL. In this very thread, you pretended to be making a different argument because your argument in that thread was so stupid! ;D
I corrected myself and returned to my original argument. You continue to argue the sample size was limited to ten and it's not. I reviewed the data and found that my original argument was correct.
Is the sample size limited to ten people or not? It's obvious you didn't read the thread at all. If you did you would know the case size isn't limited to ten total cases but thousands over months.
-
lol 3 college degrees there boss, when I get a benefit from spelling correctly here I will do so.
Now where are these pics?
I'm not 100% sure its him.
-
His comment is based on the false and ignorant claims you made about the study sample being limited to only ten people.
I never said the sample size was limited to 10.YOU DID! ;D
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866350#msg7866350
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/table/tab_7_5/?report=objectonly
This explains why they use a sample size of ten. It's so serial incidents don't inflate the total number of rapes and sexual assaults. I may have made this point before.
THIS IS ME!! ;D ;D ;D:
They don't use a sample size. That paragraph says nothing about sample size. it says that it limits "series incidents" in the total crime count to a number of 10. That has nothing to do with certain categories being unreliable if they have fewer than 10 examples. These two points aren't under the same section. They are completely unrelated.
-
I never said the sample size was limited to 10.YOU DID! ;D
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.msg7866350#msg7866350
THIS IS ME!! ;D ;D ;D:
You're lying. This is two quick searches. I feel tempted to released pictures of your inflated gut and ugly wife.
So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.
A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?
Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?
-
I know you're probably furiously editing it right now, so here's a screencap.
eta I posted a direct link in previous post to your post.
-
do you even lift albert?
-
I know you're probably furiously editing it right now, so here's a screencap.
eta I posted a direct link in previous post to your post.
Yeah that only proves my point. You lied when you denied saying the size was limited to ten. A
-
They literally are saying that. They literally say that because the sample size is so small, the standard error of the estimates is extremely high. LIterally.
No, it isn't because they use much larger sample sizes throughout the rest of the report.
Right in the link you provided it shows that the survey included over 150,000 people.
When it comes to a sample size of less than 10, even they are saying that!
Newsflash: Not only can you ignore this thread if you don't like the content, but you can open any other thread you like. Interestingly enough almost all of them contain bickering. ::)
And is it really a no-win situation? Do you honestly believe that there's any survey that interviews 150,000 people then only counts 10 of those people in the name of accuracy? Do you honestly believe that a survey of 10 people provides an accurate assessment of ANYTHING nationally?
You're absolutely wrong. Limiting incidents sample to ten (incidents per person) is done to avoid skewing the results.
In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.
It's that simple. They aren't admitting to being fifty percent wrong. What they are saying is the data isn't intended to be interpreted outside of the conclusions made by the RCVS. Something like frequency of incidents can't be defined accurately by t
he statistics they've calculated. It's a warning to people not to use the data to make conclusions other than those made by RCVS.
Let me rephrase it, deeba dooba deeba. Zippity doo daa.
In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution or frequency distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean .
The coefficient of variation is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the mean of the data. In contrast, the actual value of the CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.
What a liar. Reread your mathematics thread. I explained it all to you.
-
They literally are saying that. They literally say that because the sample size is so small, the standard error of the estimates is extremely high. LIterally.
No, it isn't because they use much larger sample sizes throughout the rest of the report.
Right in the link you provided it shows that the survey included over 150,000 people.
When it comes to a sample size of less than 10, even they are saying that!
Newsflash: Not only can you ignore this thread if you don't like the content, but you can open any other thread you like. Interestingly enough almost all of them contain bickering. ::)
And is it really a no-win situation? Do you honestly believe that there's any survey that interviews 150,000 people then only counts 10 of those people in the name of accuracy? Do you honestly believe that a survey of 10 people provides an accurate assessment of ANYTHING nationally?
You're absolutely wrong. Limiting incidents sample to ten (incidents per person) is done to avoid skewing the results.
In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.
It's that simple. They aren't admitting to being fifty percent wrong. What they are saying is the data isn't intended to be interpreted outside of the conclusions made by the RCVS. Something like frequency of incidents can't be defined accurately by t
he statistics they've calculated. It's a warning to people not to use the data to make conclusions other than those made by RCVS.
Let me rephrase it, deeba dooba deeba. Zippity doo daa.
In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution or frequency distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean .
The coefficient of variation is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the mean of the data. In contrast, the actual value of the CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.
-
You're absolutely wrong. Limiting incidents sample to ten (incidents per person) is done to avoid skewing the results.
In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates.
It's that simple. They aren't admitting to being fifty percent wrong. What they are saying is the data isn't intended to be interpreted outside of the conclusions made by the RCVS. Something like frequency of incidents can't be defined accurately by t
he statistics they've calculated. It's a warning to people not to use the data to make conclusions other than those made by RCVS.
Let me rephrase it, deeba dooba deeba. Zippity doo daa.
In probability theory and statistics, the coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution or frequency distribution. It is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean .
The coefficient of variation is useful because the standard deviation of data must always be understood in the context of the mean of the data. In contrast, the actual value of the CV is independent of the unit in which the measurement has been taken, so it is a dimensionless number. For comparison between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should use the coefficient of variation instead of the standard deviation.
What a liar. Reread your mathematics thread. I explained it all to you.
From that thread:
I only looked at one of the reports but the number of results with the ! looks to be very small and not frequent. Most of them have samples in the thousands. So you will need to temper your conclusion if you are wanting to use the presence of the ! anywhere to reject the entirety of the data within this archive. But for specific results marked with the !, they are very likely not valid yes.
My point is specifically for cases containing 10 or less sample studies.
Nice try ;)
-
In both of the posts you quoted from me, I literally say that the sample size is 150000.
-
From that thread:
Nice try ;)
None of that matters because I corrected myself and returned to my original argument. In the last thread you made I review the data and clearly proved you were wrong. The cases aren't limited to ten cases as you claimed but thousands. The ten refers to series incidents.
-
do you even lift albert?
4 days a week. I'm in excellent shape.
-
In both of the posts you quoted from me, I literally say that the sample size is 150000.
You are claiming in the cases where a sample size of ten is listed they are using only ten total cases and in the rest of the study they are using 150K. Your argument from the beginning was the sample size was to small.
So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.
A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?
Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?
-
None of that matters because I corrected myself and returned to my original argument. In the last thread you made I review the data and clearly proved you were wrong. The cases aren't limited to ten cases as you claimed but thousands. The ten refers to series incidents.
I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.
-
You were using the term sample size and you believed the sample size was limited to ten. This was your argument from the word go. You argued that the sample size was to small to accurately judge. You had no clue what the number ten actually meant and why it was used.
So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.
A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?
Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?
4 days a week. I'm in excellent shape.
If it is who I think it is hes really fat and has a zit marked face.
-
You are claiming in the cases where a sample size of ten is listed they are using only ten total cases and in the rest of the study they are using 150K. Your argument from the beginning was the sample size was to small.
It is a review of crime for the year.
150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.
Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.
Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.
The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.
Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.
You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.
-
It is a review of crime for the year.
150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.
Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.
Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.
The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.
Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.
You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.
I noticed you've begun deleting your posts. Wait, are you now arguing that there were only ten sample cases? Did you just argue that wasn't what you were saying? Do you even know what your saying? And the ten refers to ten incidents. I provided the information that confirms that in your other thread. You ought to do something about those acne scars.
Reread the information on methodology they provide as well as the posts in your mathematics thread.
-
You're lying. This is two quick searches. I feel tempted to released pictures of your inflated gut and ugly wife.
:-\ If you do and he becomes an object of ridicule on the board, I'll feel bad for RRKore, but it will teach him to be more cautious in the future. It will also remind people of what a lying dirtbag you are. Just a few days ago, this was you:
It's difficult to measure. Some will be vocal while others will not be. pms with sent me a stuff on you and wants me to post it. I won't. Be careful who you talk to.
Then this one:
I wouldn't do it because I'm not that kind of fella. I've decided not to reply to pms myself. People take conversations from pm and bring them to the board. And RRkore, for verification I will only say I hope you and your wife(chanisa?) had as much fun in Thailand as it looks like you did.
Cue eyeroll: ::) ::)
-
4 days a week. I'm in excellent shape.
where are the pics then?
-
:-\ If you do and he becomes an object of ridicule on the board, I'll feel bad for RRKore, but it will teach him to be more cautious in the future. It will also remind people of what a lying dirtbag you are. Just a few days ago, this was you:
Then this one:
Cue eyeroll: ::) ::)
reread your mathematics thread you pizza faced fat ass. I'm not going to re-post all that information for your dumb fat ass again.
-
I noticed you've begun deleting your posts. Wait, are you now arguing that there were only ten sample cases? Did you just argue that wasn't what you were saying? Do you even know what your saying? And the ten refers to ten incidents. I provided the information that confirms that in your other thread. You ought to do something about those acne scars.
Reread the information on methodology they provide as well as the posts in your mathematics thread.
It is a review of crime for the year.
150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.
Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.
Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.
The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.
Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.
You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.
-
where are the pics then?
I never said I posted pics.
-
It is a review of crime for the year.
150,000 people were interviewed for every category of crime combined.
Some of those categories had thousands of people respond.
Some of those categories had less than 10 people respond.
The study warned that the categories with less than 10 respondents were unreliable.
Because the data supported your racist beliefs, you claimed that the data was reliable... even though
the study didn't even make that claim.
You spent several pages over several threads swerving, distorting and lying about the topic.
Again, you didn't read your own thread. I posted information specifically about sexual assault and limiting the number of incidents to ten to prevent skewing the data. Read your own damn thread.
I never said I posted pics.
A wise idea.
-
I noticed you've begun deleting your posts. Wait, are you now arguing that there were only ten sample cases?
My argument has stayed the same. You're the one who seems to come up with a new argument in every post. You claim that you corrected yourself in the last thread, but you repeated the same incorrect argument in this thread.
-
My argument has stayed the same. You're the one who seems to come up with a new argument in every post. You claim that you corrected yourself in the last thread, but you repeated the same incorrect argument in this thread.
You admit deleting your posts, pizza face? My last argument after reviewing the data is the same. It was my original argument. Upon actually rereading the data and methodology-which you didn't-I realized I was right. It's not a sample size of only ten like you claim. Reread your own thread for the details.
-
Again, you didn't read your own thread. I posted information specifically about sexual assault and limiting the number of incidents to ten to prevent skewing the data. Read your own damn thread.
Which has nothing to do with sample size.
-
Which has nothing to do with sample size.
reread your thread pizza face. You have no idea what your arguing. You're going back and forth.
-
You admit deleting your posts, pizza face? My last argument after reviewing the data is the same. It was my original argument. Upon actually rereading the data and methodology-which you didn't-I realized I was right.
so, then do you agree or disagree with this statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
-
so, then do you agree or disagree with this statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
All the information is in the other thread. Why are you deleting your posts, pizza face?
-
All the information is in the other thread. Why are you deleting your posts, pizza face?
I haven't deleted anything.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
-
I haven't deleted anything.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
What what were those categories? And you're lying about deleting your posts.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf
-
I never said I posted pics.
why not? this is a bodybuilding forum by the way
-
What what were those categories? And you're lying about deleting your posts.
I haven't deleted anything. You quote me in almost all of your posts, so even if I was deleting stuff , I can't delete it out of your posts.
Do you agree with the statement or do you feel it is not factual? If it is not factual, why is it wrong?
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
-
why not? this is a bodybuilding forum by the way
And?
-
I haven't deleted anything. You quote me in almost all of your posts, so even if I was deleting stuff , I can't delete it out of your posts.
Do you agree with the statement or do you feel it is not factual? If it is not factual, why is it wrong?
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
And what are those categories?
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.75#lastPost
All the information is here. Read it before Al deletes it.
-
And what are those categories?
The categories in the study right here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=561440.75#lastPost
All the information is here. Read it before Al deletes it.
What have I allegedly deleted? You quote almost all of my posts and they are identical.
-
The categories in the study right here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
List them please. Where do they use 10 respondents?
-
List them please.
They're right there.
Why would you me listing them change whether or not this statement is true?
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
-
They're right there.
Why would you me listing them change whether or not this statement is true?
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
Where do they say 10 respondents?
-
The numbers in these tables are estimates derived from a complex sample survey. Because the numbers were not derived from a complete census, each one has a sampling error associated with it. Information on the use of these numbers and their reliability is contained in the third appendix. In general, all levels based on about 10 or fewer cases were not analyzed in this report. Ten sample cases represent weighted estimates of approximately 40,000 cases. The levels, rates, and percentages based on these small numbers are accurate, but the standard error estimates for them are not reliable. Therefore caution should be used when comparing these small estimates.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/CVUS92.TXT
You haven't read shit, pizza face.
-
And?
in bodybuilding people get in shape to show off, im guessing archer is right and youre a fat ass who doesnt even lift....
-
The numbers in these tables are estimates derived from a complex sample survey. Because the numbers were not derived from a complete census, each one has a sampling error associated with it. Information on the use of these numbers and their reliability is contained in the third appendix. In general, all levels based on about 10 or fewer cases were not analyzed in this report. Ten sample cases represent weighted estimates of approximately 40,000 cases. The levels, rates, and percentages based on these small numbers are accurate, but the standard error estimates for them are not reliable. Therefore caution should be used when comparing these small estimates.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/CVUS92.TXT
You haven't read shit, pizza face.
This is from 1992 and they exclude any categories with less than 10.
In general, all levels based on about 10 or fewer cases were not analyzed in this report.
The reports we were discussing were from 2011 and 2013 and they did include categories with less than 10 respondents. Different study, different methodology
-
in bodybuilding people get in shape to show off, im guessing archer is right and youre a fat ass who doesnt even lift....
Archer says he's a better bodybuilder than whoever he thinks I am. You don 't want to see his pics? ???
I didn't even say anything about pics or being better than anyone.
-
Archer says he's a better bodybuilder than whoever he thinks I am. You don 't want to see his pics? ???
I didn't even say anything about pics or being better than anyone.
sure why dont you and archer post pics then?
-
sure why dont you and archer post pics then?
Yeah, we'll both get right on this. ::)
-
Yeah, we'll both get right on this. ::)
hahah what a puss you are, like I said I bet archer is right and your a fat ass who doesnt even lift.
-
hahah what a puss you are, like I said I bet archer is right and your a fat ass who doesnt even lift.
Alright. Post face and body pic and I'll do the same.
-
Lol. Tony is in good shape. One of the few people on this site who actually works out.
-
Alright. Post face and body pic and I'll do the same.
haha plenty of pics and vids of me running around getbig their boss...some showing just the body some showing body and face
so your turn...
-
Lol. Tony is in good shape. One of the few people on this site who actually works out.
right back at you bud!
-
Lol. Tony is in good shape. One of the few people on this site who actually works out.
the video of you trying to open the bottle of water at the baseball game came up amongst a couple of friends of mine the other day, I told them I know you through an online forum hahah youre a celebrity!!!!
-
haha plenty of pics and vids of me running around getbig their boss...some showing just the body some showing body and face
so your turn...
Then post.
eta Archer, too. You can wait for him to post, but if the pics are already on here all you have to do is link.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=295241.0
you can ask adonis for the pic of mine showing my face, he stalked my facebook account lol
there are a couple of vids running around of me squating and bench pressing for some of the powerlifting board contests we used to do on here.
-
I said face and body. Just post the link to your facebook.
-
I said face and body. Just post the link to your facebook.
lol go search for it broham, I obviously havent hidden anything even if I didnt post it myself.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198960.400
an old training log, I should probably start doing this again as I think this really helped me stay focused.
-
lol go search for it broham, I obviously havent hidden anything even if I didnt post it myself.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198960.400
an old training log, I should probably start doing this again as I think this really helped me stay focused.
Why would I search when you could just post here? YOU are the one that made the request. There's no pics or video on the first or last pages of that thread. I'm not wading through the whole thing to see a pic I don't even give a fuck about.
But fine, retardo. If this is the deal then this is the deal. You can see pics of me (along with my wife and baby) at my instagram. My instagram is my first name followed by my birth year. I have posted all of that information on here. Once you find it, you'll see pics of my entire life.
-
Why would I search when you could just post here? YOU are the one that made the request. There's no pics or video on the first or last pages of that thread. I'm not wading through the whole thing to see a pic I don't even give a fuck about.
But fine, retardo. If this is the deal then this is the deal. You can see pics of me (along with my wife and baby) at my instagram. My instagram is my first name followed by my birth year. I have posted all of that information on here. Once you find it, you'll see pics of my entire life.
lol if I dont care enough to search for shit on me on getbig, I certainly dont give enough shits to search the interwebs for pics of you.
but like I said Im sure youre a fat ass who doesnt work out...my pics speak for themselves, dont know why you need a face pic but whatevers its out there if you want it
-
lol if I dont care enough to search for shit on me on getbig, I certainly dont give enough shits to search the interwebs for pics of you.
Sure, but you care enough to repeatedly ask me. ::) And you did search getbig, you just returned evasive results.
but like I said Im sure youre a fat ass who doesnt work out...my pics speak for themselves, dont know why you need a face pic but whatevers its out there if you want it
Yup. The fact that you searched through old threads for a six year old pic of you in halfway decent shape, instead of pulling something recent off of facebook or just taking a pic- either of which would have taken less time- does speak for itself.
-
It's obvious you never read the actual report or any information I posted on methodology. You didn't know what's even the info you posted.
-
Its amazing most of these fools are even up in time for brunch. Most are usually still sleeping hung over from the night before.
-
in bodybuilding people get in shape to show off, im guessing archer is right and youre a fat ass who doesnt even lift....
why are you so worried about whether he lifts or not??????..is this some gay fetish>>??????
-
why are you so worried about whether he lifts or not??????..is this some gay fetish>>??????
You are no one to talk bro - should I post more of the perv shit you send me via pm?
-
You are no one to talk bro - should I post more of the perv shit you send me via pm?
about you being secretly gay???......thats already known
-
It's obvious you never read the actual report or any information I posted on methodology. You didn't know what's even the info you posted.
OK. Then just clarify your position. Is the following statement accurate or not?
150,000 people were interviewed for dozens of categories. Some categories have less than 10 respondents. The study warns that those categories are unreliable.
-
All you have to do to keep these ghetto retards out is make the menu al a carte. Unless its a 6.99 all you can eat where these fools don't have to leave a tip and can abscond w doggie bags filled w even more free shit - they have no interest in the place.
-
All you have to do to keep these ghetto retards out is make the menu al a carte. Unless its a 6.99 all you can eat where these fools don't have to leave a tip and can abscond w doggie bags filled w even more free shit - they have no interest in the place.
God please protect the person who has you for a lawyer ::) ::)
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=295241.0
you can ask adonis for the pic of mine showing my face, he stalked my facebook account lol
there are a couple of vids running around of me squating and bench pressing for some of the powerlifting board contests we used to do on here.
Nice triceps :)
-
why are you so worried about whether he lifts or not??????..is this some gay fetish>>??????
Well it is a bodybuilding site..
-
Well it is a bodybuilding site..
Andreisaqueer trolls for cock via PM - truth
-
Andreisaqueer trolls for cock via PM - truth
Im not sure i know what this means and im pretty sure i dont want to.
-
Im not sure i know what this means and im pretty sure i dont want to.
My pm box is is loaded w cray cray shit from andre.
-
Sure, but you care enough to repeatedly ask me. ::) And you did search getbig, you just returned evasive results.
Yup. The fact that you searched through old threads for a six year old pic of you in halfway decent shape, instead of pulling something recent off of facebook or just taking a pic- either of which would have taken less time- does speak for itself.
hahah i know where i have posted pics so it was pretty easy to find my old lifting log and a pic. Adonis posted the facebook pic so I dont know where that is.
Not that it matters, you wont ever post a pic no matter what. Youre a fat piece of shit who doesnt even lift so Im done entertaining myself with your backtracking lol
-
hahah i know where i have posted pics so it was pretty easy to find my old lifting log and a pic. Adonis posted the facebook pic so I dont know where that is.
Not that it matters, you wont ever post a pic no matter what. Youre a fat piece of shit who doesnt even lift so Im done entertaining myself with your backtracking lol
I said post a face and body pic and Id post a pic. You didn't do it. I'm not sure how that's backtracking. :-\
I was up all night devastated because of what you thought about me. :'(
-
I said post a face and body pic and Id post a pic. You didn't do it. I'm not sure how that's backtracking. :-\
I was up all night devastated because of what you thought about me. :'(
no shits given fatty
-
no shits given fatty
LOL I'm sure. You're the one who asked for the pic ;)
-
LOL I'm sure. You're the one who asked for the pic ;)
no shit given, did not read
-
I'm a piece of shit. I can't read.
;)
-
no..not trying to hold on to beliefs....all studies say the same thing..that whites use, possess and sell more drugs on a daily basis than blacks...I make no other assertion....
Based on the facts you are wrong.
I have cited actual facts you have not.
-
I thought part of your argument about over policing had to do with drug use/sale by whites being higher yet blacks are incarcerated more. I was pointing out that drug use wasn't really higher based on links your provided. And it was spin in the article.
This is what is was originally asking about:
Is there data on this that indicates this "design"? If so why do you suppose it's this way?
It would seem to me an area with higher violent crime rates warrant more policing.
There are many neighborhoods I can walk around at night with little worry and there are neighborhoods I would never walk around at night in.
It seems to make better sense to focus police in areas with higher crimes rates.
I am interested in yours or another view on this.
I don't think I agree much with what you're saying, but I believe I could be just plain naive about it. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and have spent plenty of time in "minority neighborhoods" both affluent and poor, white, black, Hispanics and Asian.
Bump for Al
-
Geez I leave for 2 days and there 5 more pages.
-
Bump for Al
Ok, so let's talk about New York, where we have the Stop and Frisk program. This is allegedly a program to get guns off of NY streets. In 2012, about 700 guns were collected... as a result of more than half a million stops. Black and latino men were about 85% of the stops.
Stop and Frisk is a massive program that results in about a 10% arrest rate and a 5% conviction rate and a less than 1% gun seizure rate. The majority of those arrests and convictions are for marijuana possession. As I posted earlier, the most cited crime for NY criminals on a year-by-year basis is for the single misdemeanor of marijuana possession. Marijuana possession isn't even technically illegal in NYC unless an officer sees it. So, one of the lucky benefits of the massive failure known as stop-and-frisk is that it opens the door to a decent amount of marijuana arrest revenue.
An interesting statistic is that of the whites stopped, they have been found to be more likely to be carrying weapons and contraband.
Is this to say that more whites should be stopped because they are probably a bigger criminal element than black and hispanic men. No. It's a sign that the program, as it has operated, it way too broad, ignoring the fact that many people (myself included) consider it inherently unconstitutional.
-
Geez I leave for 2 days and there 5 more pages.
It's almost as if this board does not revolve around you ;)
-
Ok, so let's talk about New York, where we have the Stop and Frisk program. This is allegedly a program to get guns off of NY streets. In 2012, about 700 guns were collected... as a result of more than half a million stops. Black and latino men were about 85% of the stops.
Stop and Frisk is a massive program that results in about a 10% arrest rate and a 5% conviction rate and a less than 1% gun seizure rate. The majority of those arrests and convictions are for marijuana possession. As I posted earlier, the most cited crime for NY criminals on a year-by-year basis is for the single misdemeanor of marijuana possession. Marijuana possession isn't even technically illegal in NYC unless an officer sees it. So, one of the lucky benefits of the massive failure known as stop-and-frisk is that it opens the door to a decent amount of marijuana arrest revenue.
An interesting statistic is that of the whites stopped, they have been found to be more likely to be carrying weapons and contraband.
Is this to say that more whites should be stopped because they are probably a bigger criminal element than black and hispanic men. No. It's a sign that the program, as it has operated, it way too broad, ignoring the fact that many people (myself included) consider it inherently unconstitutional.
I would have to see the data. Based on the other misleading article and it conclusions I don't have confidence in the credibility of that statement. Is there available data on this?
And how is it way to broad and what does some people's objection because they think it's unconstitutional have anything to do with it?
Are you trying to use something that isn't happening thats based on what i might think should or should not be done as a result of a study to support your argument?
I am little confused here.
Btw it's important to me that data is verified. The 2011 study on drug use as support for the premise that white use more drugs that blacks by percentage is retarded. Less than a percent differences? Any idiot knows that based on sample size there is always +/- % for error. Meaning if they poll the same sample size on a different group of random peeps it might swing up or down a little. The differences in that 2011 study make it dead even. Saying they are technically higher is meaningless, untrue, unrealistic, etc.
So please, I need to see the details of this data to verify the statement. For all I know it may be sample with in a sample or some insignificant amount.
Please keep.in mind what I have already asked 3 times already.
If there is a pattern going on you shouldnt have to ask me hypothetical based questions.
-
I would have to see the data. Based on the other misleading article and it conclusions I don't have confidence in the credibility of that statement. Is there available data on this?
http://advocate.nyc.gov/sites/advocate.nyc.gov/files/DeBlasioStopFriskReform.pdf
And how is it way to broad and what does some people's objection because they think it's unconstitutional have anything to do with it?
A gun seizure program with a less than 1% gun seizure rate that is more effective as a backdoor excuse to go on a fishing expedition? Gee, how could that be considered "too broad"? ::)
Are you trying to use something that isn't happening thats based on what i might think should or should not be done as a result of a study to support your argument?
I have no idea what this means.
Btw it's important to me that data is verified. The 2011 study on drug use as support for the premise that white use more drugs that blacks by percentage is retarded. Less than a percent differences? Any idiot knows that based on sample size there is always +/- % for error. Meaning if they poll the same sample size on a different group of random peeps it might swing up or down a little. The differences in that 2011 study make it dead even. Saying they are technically higher is meaningless, untrue, unrealistic, etc.
A sentiment that you have repeated several times while conveniently ignoring the ACTUAL premise of the statement which was the huge disparity in incarceration rates. Whether or not you believe usage rates are slightly higher, at worst they are equal.
Please keep.in mind what I have already asked 3 times already.
If there is a pattern going on you shouldnt have to ask me hypothetical based questions.
What hypothetical question am I allegedly using to evade you?
-
Based on the facts you are wrong.
I have cited actual facts you have not.
I guess Rand Paul is wrong too..he said the same thing
-
I guess Rand Paul is wrong too..he said the same thing
Yes. He is wrong.
It seems you take politicians at their word when it suits you. I do not.
I read the study for myself. Did you?
Maybe all those peeps who call you an obamadrone are right. I don't think so. But.......a
-
http://advocate.nyc.gov/sites/advocate.nyc.gov/files/DeBlasioStopFriskReform.pdf
A gun seizure program with a less than 1% gun seizure rate that is more effective as a backdoor excuse to go on a fishing expedition? Gee, how could that be considered "too broad"? ::)
Are you saying the intention of this program was to bust peeps for pot, not guns? If so what facts do you base this claim on?
Looks like just a very failed program to me. But I need to read that link you provided. Maybe it says in it that they are really doing this to bust peeps for pot.
I have no idea what this means.
A sentiment that you have repeated several times while conveniently ignoring the ACTUAL premise of the statement which was the huge disparity in incarceration rates. Whether or not you believe usage rates are slightly higher, at worst they are equal.
What hypothetical question am I allegedly using to evade you?
It just seems like you are making massive speculation about a supposed hidden agenda on a stupid program.
I am not understAnding you?
I still need to read the link though.
-
Are you saying the intention of this program was to bust peeps for pot, not guns? If so what facts do you base this claim on?
Looks like just a very failed program to me. But I need to read that link you provided. Maybe it says in it that they are really doing this to bust peeps for pot.
It just seems like you are making massive speculation about a supposed hidden agenda on a stupid program.
I am not understAnding you?
I still need to read the link though.
I find the first part of your post ridiculous. It's like you're asking me if I have a memo or press conference video of the police commissioner saying "Here are the details of our hidden agenda."
And why try to dismiss it as just a "stupid program"? ::) It affects peoples lives, futures, families and livelihood. Overpolicing of certain minority groups. THAT was what I said. That is what the program accomplishes. And it is by design. The ethnic breakdown is intentional and the numbers don't justify the overbroad tactics. The disparity between total stops among ethnicities and arrests and convictions speaks for itself. Just as the disparity between national drug use rates among ethnicities and incarceration rates speaks for itself.
I'm also not sure why you would feel the need to post a response without looking at the link or adding any substantive observation ??? You have appeared to be attempting to call me out for "evading" your posts, yet the reason I have not been eager to respond to your posts is the lack of compelling argument/discourse you have provided. You spent several posts harping on whether or not whites use drugs at a higher rate than blacks or at the same rate, but have yet to offer any observations about the indisputable disparity in incarceration rates. And now, clicking on a link that you requested is too much of a hassle, yet you still post a response. You've reposted that one quote how many times? Yet when I do take the time to respond, your posts become even less substantive. If you have an observation or want to dispute the ACTUAL TOPIC in the form of conversation, then do so. I already said I'm not gonna write a term paper.
-
I find the first part of your post ridiculous. It's like you're asking me if I have a memo or press conference video of the police commissioner saying "Here are the details of our hidden agenda."
How is it ridiculous?
this is what you said:
"This is allegedly a program to get guns off of NY streets."
That statement suggests you think this wasn't a program to get guns off the street.
That's why I made the ridiculous statement. Because you, Al are the one that made the ridiculous suggestion.
And why try to dismiss it as just a "stupid program"? ::) It affects peoples lives, futures, families and livelihood.
Its stupid program because it didn't work, and I suspect more of a political appeasement to voters to show he was doing something about gun violence.
Overpolicing of certain minority groups. THAT was what I said. That is what the program accomplishes. And it is by design. The ethnic breakdown is intentional and the numbers don't justify the overbroad tactics.
The precincts targeted were mostly populated by Black/Latinos, Except 120 and 70. My question would be be: Are the crime rates high in those areas as compared to surrounding areas? If so, doesn't that justify targeting those areas?
The disparity between total stops among ethnicities and arrests and convictions speaks for itself. Just as the disparity between national drug use rates among ethnicities and incarceration rates speaks for itself.
Drugs is one thing, violence is another. My original inquiry wasn't based on drugs. You brought it into this. However, i suspect much of the violence comes from poverty and drugs, and the FACT that white drug use isn't significantly higher, but in fact more even, doesn't support that argument that the police are focusing on the wrong race. And you do think this because you said this:
"* Far and away, most black men who are incarcerated are behind bars on a drug charge. Drug incarceration rates and sentences are ridiculous across races. Since 1985, thanks to the war on drugs incarceration levels for drug offenders have swelled from 41,000 to over half a million. Arrest of blacks have Even though drug charges are ludicrous across races, they disproportionately affect poor and minorities. Multiple studies, some commissioned by government agencies, have concluded that whites are more likely to sell drugs and use drugs (by percentage, not sheer number) but blacks are exponentially more likely to face legal penalties. "
I'm also not sure why you would feel the need to post a response without looking at the link or adding any substantive observation ???
I was in the airport, didn't really have time to read through it. But what struck me was your suggestion of a hidden agenda by using the word "alleged" and then now you called my statement about it ridiculous when in fact you are the one who suggested a hidden agenda. Funny. Should I eye roll here? :D
You have appeared to be attempting to call me out for "evading" your posts
No, you were slow to respond to them and they got buried. So i re-posted and bumped. If i wanted to call you out for dodging me, which you are not, i would be very direct about it.
yet the reason I have not been eager to respond to your posts is the lack of compelling argument/discourse you have provided. You spent several posts harping on whether or not whites use drugs at a higher rate than blacks or at the same rate,
That's because its untrue and was used by YOU as part of your argument. If part of your argument doesn't make sense or is untrue i will not accept it. If your argument is valid it shouldn't have to rely on a false assumption or mislead fact to make its point.
but have yet to offer any observations about the indisputable disparity in incarceration rates.
So far, i haven't seen an unjustified pattern that indicates over policing. Not to say that there isn't one. You just haven't shown it yet.
And now, clicking on a link that you requested is too much of a hassle, yet you still post a response. You've reposted that one quote how many times? Yet when I do take the time to respond, your posts become even less substantive. If you have an observation or want to dispute the ACTUAL TOPIC in the form of conversation, then do so. I already said I'm not gonna write a term paper.
I am not asking you write a term paper. But i do ask you to take ownership of what you write:
1. Suggesting that black incarceration rates were on fair because of white use and sell more drugs by percentage
2. Suggesting that the program intentions had an hidden agenda.
-
There are no honest conversations going on about racial inequality that stretches its tentacles to everything from the judicial system to education.
I hear everything from Genetics to culture to blame. There is an origin, or a providence that can be pointed to, to explain the plight of inner-city blacks. It’s not Genetics and it’s not culture.
Systematic and institutional racism was deemed illegal federally in 1964. My mother was 12. So for the first 12 years of my mother’s life, she was ...on the books....a second class citizen. How crazy is that? But the Civil rights act didn’t just automatically switch peoples thinking and make them stop being discriminatory towards blacks. It went on way after a law was passed.
So you tell me how someone is supposed to keep up in a race if one participant started running and built up a huge lead, and the other participant wasn’t allowed to even get out of the blocks until well after the race has started. And when he is finally allowed to run, they have hand me down shoes and a backpack full of bricks to wear while running. If you look at history you can sort of understand that analogy and you can start to understand why things are the way they are.
Once given a fair (the same) opportunity as other Americans blacks have shown they could excel in the very fields they were thought not to have the brain capacity for. From education, to sports, to military service, all were thought to be a place where blacks were genetically incapable to participate let alone excel, yet once given one fair (most of the times still unfair) shot, they showed they belonged as well.
I think, all things being equal, like really equal. Like total and equal accountability in the justice system is a hell of a start. But if we put our heads and the sand and actually believe that if 16 year black kid from south central LA gets caught with weed and 16 year old white kid from Tarzana gets caught with the same amount of weed will face the same judicial system, we are fooling ourselves haven’t begun to address the problem as a nation.
-
There are no honest conversations going on about racial inequality that stretches its tentacles to everything from the judicial system to education.
I hear everything from Genetics to culture to blame. There is an origin, or a providence that can be pointed to, to explain the plight of inner-city blacks. It’s not Genetics and it’s not culture.
Systematic and institutional racism was deemed illegal federally in 1964. My mother was 12. So for the first 12 years of my mother’s life, she was ...on the books....a second class citizen. How crazy is that? But the Civil rights act didn’t just automatically switch peoples thinking and make them stop being discriminatory towards blacks. It went on way after a law was passed.
So you tell me how someone is supposed to keep up in a race if one participant started running and built up a huge lead, and the other participant wasn’t allowed to even get out of the blocks until well after the race has started. And when he is finally allowed to run, they have hand me down shoes and a backpack full of bricks to wear while running. If you look at history you can sort of understand that analogy and you can start to understand why things are the way they are.
Once given a fair (the same) opportunity as other Americans blacks have shown they could excel in the very fields they were thought not to have the brain capacity for. From education, to sports, to military service, all were thought to be a place where blacks were genetically incapable to participate let alone excel, yet once given one fair (most of the times still unfair) shot, they showed they belonged as well.
I think, all things being equal, like really equal. Like total and equal accountability in the justice system is a hell of a start. But if we put our heads and the sand and actually believe that if 16 year black kid from south central LA gets caught with weed and 16 year old white kid from Tarzana gets caught with the same amount of weed will face the same judicial system, we are fooling ourselves haven’t begun to address the problem as a nation.
From my understanding if a person gets caught with less than an ounce of weed in Cali its equivalent to a traffic ticket. So i am not really sure where you are going with this.
I agree with most of the other stuff you posted though.
-
From my understanding if a person gets caught with less than an ounce of weed in Cali its equivalent to a traffic ticket. So i am not really sure where you are going with this.
I agree with most of the other stuff you posted though.
what about African immigrants and Indians etc who come here and do fine?
-
From my understanding if a person gets caught with less than an ounce of weed in Cali its equivalent to a traffic ticket. So i am not really sure where you are going with this.
I agree with most of the other stuff you posted though.
Well replace weed with coke
-
what about African immigrants and Indians etc who come here and do fine?
Before we talk 3333. Will you act like an adult in this conversation? Im being serious. We can talk, but keep your side show shit out of this and dont waste our time. Deal?
-
Well replace weed with coke
OK, lets look at some data that includes:
- Amounts with the purpose for recreational use.
- Amounts with the purpose for sale
- Priors
- Other charges in same arrest such as weapons possession, violence etc.
Results of convictions, sentencing etc.
-
OK, lets look at some data that includes:
- Amounts with the purpose for recreational use.
- Amounts with the purpose for sale
- Priors
- Other charges in same arrest such as weapons possession, violence etc.
Results of convictions, sentencing etc.
ok..ill see if i can pull something up.
-
How is it ridiculous?
this is what you said:
"This is allegedly a program to get guns off of NY streets."
That statement suggests you think this wasn't a program to get guns off the street.
That's why I made the ridiculous statement. Because you, Al are the one that made the ridiculous suggestion.
No, it suggests that it ISN'T a program that gets guns off the streets despite the political brass/NYPD officials repeatedly claiming it that's what it does. Whether or not the hidden agenda was to go after pot carriers was not an argument I was making, just that it is more effective at doing that than it's stated goal.
For clarification, what I found ridiculous was you asking for proof(!) of a hidden agenda and then stating that what you considered proof was an explicit confirmation of said "hidden agenda"(!).
The precincts targeted were mostly populated by Black/Latinos, Except 120 and 70. My question would be be: Are the crime rates high in those areas as compared to surrounding areas? If so, doesn't that justify targeting those areas?
Except "targeting" isn't this issue...and I've REPEATEDLY said that. You continue to try to conflate OVERPOLICING with any type of policing at all!
Its stupid program because it didn't work, and I suspect more of a political appeasement to voters to show he was doing something about gun violence.
And? How does that change the fact that it's overpolicing of a particular segment of the community? How does it change the fact that it results in more arrests not related to gun charges within that segment?
Drugs is one thing, violence is another. My original inquiry wasn't based on drugs. You brought it into this.
Why would the focus be on violence when drug crimes are behind most incarcerations in America?
However, i suspect much of the violence comes from poverty and drugs, and the FACT that white drug use isn't significantly higher, but in fact more even, doesn't support that argument that the police are focusing on the wrong race. And you do think this because you said this:
Yes , it does because there is still a huge disparity in incarceration rates between races (which you continue to try to ignore)
That's because its untrue and was used by YOU as part of your argument. If part of your argument doesn't make sense or is untrue i will not accept it. If your argument is valid it shouldn't have to rely on a false assumption or mislead fact to make its point.
Which it didn't do. Whites using at a greater level was never the point of the argument. It may have jumped out at you and you may continue to harp on it, but the very clear point of the argument was the disparity in incarceration rates. Whether or not rates are higher among whites or the same doesn't weaken or change the argument.
I am not asking you write a term paper. But i do ask you to take ownership of what you write:
1. Suggesting that black incarceration rates were on fair because of white use and sell more drugs by percentage
2. Suggesting that the program intentions had an hidden agenda.
So, this is what you take contention with? Two minor non-issues? The first one, even if you're correct, not changing my argument in the slightest and the second, not even an argument I made?
-
what about African immigrants and Indians etc who come here and do fine?
Many of those are people who are EDUCATED.....the poor can't come here unless they are brought over by a relative....the smart ones come here first......many of those guys you see selling newspapers at newsstands were pharmacists, lawyers, etc in their own country.....I've had many a conversation with them.....when you are educated you have thinking skills and are organized..often times the poor don't have this capacity
-
No, it suggests that it ISN'T a program that gets guns off the streets despite the political brass/NYPD officials repeatedly claiming it that's what it does. Whether or not the hidden agenda was to go after pot carriers was not an argument I was making, just that it is more effective at doing that than it's stated goal.
For clarification, what I found ridiculous was you asking for proof(!) of a hidden agenda and then stating that what you considered proof was an explicit confirmation of said "hidden agenda"(!).
I was being facetious when asking for proof because obviously there wasn't any. Sorry, spoken word gets lost in translation at times when converted to written word.
What's the charge for under an ounce possession in New York? If its a Ticket, then its moot.
Except "targeting" isn't this issue...and I've REPEATEDLY said that. You continue to try to conflate OVERPOLICING with any type of policing at all!
Ok so what's the/your definition of over policing?
And? How does that change the fact that it's overpolicing of a particular segment of the community? How does it change the fact that it results in more arrests not related to gun charges within that segment?
If there is a high rate of violence in a particular segment of the community wouldn't it be prudent to focus on that segment?
Why would the focus be on violence when drug crimes are behind most incarcerations in America?
Do you think the purpose of stop and frisk was to go after drugs or guns? It seems obvious it was to go for guns, NOT drugs. however, it failed and there was a different result
Yes , it does because there is still a huge disparity in incarceration rates between races (which you continue to try to ignore)
I am not trying to ignore it, i am trying to figure out why.
Which it didn't do. Whites using at a greater level was never the point of the argument. It may have jumped out at you and you may continue to harp on it, but the very clear point of the argument was the disparity in incarceration rates. Whether or not rates are higher among whites or the same doesn't weaken or change the argument.
You used it as part of your argument as to why it isn't right. That part is untrue.
So, this is what you take contention with? Two minor non-issues? The first one, even if you're correct, not changing my argument in the slightest and the second, not even an argument I made?
No Al, those are factors of the 2 points you have made. WE, still are not talking about why these rates are high and why there is over-policing.
All you said is the rates are high and pointed to 2 things.
1. Drug incarceration rates
2. A failed program
So here's the question we are not answering:
Why do police feel they need to "over-police" (I need to know your definition of it) neighbor hoods with mostly blacks or latinos?
I suspect, speculate etc. that its becuase those areas can be more dangerous due to poverty rates that result in more drug traffic, theft, muggings, murder, gang violence etc.
-
I was being facetious when asking for proof because obviously there wasn't any. Sorry, spoken word gets lost in translation at times when converted to written word.
What's the charge for under an ounce possession in New York? If its a Ticket, then its moot.
Marijuana possession is the leading reason behind arrests in NYC. And even if it was "just' a ticket, and even if that was the most common penalty, why would that be moot?
Ok so what's the/your definition of over policing?
500,000 stops to recover 700 guns.
If there is a high rate of violence in a particular segment of the community wouldn't it be prudent to focus on that segment?
Indiscriminately? NO. Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile that still leaves less than a 10% chance of finding a misdemeanor. NO.
Do you think the purpose of stop and frisk was to go after drugs or guns? It seems obvious it was to go for guns, NOT drugs. however, it failed and there was a different result
How is that obvious?? NYC officials have touted the "broken window" policy for decades, so it's not a stretch to believe that the NYPD would use a program like this to go after smaller crimes. It's actually right in line. On top of that, the marijuana arrests generate plenty of money for the city via federal funding and fines. But the point was not whether or not there is an ulterior motive to the program, but that the program is overbroad and ineffective.
I am not trying to ignore it, i am trying to figure out why.
You haven't asked any questions or even offered up any debate on that RELEVANT stat.
No Al, those are factors of the 2 points you have made. WE, still are not talking about why these rates are high and why there is over-policing.
They literally aren't.
All you said is the rates are high and pointed to 2 things.
1. Drug incarceration rates
2. A failed program
Those are massive examples ::)
So here's the question we are not answering:
Why do police feel they need to "over-police" (I need to know your definition of it) neighbor hoods with mostly blacks or latinos?
I suspect, speculate etc. that its becuase those areas can be more dangerous due to poverty rates that result in more drug traffic, theft, muggings, murder, gang violence etc.
Whuh? Are we actually relevant points now?
First and foremost, money. Most of what any big city police department does is generate revenue. Some of that is through fines and some of that is through federal funding through incarceration. Violent crime rates and drug arrest for everything aside from marijuana have PLUMMETED over the last 20-30 years but marijuana arrest rates skyrocketed.
The chart below is from a report on California marijuana convictions up through 2010.
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Misdemeanor_marijuana_arrests.pdf
Secondly, like you just said in your last post, political appearances. You keep making these suggestions that if there is some type of motive or whatever that it doesn't qualify as over-policing. Just because there is a motive doesn't mean that it is justified.
As to how I define "over-policing" - it's a level of police activity that is not statistically justified by the level of crime it solves or prevents.
-
Marijuana possession is the leading reason behind arrests in NYC. And even if it was "just' a ticket, and even if that was the most common penalty, why would that be moot?
Because its an infraction, just like a speeding ticket.
500,000 stops to recover 700 guns.
Would it be over policing if they got more guns?
Indiscriminately? NO. Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile that still leaves less than a 10% chance of finding a misdemeanor. NO.
That's because the program failed to get the "guns" it thought it could. You are once again, drawing conclusions about over policing based on the results of a failed program.
And they didn't "Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile". They targeted specific precincts that had 80-90% black and Latino residents. Why? Was it because of the crime rates in those precincts or was it because there more blacks and Latinos there? If the latter is the case, then why target 2 precincts with only 50% blacks and Latinos?
You are doing exactly what i have been saying you were doing when you suggested that pulling guns off the streets wasn't the purpose of the program, but instead to incriminate blacks and Latinos.
How is that obvious?? NYC officials have touted the "broken window" policy for decades, so it's not a stretch to believe that the NYPD would use a program like this to go after smaller crimes. It's actually right in line. On top of that, the marijuana arrests generate plenty of money for the city via federal funding and fines. But the point was not whether or not there is an ulterior motive to the program, but that the program is overbroad and ineffective.
A couple of points and issues here:
According to wiki:
The program’s purpose is to remove guns off the street before they are used in more serious crimes. In the context of this allegory, the NYPD aims to fix the broken windows before the squatters get in (http://The program’s purpose is to remove guns off the street before they are used in more serious crimes. In the context of this allegory, the NYPD aims to fix the broken windows before the squatters get in)
Speculating that they are doing to increase revenue is common. I think it every time i see a traffic cop with a radar gun.
But according to this article, its been lowering crime.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33230464/#.VLQ8QSvF98F (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33230464/#.VLQ8QSvF98F)
You haven't asked any questions or even offered up any debate on that RELEVANT stat.
That's what the rest of my post was about.
They literally aren't.
Those are massive examples ::)
Those are the examples you provided not me.
Whuh? Are we actually relevant points now?
First and foremost, money. Most of what any big city police department does is generate revenue. Some of that is through fines and some of that is through federal funding through incarceration. Violent crime rates and drug arrest for everything aside from marijuana have PLUMMETED over the last 20-30 years but marijuana arrest rates skyrocketed.
The chart below is from a report on California marijuana convictions up through 2010.
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Misdemeanor_marijuana_arrests.pdf
I get why you are tying pot to this, but the issue in my mind isn't pot. ...Its violence, something YOU AL haven't addressed.
Secondly, like you just said in your last post, political appearances. You keep making these suggestions that if there is some type of motive or whatever that it doesn't qualify as over-policing. Just because there is a motive doesn't mean that it is justified.
I can agree with that. At the same time, just because the result are a failure it doesn't mean the reasons for doing it was something else.
As to how I define "over-policing" - it's a level of police activity that is not statistically justified by the level of crime it solves or prevents.
According to that article it does.
-
Many of those are people who are EDUCATED.....the poor can't come here unless they are brought over by a relative....the smart ones come here first......many of those guys you see selling newspapers at newsstands were pharmacists, lawyers, etc in their own country.....I've had many a conversation with them.....when you are educated you have thinking skills and are organized..often times the poor don't have this capacity
We have free k - 12 - that's not enough?
-
Because its an infraction, just like a speeding ticket.
And? You're still being penalized by police.
Would it be over policing if they got more guns?
It would be less of a blatant case of over-policing if the seizure rate was above .5% of the stops.
::)
That's because the program failed to get the "guns" it thought it could. You are once again, drawing conclusions about over policing based on the results of a failed program.
And they didn't "Arbitrarily frisking citizens because they fit an ethnic and gender profile". They targeted specific precincts that had 80-90% black and Latino residents. Why? Was it because of the crime rates in those precincts or was it because there more blacks and Latinos there? If the latter is the case, then why target 2 precincts with only 50% blacks and Latinos?
You are doing exactly what i have been saying you were doing when you suggested that pulling guns off the streets wasn't the purpose of the program, but instead to incriminate blacks and Latinos.
The conviction rate speaks for itself.
A couple of points and issues here:
According to wiki:
The program’s purpose is to remove guns off the street before they are used in more serious crimes. In the context of this allegory, the NYPD aims to fix the broken windows before the squatters get in (http://The program’s purpose is to remove guns off the street before they are used in more serious crimes. In the context of this allegory, the NYPD aims to fix the broken windows before the squatters get in)
Speculating that they are doing to increase revenue is common. I think it every time i see a traffic cop with a radar gun.
But according to this article, its been lowering crime.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33230464/#.VLQ8QSvF98F (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33230464/#.VLQ8QSvF98F)
No, the NYPD officials interviewed in that story said it does.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Within the article:
David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on street stops, said few searches yield weapons or drugs. And the more people are searched, the more innocent people are hassled.
"The hit rate goes down because you're being less selective about how you're doing this. That has a cost. It's not free," Harris said.
Then:
Stop-and-Frisk Didn't Make New York Safer
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/stop-and-frisk-didnt-make-new-york-safer/359666/
Mayor Bloomberg’s efficiency arguments about stop-and-frisk are wrong, as well as irrelevant.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/new_york_s_stop_and_frisk_policy_is_neither_effective_nor_constitutional.html
Bloomberg and Kelly Aren’t Going to Like the Latest Research on Stop-and-Frisk
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/bloomberg-wont-like-new-stop-and-frisk-research.html
Those are the examples you provided not me.
And like I said, they are MASSIVE examples.
I get why you are tying pot to this, but the issue in my mind isn't pot. ...Its violence, something YOU AL haven't addressed.
In what capacity would you like this addressed?! Like I said previously, violent crime has been steadily declining for the past 25 years nationally and drug related offenses are the number one reason for incarcerations nationally. So why would I think the issue was the thing that affected fewer people? What specifically do you want addressed. Whether or not I feel that higher crime areas warrant a larger police presence. Of course. I've said that. Do they warrant police having carte blanche to behave however they please. Should people cede their civil liberties because of their zip code. Of course not!
I can agree with that. At the same time, just because the result are a failure it doesn't mean the reasons for doing it was something else.
So, even taking away the motive, it still results in a very clear case of overpolicing.
According to that article it does.
That article doesn't say that.
-
And? You're still being penalized by police.
Yeah, and you can add that to the plethora of other petty BS we get cited for. So what?
It would be less of a blatant case of over-policing if the seizure rate was above .5% of the stops.
::)
So because it failed its over policing?
You can't have it both ways.
It has to be over policing regardless of the outcome.
The conviction rate speaks for itself.
It only says that in one area it didn't.
No, the NYPD officials interviewed in that story said it does.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Within the article:
David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on street stops, said few searches yield weapons or drugs. And the more people are searched, the more innocent people are hassled.
"The hit rate goes down because you're being less selective about how you're doing this. That has a cost. It's not free," Harris said.
Then:
Stop-and-Frisk Didn't Make New York Safer
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/stop-and-frisk-didnt-make-new-york-safer/359666/
Mayor Bloomberg’s efficiency arguments about stop-and-frisk are wrong, as well as irrelevant.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/new_york_s_stop_and_frisk_policy_is_neither_effective_nor_constitutional.html
Bloomberg and Kelly Aren’t Going to Like the Latest Research on Stop-and-Frisk
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/bloomberg-wont-like-new-stop-and-frisk-research.html
That article doesn't say that.
from the article:
Police in major U.S. cities stop and question more than a million people each year — a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Most are black and Hispanic men. Many are frisked, and nearly all are innocent of any crime, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.
And the numbers are rising at the same time crime rates are dropping.[/u]
And like I said, they are MASSIVE examples.
And flawed.
In what capacity would you like this addressed?! Like I said previously, violent crime has been steadily declining for the past 25 years nationally and drug related offenses are the number one reason for incarcerations nationally. So why would I think the issue was the thing that affected fewer people? What specifically do you want addressed. Whether or not I feel that higher crime areas warrant a larger police presence. Of course. I've said that. Do they warrant police having carte blanche to behave however they please. Should people cede their civil liberties because of their zip code. Of course not!
So because violent crimes rates are dropping nationally its now safe to walk 66th avenue of Oakland? lol
It seems like you are trying to tie over-policing only to drugs and doing you best to ignore the violent crime aspect in those areas.
Your dismissive minimizing in the above paragraph shows it.
So, even taking away the motive, it still results in a very clear case of overpolicing.
I don't think so when you factor in the violent crime aspect into it.
But of course, that doesn't matter does it because you are still pissed because too many black and Latinos are getting citations for pot possession.
-
So because it failed its over policing?
You can't have it both ways.
It has to be over policing regardless of the outcome.
Me on page 12 :
It's a sign that the program, as it has operated, it way too broad, ignoring the fact that many people (myself included) consider it inherently unconstitutional.
Your response:
And how is it way to broad and what does some people's objection because they think it's unconstitutional have anything to do with it?
from the article:
Police in major U.S. cities stop and question more than a million people each year — a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Most are black and Hispanic men. Many are frisked, and nearly all are innocent of any crime, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.
And the numbers are rising at the same time crime rates are dropping.[/u]
"The numbers rising at the same time crime is dropping" =/="the program is causing crime to drop".
The national decline in violent crime preceded-by years- the institution of s&f-like programs in most large cities.
Additionally, after DiBlasio was elected, s&f in NYC was scaled back drastically and crime continued to decline.
http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nypd-analysis-stop-and-frisk-activity-down-as-serious-crime-declines-1.9659026
The new police commissioner had this to say:
"The amount of medicine was totally out of proportion to the illness," Bratton told an audience of law professors, students and journalists, adding that there were "700,000 stop-question-and-frisks in this city even as crime was going down year after year."
Bratton said he didn't agree with the argument that crime was going down because of the stop-and-frisk police tactic.
So because violent crimes rates are dropping nationally its now safe to walk 66th avenue of Oakland? lol
It seems like you are trying to tie over-policing only to drugs and doing you best to ignore the violent crime aspect in those areas.
Your dismissive minimizing in the above paragraph shows it.
And you stay doing this; trying to take one point in a nuanced argument and reduce it down to the entirety of the argument. In the the very text you quoted from me I say that higher crime areas do warrant a larger police presence. The way these programs have operated is excessive. There's no debating that. Nationally, most law enforcement agencies are more focused on drug prosecution. There's no debating that either.
-
We have free k - 12 - that's not enough?
it obviously wasn't enough for you
-
it obviously wasn't enough for you
I'm not the one begging for more free shit like the Black (No tip for the waiter) Brunch crowd
-
I'm not the one begging for more free shit like the Black (No tip for the waiter) Brunch crowd
who really cares about them?...they in no way represent black people......they only seem to represent blacks in your mind
-
who really cares about them?...they in no way represent black people......they only seem to represent blacks in your mind
Maybe there should be White Brunch and people start crashing the local Red Lobster and Waffle House :D
-
Maybe there should be White Brunch and people start crashing the local Red Lobster and Waffle House :D
;D...that might be funny
-
Me on page 12 :
It's a sign that the program, as it has operated, it way too broad, ignoring the fact that many people (myself included) consider it inherently unconstitutional.
Your response:
And how is it way to broad and what does some people's objection because they think it's unconstitutional have anything to do with it?
My question was would it be over policing if it got more guns?
You are confusing intentions/purpose with results.
And my first comment to yours was trying to find out what you meant by broad.
"The numbers rising at the same time crime is dropping" =/="the program is causing crime to drop".
The national decline in violent crime preceded-by years- the institution of s&f-like programs in most large cities.
Additionally, after DiBlasio was elected, s&f in NYC was scaled back drastically and crime continued to decline.
http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nypd-analysis-stop-and-frisk-activity-down-as-serious-crime-declines-1.9659026
The new police commissioner had this to say:
"The amount of medicine was totally out of proportion to the illness," Bratton told an audience of law professors, students and journalists, adding that there were "700,000 stop-question-and-frisks in this city even as crime was going down year after year."
Bratton said he didn't agree with the argument that crime was going down because of the stop-and-frisk police tactic.
You can argue weather or not it is by showing quotes of peeps who don't think so, but there other peeps who do. So what?
And you stay doing this; trying to take one point in a nuanced argument and reduce it down to the entirety of the argument. In the the very text you quoted from me I say that higher crime areas do warrant a larger police presence. The way these programs have operated is excessive. There's no debating that. Nationally, most law enforcement agencies are more focused on drug prosecution. There's no debating that either.
How have they been excessive? Because they didn't get the anticipated result? While stop and frisk is borders constitutional rights, frankly in high crime areas something needs to be done. Don't know if i would say this is the right thing. An argument might be made that 5 years of S & F have contributed to the 4% drop in crime. Who knows.
Do you live in a big city?
I've lived near one most of my life. Would you feel safe if your girl friend walked home through east LA, 30th Ave in Oakland, Hunters Point in SF, 10th street in Richmond? I would have little worry if mine walked through most of the neighborhoods in the city i live in.
You are dodging the issue of violence and theft in these areas. You are trying to focus your argument on Drugs, when drugs are something that will always be present in any community.
The issues aren't solely drugs. The issues are inner city gang violence, rape, murder, and theft, some of which are because of drugs.
So as far as i am concerned, cops need to be in those areas more, and i don't care if those areas are white, black or green. If that's over policing, then its justified.
About 15 years ago on Richmond, CA there was black neighborhood off of hill top drive and Shane st. The neighborhood over the years to that point slowly became a center for drugs sales. Groups of people would hang around on many of the street corners and sell drugs or harass people who drove in to the neighborhood. There was all kinds of theft violence issues. The Richmond police wouldn't even go in it much. I know this because i did work in and around the area.
The home owners got together and working with the police hired a security force that in a matter of months cleaned up the neighborhood making it far safer for everyone.
Is that over policing? Or is it ok because they got the right result?
Another thing i see around the bay area is opening Police sub stations near bad neighborhoods. Is that over policing?
These things were needed.
Another thing i would ask you.....Is stop and Frisk your only example? Are there more?
-
My question was would it be over policing if it got more guns?
You are confusing intentions/purpose with results.
And my first comment to yours was trying to find out what you meant by broad.
No, you just seem to have a problem following an argument with more than one point.
The program is a shitty program anyway. As I had already said, it's a violation of civil liberties. But the fact that even beyond it being inherently shitty, it doesn't even catch criminals makes it an even more blatant case of overpolicing.
You can argue weather or not it is by showing quotes of peeps who don't think so, but there other peeps who do. So what?
I can argue that it's not by showing that the drop in crime preceded the program and that crime continues to drop even when the program is scaled back. Within that argument, I can point out that NYPD officials aren't even in agreement with what you incorrectly claimed that article stated.
So as far as i am concerned, cops need to be in those areas more, and i don't care if those areas are white, black or green. If that's over policing, then its justified.
And that is your whole argument: any level of policing in a "high crime" area- no matter how excessive- is justified and in your mind there's no such thing as over-policing. It's just a matter of semantics. At least you've finally just said it plainly. I've said over and over that of course higher crime areas should have a stronger police presence, but you've repeatedly tried to turn that into "So any police presence at all is over-policing?" There are areas in-between. When police are hassling innocent citizens at a 9:1 ratio then that's overpolicing. You acknowledge the program is a failure, but it's just an "oopsie" on the NYPDs part, so no biggie. ::)
-
No, you just seem to have a problem following an argument with more than one point.
The program is a shitty program anyway. As I had already said, it's a violation of civil liberties. But the fact that even beyond it being inherently shitty, it doesn't even catch criminals makes it an even more blatant case of overpolicing.
I can see your point. I just have an issue with calling it over policing because of the result. Another angle to it might be that fact that it continued for years with shitty results which based on your definition of over-policing fits.
I can argue that it's not by showing that the drop in crime preceded the program and that crime continues to drop even when the program is scaled back. Within that argument, I can point out that NYPD officials aren't even in agreement with what you incorrectly claimed that article stated.
That's what the article said. I am only pasting what the article said.
And that is your whole argument: any level of policing in a "high crime" area- no matter how excessive- is justified and in your mind there's no such thing as over-policing. It's just a matter of semantics. At least you've finally just said it plainly. I've said over and over that of course higher crime areas should have a stronger police presence, but you've repeatedly tried to turn that into "So any police presence at all is over-policing?"
no, not at all. I am glad you can admit that certain neighborhoods need more police presence. That's been my thought from the start of this.
There are areas in-between. When police are hassling innocent citizens at a 9:1 ratio then that's overpolicing. You acknowledge the program is a failure, but it's just an "oopsie" on the NYPDs part, so no biggie. ::)
Ok, so you think it is, and i am not so sure it is.
Do you have other examples of over policing as per your definition?
And was the example i gave of Richmond over policing in your mind?
-
I can see your point. I just have an issue with calling it over policing because of the result. Another angle to it might be that fact that it continued for years with shitty results which based on your definition of over-policing fits.
It's not the results, it's the process.
That's what the article said. I am only pasting what the article said.
You said "according to the article, it's been lowering crime." That's not what the article said. It said that crime had been going down while the program was in place.
no, not at all. I am glad you can admit that certain neighborhoods need more police presence. That's been my thought from the start of this.
Which seems curious because I've said it several times and even in my first post responding to you said that even without distortions, crime rates are higher within the black community. Right from the beginning and in every subsequent post I have been very clear about my issue being the huge disparity in enforcement and sentencing.
Ok, so you think it is, and i am not so sure it is.
Do you have other examples of over policing as per your definition?
And was the example i gave of Richmond over policing in your mind?
That example was presented completely anecdotally. There was no comparison in the crime rates, before and after, no description of the police's methods, how many were depolyed, the scope of the operation, etc. It was basically- this area had a lot of crime, the police got involved, now it's gone. ??? The examples I gave were based on hard numbers. Once again, you're trying to twist my point into "any policing is bad policing", while the examples I gave were based on hard numbers: drastic disparities and overbroad programs.
Nost departments don't even keep stats. I believe NY only started after a few lawsuits. So anything else would be even more open to interpretation.
[/quote]
-
It's not the results, it's the process.
You said "according to the article, it's been lowering crime." That's not what the article said. It said that crime had been going down while the program was in place.
Which seems curious because I've said it several times and even in my first post responding to you said that even without distortions, crime rates are higher within the black community. Right from the beginning and in every subsequent post I have been very clear about my issue being the huge disparity in enforcement and sentencing.
You have avoided it quite a bit, instead trying to focus on drugs. But w/e
That example was presented completely anecdotally. There was no comparison in the crime rates, before and after, no description of the police's methods, how many were depolyed, the scope of the operation, etc. It was basically- this area had a lot of crime, the police got involved, now it's gone. ??? The examples I gave were based on hard numbers. Once again, you're trying to twist my point into "any policing is bad policing", while the examples I gave were based on hard numbers: drastic disparities and overbroad programs.
Nost departments don't even keep stats. I believe NY only started after a few lawsuits. So anything else would be even more open to interpretation.
I am not trying to twist anything. I'm asking you to provide other example of over policing. Can you do that?
Regarding Richmond. I was giving you a personal first hand experience. I was there when you could barely drive through without being harassed and I have been through since and its like it was. I found out what happened from a home owner.
Based on what i wrote and the information you have do you thin its over policing?
-
You have avoided it quite a bit, instead trying to focus on drugs. But w/e
Then ask me a specific question or make a specific observation. If violent crime is the bigger problem, what data do you have to back that up?
As I have said three times, I have talked more about drugs because a)it is the focus of most police departments nationally, b)the numbers affect more people and c)there is plenty of comprehensive data available.
Regarding Richmond. I was giving you a personal first hand experience. I was there when you could barely drive through without being harassed and I have been through since and its like it was. I found out what happened from a home owner.
Based on what i wrote and the information you have do you thin its over policing?
The home owners got together and working with the police hired a security force that in a matter of months cleaned up the neighborhood making it far safer for everyone.
This is your entire description of the police department's operation. Aside from being completely subjective, like I said earlier, there's no comparison of crime rates, description of police tactics, etc. There is no way for me to make that judgement.
I am not trying to twist anything. I'm asking you to provide other example of over policing. Can you do that?
We've already discussed the disparity between black and white incarcertaion rates for drugs, stop and frisk in new york, marijuana arrests rising vs all other drug and violent crime rates falling in California. So, here's another one. Stop and frisk in Florida, which is even worse than New York:
http://fusion.net/story/5568/florida-citys-stop-frisk-nabs-thousands-of-kids-finds-5-year-olds-suspicious/
This is the town where one black man was stopped more than 250 times. 62 times at the same convenience store. 50,000 total stops on a population of about 100,000. From the article:
Between 2008 and 2013, the City of Miami Gardens received over 15 federal grants, many of which were tied, in part, to funding overtime details to support the zero tolerance policy program, according to documents obtained by Fusion.
Two MGPD officers who asked Fusion to protect their identities spoke with us on camera about an unofficial policy of quotas and racial profiling that was rampant in their department. They say they were told by superiors to “get the numbers up” and they were ordered to stop black males between 15 and 30 years old.
-
Then ask me a specific question or make a specific observation. If violent crime is the bigger problem, what data do you have to back that up?
As I have said three times, I have talked more about drugs because a)it is the focus of most police departments nationally, b)the numbers affect more people and c)there is plenty of comprehensive data available.
::) In what world is drug use a bigger problem than women getting raped, homocide or gang violence?
There you go again trying to make drug enforcement the big issue and dismissing violence
The home owners got together and working with the police hired a security force that in a matter of months cleaned up the neighborhood making it far safer for everyone.
This is your entire description of the police department's operation. Aside from being completely subjective, like I said earlier, there's no comparison of crime rates, description of police tactics, etc. There is no way for me to make that judgement.
::) dodge away
We've already discussed the disparity between black and white incarcertaion rates for drugs, stop and frisk in new york,
that's only because certain precincts were targeted which had 70-80% blacks and Latinos in then. so of course the rates will be higher. Why were those precents targteted? Was it becuase there was too many joints in people's pockets? ::)
marijuana arrests rising vs all other drug and violent crime rates falling in California. So, here's another one. Stop and frisk in Florida, which is even worse than New York:
http://fusion.net/story/5568/florida-citys-stop-frisk-nabs-thousands-of-kids-finds-5-year-olds-suspicious/
This is the town where one black man was stopped more than 250 times. 62 times at the same convenience store. 50,000 total stops on a population of about 100,000. From the article:
Between 2008 and 2013, the City of Miami Gardens received over 15 federal grants, many of which were tied, in part, to funding overtime details to support the zero tolerance policy program, according to documents obtained by Fusion.
Two MGPD officers who asked Fusion to protect their identities spoke with us on camera about an unofficial policy of quotas and racial profiling that was rampant in their department. They say they were told by superiors to “get the numbers up” and they were ordered to stop black males between 15 and 30 years old.
So basically, your whole argument about over-policing centers on stop and frisk and nothing else?
Of course let's ignore the fact the Miami Gardens Violent crime rate is nearly double that of the rest of the state and burglary is nearly double that of the nation.
but according to you, lets dismiss this because:
In what capacity would you like this addressed?! Like I said previously, violent crime has been steadily declining for the past 25 years nationally and drug related offenses are the number one reason for incarcerations nationally. So why would I think the issue was the thing that affected fewer people? What specifically do you want addressed. Whether or not I feel that higher crime areas warrant a larger police presence. Of course. I've said that. Do they warrant police having carte blanche to behave however they please. Should people cede their civil liberties because of their zip code. Of course not!
Unfucking believable
-
::) In what world is drug use a bigger problem than women getting raped, homocide or gang violence?
There you go again trying to make drug enforcement the big issue and dismissing violence
Drug use isn't! And that's not what I said. What I did say is that the number for drug incarcerations affect more people. And they do. Exponentially. Feel free to post a stat showing me I'm wrong, though. ::)
Or anything relevant about policing and violence.
::) dodge away
It's not even a statement worth "dodging". the answer is , based on what you've written, it's not overpolicing. But there's no information whatsoever in that post to even make the conclusion, one way or another. Zip.
that's only because certain precincts were targeted which had 70-80% blacks and Latinos in then. so of course the rates will be higher. Why were those precents targteted? Was it becuase there was too many joints in people's pockets? ::)
Those were two separate examples. National drug incarceration rates and stop and frisk.
So basically, your whole argument about over-policing centers on stop and frisk and nothing else?
Of course let's ignore the fact the Miami Gardens Violent crime rate is nearly double that of the rest of the state and burglary is nearly double that of the nation.
but according to you, lets dismiss this because:
Unfucking believable
so, that's four separate examples, now. a)Stop and frisk is just a mistake. b)Whites don't use drugs more than blacks, the rate is the same, so that explains the huge incarceration disparity. c)Drug penalties, the leading reason for incarcerations nationally, the sole reason behind the swelling prison population, are irrelevantd) And, of course, as you've already stated if an area has a high crime rate, there's no such thing as over-policing.
::) I think you got every excuse covered.
-
Drug use isn't! And that's not what I said. What I did say is that the number for drug incarcerations affect more people. And they do. Exponentially. Feel free to post a stat showing me I'm wrong, though. ::)
Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them. Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.
It's not even a statement worth "dodging". the answer is , based on what you've written, it's not overpolicing. But there's no information whatsoever in that post to even make the conclusion, one way or another. Zip
Did you think i was trying to trap you or something?
Those were two separate examples. National drug incarceration rates and stop and frisk.
so, that's four separate examples, now. a)Stop and frisk is just a mistake. b)Whites don't use drugs more than blacks, the rate is the same, so that explains the huge incarceration disparity. c)Drug penalties, the leading reason for incarcerations nationally, the sole reason behind the swelling prison population, are irrelevantd) And, of course, as you've already stated if an area has a high crime rate, there's no such thing as over-policing.
::) I think you got every excuse covered.
Where have i said there is no such thing as over-policing in high crime areas.
Would you have the police do nothing different?
And yeah..... double the violent crime rate in Miami Gardens... one hell of an excuse. ::)
All you have pointed out is stop and frisk in different areas. What other examples are there of over-policing?
...............seriously Al, what's your answer? What should the police do in these areas of double violent crime? 3.6 per 1000 nationally versus 8.3 per 1000 in Miami Gardens. Or should we go back to New York City where some areas are almost 3 times the national rate?
-
Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them. Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.
And?? What point do you think you're making here? All that needs to happen is change all the laws? ???
Did you think i was trying to trap you or something?
I assume you were trying to get me to call it overpolicing, but I legitimately don't understand you think a judgement could even be made from those two sentences. Seriously it just said "Crime was high there. The police got involved. Now it's lowered." You didn't describe how they brought crime down, you didn't even describe seeing any cops in action. There was no information at all! What in those two sentences did you think I would consider overpolicing? ???
Where have i said there is no such thing as over-policing in high crime areas.
You just did it. Dismissing the stop and frisk stats in Miami Gardens because it has a crime rate higher than the national average... which of course justifies a stop total nearly DOUBLE THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE CITY. ::) It's not like Miami Gardens is the most dangerous city in the country, or even in Florida. Nearby Miami has a pretty similar crime profile - and is four times the size- but it had less than five thousand stops.
Would you have the police do nothing different?
Back to your favorite red herring, either stop and frisk every citizen in the town or do nothing. ::)
-
And?? What point do you think you're making here? All that needs to happen is change all the laws? ???
Of course not but it would be a start. *See bottom
I assume you were trying to get me to call it overpolicing, but I legitimately don't understand you think a judgement could even be made from those two sentences. Seriously it just said "Crime was high there. The police got involved. Now it's lowered." You didn't describe how they brought crime down, you didn't even describe seeing any cops in action. There was no information at all! What in those two sentences did you think I would consider overpolicing? ???
Not at all. I was trying to see what your opinion would be in that instance.
You just did it. Dismissing the stop and frisk stats in Miami Gardens because it has a crime rate higher than the national average... which of course justifies a stop total nearly DOUBLE THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE CITY. ::) It's not like Miami Gardens is the most dangerous city in the country, or even in Florida. Nearby Miami has a pretty similar crime profile - and is four times the size- but it had less than five thousand stops.
I am not dismissing it. It doesn't matter what i do because the fact of overly high crime in that area still exist
Back to your favorite red herring, either stop and frisk every citizen in the town or do nothing. ::)
You are taking my question, incorrectly identifying it as a red herring (when it directly relates to the topic of our discussion) and then employing *Reductio ad absurdum (reducing to the ridiculous)
I am simply asking what you think should be done in communities with 2-3 times the violent crime and burglary rates. To think stop and frisk was done to stop people from carrying pot is retarded.
AND, Do you have other examples of "over-policing" other than Stop and Frisk? (a question you continue to ignore)
-
Of course not but it would be a start. *See bottom
But that's not the reality. So, whether or not "it would be a start", is irrelevant to a discussion about how things CURRENTLY ARE..
Not at all. I was trying to see what your opinion would be in that instance.
Honestly, what information do you think those two sentences contained that would allow me to make that judgement?
I am not dismissing it. It doesn't matter what i do because the fact of overly high crime in that area still exist
Yes, you did. Your only response was "Well, crime is high there".
And, you're having a discussion about overpolicing on a message board, not fighting crime in Florida. For the purposes at hand, of course it matters if you selectively disregard facts.
You are taking my question, incorrectly identifying it as a red herring (when it directly relates to the topic of our discussion) and then employing *Reductio ad absurdum (reducing to the ridiculous)
I am simply asking what you think should be done in communities with 2-3 times the violent crime and burglary rates.
The question diverts from the topic. You believe the Florida police's response was proportional to the area, correct?
To think stop and frisk was done to stop people from carrying pot is retarded.
Where have i said that these programs are to stop people from carrying pot? It would be closer to accurate (but still wrong) to say that I've said the purpose was to PROSECUTE people for carrying pot. And you just posted this:
Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them. Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.
So, why is it retarded?
AND, Do you have other examples of "over-policing" other than Stop and Frisk? (a question you continue to ignore)
I continue to ignore it because I've already given four examples. On top of that, who says there needs to be more examples?? Like I've already said, the examples I'm using are the ones with the most documentation and the largest scope.
-
But that's not the reality. So, whether or not "it would be a start", is irrelevant to a discussion about how things CURRENTLY ARE..
Honestly, what information do you think those two sentences contained that would allow me to make that judgement?
Yes, you did. Your only response was "Well, crime is high there".
And, you're having a discussion about overpolicing on a message board, not fighting crime in Florida. For the purposes at hand, of course it matters if you selectively disregard facts.
The question diverts from the topic. You believe the Florida police's response was proportional to the area, correct?
Where have i said that these programs are to stop people from carrying pot? It would be closer to accurate (but still wrong) to say that I've said the purpose was to PROSECUTE people for carrying pot. And you just posted this:
Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them. Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.
So, why is it retarded?
I continue to ignore it because I've already given four examples. On top of that, who says there needs to be more examples?? Like I've already said, the examples I'm using are the ones with the most documentation and the largest scope.
No Al, you haven't given 4 examples.
You have given 1 example in play in 4 different areas.
If you have nothing else, just admit it. Then I will address the other things in your post.
-
No Al, you haven't given 4 examples.
You have given 1 example in play in 4 different areas.
If you have nothing else, just admit it. Then I will address the other things in your post.
How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep decrease in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?
-
Even if my examples were "limited to stop and frisk", that's more than enough.
-
Even if my examples were "limited to stop and frisk", that's more than enough.
You are stalling.
-
You are stalling.
How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep decrease in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?
Yeah, I'm stalling. ::) As if the question itself is not a diversion tactic ::)
-
Yeah, I'm stalling. ::) As if the question itself is not a diversion tactic ::)
Guess you can't answer it. So your whole premise of over policing rest on S/F in high violent crimes areas. And you are unwilling to submit anything else. What a disappointment.
We are not going to agree on S/F. I don't know for certain that's its over policing as per your definition. I believe something needs to be done in an area that has 2-3 times the national average of violent crime and burglary. I don't know what that is. I don't know that it should be S/F although your attempts to put those words in my mouth have shown your argument is weak.
So i ask what you think should be done, and you run from and ignore the question.
You don't want the focus of this discussion on violent crime/theft. Which is a big reason for S/F in the first place. You act as if things are so much better in places like California where violent crime is supposedly down. I ask if you'd feel comfortable with your GF walking around at night in Oakland and you again run from and ignore the question
Then i ask you what other things are happening that point to over policing and again run from and ignore the question
You don't want to face facts. Some minority neighborhoods are flat out dangerous and if you are minority, instead of bitching about police tactics, take some responsibility.
If you won't participate in a 2 way discussion by answering my questions also don't expect too much from me other than calling you out on the fact that stalling and dodging my questions because your argument has pitifully failed on S/F.
-
Guess you can't answer it. So your whole premise of over policing rest on S/F in high violent crimes areas. And you are unwilling to submit anything else. What a disappointment.
Lol ... yeah posted four different examples. ::) Programs with the largest scope nationally. Such disappointing. pathetic examples ::)
If you won't participate in a 2 way discussion by answering my questions also don't expect too much from me other than calling you out on the fact that stalling and dodging my questions because your argument has pitifully failed on S/F.
How exactly did my s/f argument "fail pitifully"? ::) You acknowledged the program is a failure in NY, yet you attempt to hedge your argument by calling it a "mistake" and "stupid". Despite that, you inadvertently admitted this:
Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them. Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.
So, exactly where does my argument fail?
I "ignored and ran froml" your off topic questions because they would give you an excuse to veer off topic even further. All throughout the thread, you would glom on to some non-issue and focus on that for several posts. It was an attempt to keep the discussion between us on topic.
You just wrote this in your last post:
I believe something needs to be done in an area that has 2-3 times the national average of violent crime and burglary. I don't know what that is. I don't know that it should be S/F although your attempts to put those words in my mouth have shown your argument is weak.
Yet, somehow I'm dodging your question when the topic is overpolicing? Unless I have an alternate police strategy, I can't point out how shitty the current one is? It's better just to keep bad programs in place because they're better than nothing?
And how am I putting words in your mouth? Your only response to the Florida stop and frisk numbers was that the area had a high crime rate. The reasonable inference is that you think the numbers are justified. I've asked you to clarify, but you declined. That's an example of a point that actually is on topic.
-
I don't feel like wading through 14 pages...did anyone explain why yelling at people eating eggs Benedict and drinking Mimosas was thought to be a sound idea?
-
Lol ... yeah posted four different examples. ::) Programs with the largest scope nationally. Such disappointing. pathetic examples ::)
How exactly did my s/f argument "fail pitifully"? ::) You acknowledged the program is a failure in NY, yet you attempt to hedge your argument by calling it a "mistake" and "stupid". Despite that, you inadvertently admitted this:
Yes they do affect more people, because there are more people doing drugs and getting caught for them then are committing violent crime and with stop and frisk its easier to catch them. Make some of these legal, like pot, and they can focus on the real issues.
So, exactly where does my argument fail?
I "ignored and ran froml" your off topic questions because they would give you an excuse to veer off topic even further. All throughout the thread, you would glom on to some non-issue and focus on that for several posts. It was an attempt to keep the discussion between us on topic.
You just wrote this in your last post:
I believe something needs to be done in an area that has 2-3 times the national average of violent crime and burglary. I don't know what that is. I don't know that it should be S/F although your attempts to put those words in my mouth have shown your argument is weak.
Yet, somehow I'm dodging your question when the topic is overpolicing? Unless I have an alternate police strategy, I can't point out how shitty the current one is? It's better just to keep bad programs in place because they're better than nothing?
And how am I putting words in your mouth? Your only response to the Florida stop and frisk numbers was that the area had a high crime rate. The reasonable inference is that you think the numbers are justified. I've asked you to clarify, but you declined. That's an example of a point that actually is on topic.
::)
What do you think should be done instead of S/F if anything?
Do you feel violent crime is down enough that you would feel comfortable with your GF walking alone on 30th st in Oakland at night?
What other examples do you have other than S/F that shows there is over policing?
-
::)
What do you think should be done instead of S/F if anything?
Do you feel violent crime is down enough that you would feel comfortable with your GF walking alone on 30th st in Oakland at night?
What other examples do you have other than S/F that shows there is over policing?
1)I don't have any suggestions for an alternative program.
2)No
3)I posted several examples above.
-
1)I don't have any suggestions for an alternative program.
Do you agree or disagree something needs to be done in areas of high violent & theft crimes?
2)No
If people still can't walk down a street without feeling or BEING safe AND if there are areas in this country that are double the average then it doesn't matter how many times you talk about how crime rates are going down.
If S/F reduces crime as a deterrent or does nothing is debatable. I find conflicting articles with opinions and data that's hard to directly attribute results either way.
For the record, I don't fully agree with you. I agree that that S/F borders on unconstitutional. I think there were many cases where S/F was handled poorly and was overboard police harassment in some areas. I agree S/F didn't seem to have desirable results, but yet the results are debatable in terms of lowering and deterring violent crime or crime increasing when S/F was ended. I do think it was practical to focus S/F on areas of higher crime regardless of who lives there( and it doesn't matter if crime is going down overall in the nation). Based on your definition of over policing i can see why you are against S/F.
3)I posted several examples above.
What examples other than S/F? (we are just going to go round and round on S/F)
-
Do you agree or disagree something needs to be done in areas of high violent & theft crimes?
Of course.
If people still can't walk down a street without feeling or BEING safe AND if there are areas in this country that are double the average then it doesn't matter how many times you talk about how crime rates are going down.
Except my assertion was never that the drop in crime meant there were no safety issues in these neighborhoods.
I very clearly said that the extreme drop in almost every crime aacross the board with the exception of one- which skyrocketed- was evidence of selective overpolicing.
If S/F reduces crime as a deterrent or does nothing is debatable. I find conflicting articles with opinions and data that's hard to directly attribute results either way.
Well, it doesn't work as an apprehension measure.
The data that it works as a deterrent is extremely flimsy.
Even if the data were stronger doesn't change the fact that the scope of the various s&f programs are absurdly broad for the nebulous benefit they provide.
For the record, I don't fully agree with you. I agree that that S/F borders on unconstitutional. I think there were many cases where S/F was handled poorly and was overboard police harassment in some areas. I agree S/F didn't seem to have desirable results, but yet the results are debatable in terms of lowering and deterring violent crime or crime increasing when S/F was ended.
Then, really argument over. You're just doing your best not to say "you're right". Everything you just posted is an agreement with my original statement: So, again, how has my argument "pitifully failed"?
I do think it was practical to focus S/F on areas of higher crime regardless of who lives there( and it doesn't matter if crime is going down overall in the nation). Based on your definition of over policing i can see why you are against S/F.
Whether or not it was practical, the program itself was shit. This is an extreme example, but it's like saying
to fight crime, police are just gonna start burning down homes to lower the population in the area. It might be practical to focus this plan on high crime areas, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just a shitty plan to begin with. Doesn't change the fact that most of the people affected by the plan weren't criminals. Doesn't change the fact that it creates tension between selected communities and police.
This was never the argument, anyway. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, so clarify... do you think those numbers in Florida were reasonable and logical? A stop rate of more than double the population? One guy getting arrested more than 200 times?
3)I posted several examples above.
What examples other than S/F? (we are just going to go round and round on S/F)
[/quote]
How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep increase in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?
-
I very clearly said that the extreme drop in almost every crime aacross the board with the exception of one- which skyrocketed- was evidence of selective overpolicing.
When did you say "extreme drop?
Then, really argument over. You're just doing your best not to say "you're right".Everything you just posted is an agreement with my original statement: So, again, how has my argument "pitifully failed"?
Whether or not it was practical, the program itself was shit.
No, what i am saying is that based on your definition of over policing you are right. I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it and the fact that there is makes your argument pitifully failed in addition to you unwilling to answer my questions which you eventually did. The program may have been shit. Nothing concrete says one way or another. However, i do think something needed to be done and needs to be done in those areas. This didn't get a measurable result that a person could say either way. But if i was living in those areas, I would appreciate more assertive police rather than responsive police. Was S/F the best thing for that? I don't know. Some of the cases you highlighted certainly were not.
This is an extreme example, but it's like saying
to fight crime, police are just gonna start burning down homes to lower the population in the area. It might be practical to focus this plan on high crime areas, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just a shitty plan to begin with. Doesn't change the fact that most of the people affected by the plan weren't criminals. Doesn't change the fact that it creates tension between selected communities and police.
Like i said, I don't know that it was a the best thing to do.
This was never the argument, anyway. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, so clarify... do you think those numbers in Florida were reasonable and logical? A stop rate of more than double the population? One guy getting arrested more than 200 times?
Yeah, not good. How does he get arrested 200 times? Do you mean stopped and questioned?
How is the national racial disparity in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk? How is the decline in almost every felony aside from drugs in CA, and a steep increase in drug incarceration rates stop and frisk?
Ok, are those a result of S/F?
So then, what do you think the reason for racial disparity in drug incarceration rates are? And are those reasons are over policing?
-
you guys have got to get a room :D
-
you guys have got to get a room :D
You and Soul Crusher need to leave it first. ;D
-
You and Soul Crusher need to leave it first. ;D
good point...touche' my friend! ;D
-
You and Soul Crusher need to leave it first. ;D
Leave me out of this - andre is a perverted FREAK
-
I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it and the fact that there is makes your argument pitifully failed in addition to you unwilling to answer my questions which you eventually did.
::) So, this is it. You don't believe overpolicing is possible in a high-crime area. How am I putting words in your mouth? You've said this in various ways multiple times and it's clear as day here.
You just can't bring yourself to say "you're right". You agree with every point (except when you backpedal) and your justification of these things is "Well, it's better than nothing" ?!
So, andre is right. This is essentially over. This is just one of those convos where you're just gonna twist in the wind without admitting the obvious. Which is pretty much de riguer for an internet message board and about all I expected anyway. ;)
BTW, as I said, I wasn't answering your off-topic questions so you would stay on topic. I've answered them and you have yet to relate them to the topic.
-
::) So, this is it. You don't believe overpolicing is possible in a high-crime area. How am I putting words in your mouth? You've said this in various ways multiple times and it's clear as day here.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You did it earlier a couple of times and you just did it again.... where did i say "i don't believe over policing is possible in a high-crime area?" I didn't say that. I said:
"I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it" In other words: If there isn't a justifiable reason for a program to increase police activity then its over policing. For example, S/F in an area whose violent crime rate is 1.9/1000 vs the 3.6 national average as opposed to an area like Miami Gardens where is 8.1.
That doesn't mean i think there should Marshall Law in those areas because the crime rate is 8.1. But if there is rioting like there was with the Rodney King deal in the 90's, then it might have been necessary.
Now, take some fucking accountability for putting words in my mouth!!!!!
You just can't bring yourself to say "you're right". You agree with every point (except when you backpedal) and your justification of these things is "Well, it's better than nothing" ?!
No, not at all. You cannnot accept the distinction i established with my definition of over-policing so you resorted to putting owrds into my mouth. Hence...another pitiful argument.
So, andre is right. This is essentially over. This is just one of those convos where you're just gonna twist in the wind without admitting the obvious. Which is pretty much de riguer for an internet message board and about all I expected anyway. ;)
So that's your method of ending the debate? Put words in person's mouth and then say its over?
::) GMAFB!!!!
FACE THE FACTS AL: If those areas didn't have such a high violent crime rate there would have never likely been a S/F in the first dam place!!!!!!!
-
more gentle giants
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/27867659/suspects-in-haines-city-robbery-ided-as-1-remains-at-large
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You did it earlier a couple of times and you just did it again.... where did i say "i don't believe over policing is possible in a high-crime area?" I didn't say that. I said:
"I don't think its over policing if there is a good reason for it" In other words: If there isn't a justifiable reason for a program to increase police activity then its over policing. For example, S/F in an area whose violent crime rate is 1.9/1000 vs the 3.6 national average as opposed to an area like Miami Gardens where is 8.1.
That doesn't mean i think there should Marshall Law in those areas because the crime rate is 8.1. But if there is rioting like there was with the Rodney King deal in the 90's, then it might have been necessary.
Now, take some fucking accountability for putting words in my mouth!!!!!
So, stops at a rate double the town's population isn't practically Marshall law? Stopped dozes, in some cases LITERALLY hundreds of times? ::)
So, your argument is that the program itself is justified, so no matter how it's implemented, no matter what the scope, that's justified, too?
FACE THE FACTS AL: If those areas didn't have such a high violent crime rate there would have never likely been a S/F in the first dam place!!!!!!!
...Once again... ::)
Yeah, it's over.
-
So, stops at a rate double the town's population isn't practically Marshall law? Stopped dozes, in some cases LITERALLY hundreds of times? ::)
So, your argument is that the program itself is justified, so no matter how it's implemented, no matter what the scope, that's justified, too?
...Once again... ::)
Yeah, it's over.
So you can even own up to putting words in my mouth can you?
It also looks like you are pathetically ignorant of the definition of Martial Law.
That's 2 more unpleasant facts you must face. ;)
-
So you can even own up to putting words in my mouth can you?
It also looks like you are pathetically ignorant of the definition of Marshall Martial Law.
That's 2 more unpleasant facts you must face. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus,
Naw, it was apt.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You keep saying "Well, these programs are justified in these particular areas even though they're failures." A big reason they are failures is because their scopes are way too broad for the results they do or could hope to achieve. They hassle innocent citizens more effectively than they fight or reduce crime. They are vehicles for overpolicing.
So, clarify if I'm misrepresenting you. I've asked several times and you've avoided? Is scope irrelevant? Is there a point where the number of stops is irrational in your opinion?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus,
Naw, it was apt.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You keep saying "Well, these programs are justified in these particular areas even though they're failures." A big reason they are failures is because their scopes are way too broad for the results they do or could hope to achieve. They hassle innocent citizens more effectively than they fight or reduce crime. They are vehicles for overpolicing.
So, clarify if I'm misrepresenting you. I've asked several times and you've avoided? Is scope irrelevant? Is there a point where the number of stops is irrational in your opinion?
::)
Practically means almost, nearly, in effect, close. Based on the definition of martial law you provided what went on in MG isnt even close.
And you still haven't come close to owning up to putting words in my mouth on several occasions.
Try again
-
::)
Practically means almost, nearly, in effect, close. Based on the definition of martial law you provided what went on in MG isnt even close.
Naw, it was apt.
[/quote]
And you still haven't come close to owning up to putting words in my mouth on several occasions.
Try again
[/quote]
Because I've done no such thing. Even in the post in which you allegedly clarified your position, you didn't actually do that. We're not talking about theoretical imposition of martial law, we're talking about the actual and current implementation of the examples I've given. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, but you still have yet to clarify how I've done that. Is there a point where the number of stops is irrational? Or do you believe that if an area has a crime rate higher than the national average that any number of stops is reasonable?
-
Naw, it was apt.
And you still haven't come close to owning up to putting words in my mouth on several occasions.
Try again
Because I've done no such thing. Even in the post in which you allegedly clarified your position, you didn't actually do that. We're not talking about theoretical imposition of martial law, we're talking about the actual and current implementation of the examples I've given. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, but you still have yet to clarify how I've done that. Is there a point where the number of stops is irrational? Or do you believe that if an area has a crime rate higher than the national average that any number of stops is reasonable?
::)
Blah blah blah
i didn't say I "don't believe overpolicing is possible". You say I did and you can't show me or will not cop to it. I am more than happy to discuss your questions, but i will not do it under the pretext of you putting words in my mouth.....which when you have to resort to putting words in people's mouths, combined with ignoring the definition of words like matial law and practical it only shows how weak so far your argument is that over policing is one of the most destructive forces in the USA and that its disproportionately enacted on minorities by design.
-
::)
Blah blah blah
i didn't say I "don't believe overpolicing is possible". You say I did and you can't show me or will not cop to it. I am more than happy to discuss your questions, but i will not do it under the pretext of you putting words in my mouth.....which when you have to resort to putting words in people's mouths, combined with ignoring the definition of words like matial law and practical it only shows how weak so far your argument is that over policing is one of the most destructive forces in the USA and that its disproportionately enacted on minorities by design.
Yeah, my argument is so weak that you agree with every point until it comes to a matter of saving face.
Once again, how did I put words in your mouth? If I've done that, clarify your position:
Is there a point where the number of stops becomes irrational or is there no such thing?
-
I am not going to comment on a an assertion i never made. Again If you have to put words in mouth to make your argument, it only shows how weak your argument is.
I have outlined in detail how you have put words in my mouth, yet you keep asking me to show it.
Stop stalling, man up, and comment on what I did say, not what you wanted me to say to you can have a better argument.
I have plenty more to say about this, but I will not continue under a false pretense.
-
Why don't you guys make love already???...watching you two do all this foreplay is agonizing
-
I am not going to comment on a an assertion i never made. Again If you have to put words in mouth to make your argument, it only shows how weak your argument is.
I have outlined in detail how you have put words in my mouth, yet you keep asking me to show it.
Stop stalling, man up, and comment on what I did say, not what you wanted me to say to you can have a better argument.
I have plenty more to say about this, but I will not continue under a false pretense.
Yeah, I'm stalling. ::) You find a new stall tactic every other post. "I won't continue unless you answer some irrelevant questions that I don't even follow up on once you do answer." "I have much more to say but I will not continue under FALSE PRETENSES". (Did you say that one with a fake British accent while waving your index finger indignantly?) I really don't care whether or not you continue. You've conceded to every point, but just refuse to come out and flatly say "You're right" as a matter of saving face.
You have not outlined in detail how I've put words in your mouth ::) If I've put words in your mouth, then clarify your position, is there a point where the number of stops in a high crime area becomes irrational or is it not possible. You've made several posts that to me sounded like you flat out saying you don't think it's possible. If i"m putting words in your mouth, then CLARIFY.
-
Why don't you guys make love already???...watching you two do all this foreplay is agonizing
Pretty easy thread to ignore. There have been 4 posts in the last two weeks. ::)
-
Local authorities are stepping down after the Justice Department accused the city of racially biased law enforcement practices.
Among the issues identified in the report was a disproportionate amount of African-Americans targeted for traffic stops and other low-level violations. It said that police relied too heavily on the use of force and were quick to escalate confrontations with citizens, and also found that citizens often were denied their due-process rights in the local jail system and in how the municipal courts processed citations. Fueling the fire, the Justice Department said, was the city’s dependence on fines for minor offenses to fill municipal coffers.
Brockmeyer was called out by name in the report for his role in using fees to garner revenues, through tactics the report said are “widely considered abusive and may be unlawful.” The report also suggested he often overlooked pertinent information, such as criminal histories or a person's ability to pay, when levying penalties on Ferguson residents, and that he dismissed tickets for his colleagues
Naw, not by design. ::)
-
Local authorities are stepping down after the Justice Department accused the city of racially biased law enforcement practices.
Naw, not by design. ::)
exactly....people are constantly saying that racism is not systemic and that its just a few rogue guys...or that its all in black people's heads and black people commit most of the crimes so that why the numbers are skewed......this town was systematically arresting black people for minor offenses and then on top of that BILKING them for any monies they could squeeze out of them in terms of fines, fees, and court costs.
-
exactly....people are constantly saying that racism is not systemic and that its just a few rogue guys...or that its all in black people's heads and black people commit most of the crimes so that why the numbers are skewed......this town was systematically arresting black people for minor offenses and then on top of that BILKING them for any monies they could squeeze out of them in terms of fines, fees, and court costs.
So? Are they breaking the law? How about these fng idiots go to work and stop acting a fool and shooting people? Personally - im of the opinion lately that the best thing is to just have no police at all and let the idiots just off each other over time. Problem solved.
-
So? Are they breaking the law? How about these fng idiots go to work and stop acting a fool and shooting people? Personally - im of the opinion lately that the best thing is to just have no police at all and let the idiots just off each other over time. Problem solved.
thats not the point.....can you admit that the Ferguson police dept AND tht municipal court system were working in tandem to deny blacks their rights and also to bilk them of money to keep the city running????
-
thats not the point.....can you admit that the Ferguson police dept AND tht municipal court system were working in tandem to deny blacks their rights and also to bilk them of money to keep the city running????
Most of those fools pay zero taxes at all and are on welfare etc - they are paying nothing but sending back taxpayer money they got via welfare to the system. :D
-
Naw, not by design. ::)
-
http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Bail_Reform_Q_and_A.pdf
New Jersey’s bail system is broken. Nearly three-quarters of the 15,000 people in state jails are
awaiting trial rather than serving a sentence. Decisions about who is released pending trial are
based on the ability to pay bail and not on the risk to the community. Nonviolent, low-risk
arrestees are warehoused in jails for long periods at great financial cost to New Jersey simply
because they cannot pay sometimes nominal bail amounts. Meanwhile, high-risk offenders who
do have the financial resources can obtain release.
More than half of the individuals in New Jersey jails are being held for nonviolent offenses.
Many of these individuals could safely be released on bail pending trial but lack the financial
resources to pay the arbitrary bail amounts set by New Jersey’s bail schedule. The average
length of time individuals are held pending trial is almost one year.
Almost 40 percent of those held in New Jersey’s jails are there solely because of their inability
to pay bail. More than 10 percent cannot pay bail amounting to $2,500 or less (more than 800
inmates are held for the inability to pay $500 or less).
More pathetic examples.