100 Dead Blacks vs 5000 Dead Blacks - what gets more coverage?

[Shockwave]

I can remember a time when military surplus consisted of clothing... flack jackets, fatigues & boots.
...maybe the occasional canteen, or Swiss Army knife, ...now it's freaking tanks! 

Those aren't tanks. Stop being sensational. Theyre armored trucks. Also, all PDs already have assault rifles. They're really not anything to worry about anyway, they're just semi-auto rifles.

What concerns me is the kevlar helmets with night vision, multiple optics, ceramic plate armor, LBVs and camelbaks on regular untrained officers.

Its the wannabe para-military quasi special forces attitude that irks me. If they were legit trained and a part of a SWAT team, thats one thing.  But in the news recently ive seen so many fat ass untrained regular officers sporting full tac gear at regular patrols and walking around like theyre in fucking iraq. That attitude needs to be curbed quickly.  They're not an aggressor force and tbeyre not in hostile territory. Thats SWATs job.

[Al Doggity]

Those porcelain chopsticks are carried by Chinese men from Beijing 90+% of the time. Stopping Norwegians from New Jersey wouldn't be the best place to start.  

I do agree its unconstitutional but the logic of searching blacks and Hispanics more often is sound.

Regardless of whether men from Beijing carry the chopsticks 90% of the time, you're only finding them .01% of the time.
You admit the policy itself is unconstitutional. It targets certain ethnic groups disproportionately, thus it's RACIST. If the numbers were better, then you could argue that there was some logic behind targeted searches, but as it stands it is literally just a program that violates people en masse while-statistically- almost never achieving its objective.

The actual numbers from NYPD stop and frisk program last year are about 192,000 stops uncovering about 400 guns.(Not incidentally, stop numbers have consistently and dramatically dropped each year since 2011 and crime still continues to plummet.) So, that's roughly 500 stops a day uncovering 1 gun a day. You can pretend that any illegal gun seized makes the program worth it, but just be real. Those numbers are piss poor and the program is a flop. If you had a high school with 1000 students and you searched each student and uncovered 2 guns in the search, it's debatable whether you have a particularly bad high school. If you are the police department for a major metropolitan city and you have instituted a program that systematically violates the civil liberties of your citizens with a program that allegedly focuses those violation on suspicious people who are statistically likely to commit crimes, and you're still only finding 1 gun for every 500 people you stop, then the program is SHIT!

[Archer77]

It targets certain ethnic groups disproportionately, thus it's RACIST. If the numbers were better, then you could argue that there was some logic behind targeted searches, but as it stands it is literally just a program that violates people en masse while-statistically- almost never achieving its objective.

You may argue its ineffective but its not racist.   Those who commit gun crimes are disproportionately black and hispanic by a wide margin.  If you stop more whites and asians or in the same numbers as blacks and hispanics are stopped,  you would be stopping these two groups disproportionately in comparison to the number of gun crimes they commit.   According to your own logic this would be racist.

[Mawse]

Those aren't tanks. Stop being sensational. Theyre armored trucks. Also, all PDs already have assault rifles. They're really not anything to worry about anyway, they're just semi-auto rifles.

What concerns me is the kevlar helmets with night vision, multiple optics, ceramic plate armor, LBVs and camelbaks on regular untrained officers.

Its the wannabe para-military quasi special forces attitude that irks me. If they were legit trained and a part of a SWAT team, thats one thing.  But in the news recently ive seen so many fat ass untrained regular officers sporting full tac gear at regular patrols and walking around like theyre in fucking iraq. That attitude needs to be curbed quickly.  They're not an aggressor force and tbeyre not in hostile territory. Thats SWATs job.

The really sad thing about the shitbags looting over another dead shitbag is it's tainted the national debate  against militarizing the police

The loony left decided to enshrine the lies told about a piece of shit gang member as their patron saint of the cause so it polarized things badly .. I wish these protests were against legitimate police abuse, fat local PD kicking in doors and throwing flash bangs at 2am and killing golden retrievers in the name of The War On Drugs and getting away with it

But oh no, it had to become about a fat retard attacking a cop and his friends lies about what happened  "hands up let's loot"

[Al Doggity]

You may argue its ineffective but its not racist.   Those who commit gun crimes are disproportionately black and hispanic by a wide margin.  If you stop more whites and asians or in the same numbers as blacks and hispanics are stopped,  you would be stopping these two groups disproportionately in comparison to the number of gun crimes they commit.   According to your own logic this would be racist.

NO, it wouldn't be racist. It wouldn't be a policy based on race. Ignoring race does not make something racist. Not focusing on race, not using race as a deciding factor does not mean racist. If race is the determining factor when a stop is made, then THAT is racist. If race is not the determining factor when a stop is made, then that is NOT racist.  The fact that, as it stands, race is a large part of why these stops are made and they still rarely result in any arrests or convictions IS racist.

[Archer77]

NO, it wouldn't be racist. It wouldn't be a policy based on race. Ignoring race does not make something racist. Not focusing on race, not using race as a deciding factor does not mean racist. If race is the determining factor when a stop is made, then THAT is racist. If race is not the determining factor when a stop is made, then that is NOT racist.  The fact that, as it stands, race is a large part of why these stops are made and they still rarely result in any arrests or convictions IS racist.

Its called disparate impact.


Adverse effect of a practice or standard that is neutral and non-discriminatory in its intention but, nonetheless, disproportionately affects individuals having a disability or belonging to a particular group based on their age, ethnicity, race, or sex.

[2Thick]

I believe the poverty answer is to simplistic. If poverty where the reason you would see the same level or close to it of violence across all economically challenged communities but thats not the case.  Education is irrelevent when it comes to basic morality.  Morality is the simpilist and earliest lesson any of us learns and society affirms those values throughout our lives.   There is not one reason that justifies someone not understanding these basic values that keep society together.

I dont believe its genetic but I do believe its cultural.  My aim is to take the weapons used to deflect attention away from taking responsibility for ones choices.  The black community has made a religion out of finger pointing and its time they do a little self evaluation.  They have constructed a false reality around themselves and thats whats keeping them down.  As they say, clean up your own yard before you go knocking on your neighbors door.

Agreed. When a culture glorifies having served prison time, having "kills" under one's belt, being financially irresponsible, committing domestic violence, joining criminal enterprises such as street gangs, and has an entertainment subculture that continuously glorifies and encourages these things as well, there are bound to be endless problems within such a culture.

[tonymctones]

NO, it wouldn't be racist. It wouldn't be a policy based on race. Ignoring race does not make something racist. Not focusing on race, not using race as a deciding factor does not mean racist. If race is the determining factor when a stop is made, then THAT is racist. If race is not the determining factor when a stop is made, then that is NOT racist.  The fact that, as it stands, race is a large part of why these stops are made and they still rarely result in any arrests or convictions IS racist.

the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.

They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.

Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.

[Shockwave]

the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.

They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.

Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.

Bingo.

Focusing on the element that commits the higher percentage of the crime isnt racist.

[JOHN MATRIX]

the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.

They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.

Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.

To the Left, objectively analyzing data is racist.

Why? Because racist.

[Al Doggity]

the part youre side stepping al is that blacks commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime. I am not arguing for stop and frisk b/c i agree its unconstitutional.

They are not being targeted simply b/c of the color of their skin they are being targeted b/c the numbers say that they are more likely to be the ones commiting a crime.

Numbers arent racist, if the numbers said white people committed a disproportionately higher amount of crime they would be stopping white people.

Then why are the resulting arrest and conviction numbers so low? Why are the gun seizure numbers so low? Ranging from
single digit percentage points to fractions of percentage points on hundreds of thousands of stops? Because it's irrelevant if blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate. It's like saying "Most of the world's billionaires are white people, so we should tax all white people at a billionaire's rate."  Neither of those statements has anything to do with the other.

[Al Doggity]

Its called disparate impact.


Adverse effect of a practice or standard that is neutral and non-discriminatory in its intention but, nonetheless, disproportionately affects individuals having a disability or belonging to a particular group based on their age, ethnicity, race, or sex.

This definition doesn't apply. A big part of why people are stopped is their race.  The situation that you claim would be racism- if stops were more evenly distributed it would be racist against white people- might actually be considered disparate impact. Assuming that fewer of the other races stopped weren't found to be committing crimes, which is not a given.

[Archer77]

Then why are the resulting arrest and conviction numbers so low? Why are the gun seizure numbers so low? Ranging from
single digit percentage points to fractions of percentage points on hundreds of thousands of stops? Because it's irrelevant if blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate. It's like saying "Most of the world's billionaires are white people, so we should tax all white people at a billionaire's rate."  Neither of those statements has anything to do with the other.

Thats a bad comparison.  A better one would be most billionaires in new york city are white and live on park avenue therefore if we want to find a billionaire we should look for a white guy who lives on park avenue and tax him.  

[tonymctones]

Then why are the resulting arrest and conviction numbers so low? Why are the gun seizure numbers so low? Ranging from
single digit percentage points to fractions of percentage points on hundreds of thousands of stops? Because it's irrelevant if blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate. It's like saying "Most of the world's billionaires are white people, so we should tax all white people at a billionaire's rate."  Neither of those statements has anything to do with the other.

simply b/c blacks commit a disproportionately higher level of crime doesnt mean all blacks do. That doesnt mean that if youre looking for certain criminal elements you dont have a higher chance of finding it in the black demographic.

I am not arguing for or against the legality or results of stop and frisk albert, only that it not fucking racist........

[Archer77]

This definition doesn't apply. A big part of why people are stopped is their race.  The situation that you claim would be racism- if stops were more evenly distributed it would be racist against white people- might actually be considered disparate impact. Assuming that fewer of the other races stopped weren't found to be committing crimes, which is not a given.

In an attempt to be fair you would be stopping more whites unnecessarily thus whites would be subjected to disparate impact.

[Al Doggity]

Thats a bad comparison.  A better one would be most billionaires in new york city are white and live on park avenue therefore if we want to find a billionaire we should look for a white guy who lives on park avenue and tax him.  

No, that's a worse comparison. It ignores the fact that the stop and frisk program is an illogical numbers game, which is why mine was more accurate.

[Al Doggity]

In an attempt to be fair you would be stopping more whites unnecessarily thus whites would be subjected to disparate impact.

And right in the definition you posted, it explains why that is not racism.

[tonymctones]

No, that's a worse comparison. It ignores the fact that the stop and frisk program is an illogical numbers game, which is why mine was more accurate.

you disagree then that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate?

[Al Doggity]

simply b/c blacks commit a disproportionately higher level of crime doesnt mean all blacks do. That doesnt mean that if youre looking for certain criminal elements you dont have a higher chance of finding it in the black demographic.

I am not arguing for or against the legality or results of stop and frisk albert, only that it not fucking racist........

Whether or not there is a higher likelihood of finding criminals among blacks stopped, the NYPD doesn't really
do so in significant numbers. What they do do in  significant numbers is unconstitutionally stop people who are
not in the process of committing a crime, and the disproportionate majority of those people are minorities. And that is not by chance, it is  by design.
You and Archer are trying to make the argument that this is somehow based in reason and logic, but if that were
true then they'd be making more arrests. It's an unconstitutional policy AND a racist policy.

[Al Doggity]

you disagree then that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate?

Blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than whites.

[Archer77]

Whether or not there is a higher likelihood of finding criminals among blacks stopped, the NYPD doesn't really
do so in significant numbers. What they do do in  significant numbers is unconstitutionally stop people who are
not in the process of committing a crime, and the disproportionate majority of those people are minorities. And that is not by chance, it is  by design.
You and Archer are trying to make the argument that this is somehow based in reason and logic, but if that were
true then they'd be making more arrests. It's an unconstitutional policy AND a racist policy.

It may be ineffective and unconstitutional but it isnt racist.  If suddenly cambodians were committing 90% of the crime in NYC blacks and hispanics would no longer be searched as frequently.  How effective the policy is isnt relevant to the reasoning behind who is stopped.  There are other factors to consider. 

[Archer77]

Blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than whites.

Oh I see, its all a conspiracy by the white judicial system.  Same old conspiracy BS .

[tonymctones]

Blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than whites.

not what I asked...

Whether or not there is a higher likelihood of finding criminals among blacks stopped, the NYPD doesn't really
do so in significant numbers. What they do do in  significant numbers is unconstitutionally stop people who are
not in the process of committing a crime, and the disproportionate majority of those people are minorities. And that is not by chance, it is  by design.
You and Archer are trying to make the argument that this is somehow based in reason and logic, but if that were
true then they'd be making more arrests. It's an unconstitutional policy AND a racist policy.

The fact is that it is based on numbers, now you can argue that those numbers are wrong or they mislead but the fact is the actions are based on numbers.

The results dont speak to the reasoning and its validity. Again the numbers show that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate. If you are looking for a certain criminal element you have a better chance of finding it in the black demographic. What those chances are if you randomly stop a black person doesnt negate the fact you have a higher chance of finding it by stopping a black person.

[Archer77]

not what I asked...
The fact is that it is based on numbers, now you can argue that those numbers are wrong or they mislead but the fact is the actions are based on numbers.

The results dont speak to the reasoning and its validity. Again the numbers show that blacks commit crime at a disproportionately higher rate. If you are looking for a certain criminal element you have a better chance of finding it in the black demographic. What those chances are if you randomly stop a black person doesnt negate the fact you have a higher chance of finding it by stopping a black person.

Hes a conspiracy nut who thinks the system is keeping brothas down.

[Al Doggity]

It may be ineffective and unconstitutional but it isnt racist.  If suddenly cambodians were committing 90% of the crime in NYC blacks and hispanics would no longer be searched as frequently.  How effective the policy is isnt relevant to the reasoning behind who is stopped.  There are other factors to consider. 

It actually is. Because if the stops are supposed to be targeted and don't result in arrests on a significant scale, then the reasoning is flawed.