Police Brutality Thread

[Dr. Mechano]

Consider Eric Garner. Nothing about that case really read as anything other than a homicide, and that's the highest profile case in recent memory that was so universally against what the police did in public opinion; but even then you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere near the sentiment that he was killed because he was black, and it does a disservice to simply assume that it is because of some underlying racism in a given populace.

I don't think the officer in that case made a conscious decision to strangle Garner because he was black. But I do think racial prejudice is the reason he treated Garner as roughly as he did, resulting in his death.

There have been peer-reviewed studies indicating that many white people believe, at least unconsciously, that black people have a higher tolerance for pain than they do. Here are a couple:

Racial Bias in Perceptions of Others’ Pain: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048546

Racism and the Empathy for Pain on Our Skin: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/

And I think this is important. Because while the officer almost certainly didn't wake up that morning and say, "I'm gonna go kill a black man today," his treatment of Garner is reflective of the way police treat minorities (and black people especially) compared to white people. They're treated with more force, they're more frequently ignored when they say they're in pain, and in general less care is taken with them. 

While I don't think Garner was consciously killed because he was black, I absolutely believe that if a white man had been in his position, his cries of "I can't breath" would be far more likely to be taken seriously, if indeed he was placed in a stranglehold to begin with. This certainly isn't to say that white people aren't victims of police brutality; But there's absolutely an overall disparity between the frequency of brutality between white and non-white people. Conscious prejudice or not, racial bias definitely affects the way minorities are treated by police when compared to white people in the same situation.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

And let's be fair, regarding the hard left slant of these forums, history hasn't exactly given minorites a lot of reason to trust police given the systemic racism.

A lot of posts and likes have been knee jerk in the past (I admit, I have been myself), but given history, statistics, and a increase in reports of bad apples from the police, it's not exactly something a number of us see anything to be optimistic about.

[Tani Coyote]

And let's be fair, regarding the hard left slant of these forums, history hasn't exactly given minorites a lot of reason to trust police given the systemic racism.

A lot of posts and likes have been knee jerk in the past (I admit, I have been myself), but given history, statistics, and a increase in reports of bad apples from the police, it's not exactly something a number of us see anything to be optimistic about.

Ah, but that is the root of the problem, isn't it?

Most white people aren't going "I hate black people and want to purge them from the face of the Earth!" They are instead applying a broad range of stereotypes to an entire group based on the failings of a small segment of that group. All of said failings being the result of historical racism rather than individual merit for the most part.

Racism - and brutality by extension - looks to have largely moved from hatred to paranoia. And alas, this is why the divide is self-reinforcing. The police (and to a larger extent whites) don't want to trust blacks, and blacks don't want to trust the police (and depending on the case, whites in general).

And that is why we end up with polarized debate. It is no longer, "cop kills man, facts of case under investigation." It is "cop shoots thug and benefits society" or "agent of tyranny murders innocent youth."

In short: we're all cautious. Inherently suspicious of others besides ourselves. Combined with statistics, suspicion gives rise to both the pro-police and anti-police perspectives. Interesting, isn't it?

On another topic, who wants a mindfuck?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf

Blacks actually are more likely to report crimes than whites. This holds true regardless of whether blacks or whites are more likely to be victims in a neighborhood.

It would seem that even with the distrust, blacks actually put more confidence in the police than whites do. Even though when consciously asked about trusting the police, most blacks will say they don't give them much confidence.

It's a good exercise in how subconscious and conscious views can rapidly diverge.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Wendigogilvie

[Nepenthe]

And let's be fair, regarding the hard left slant of these forums, history hasn't exactly given minorites a lot of reason to trust police given the systemic racism.

A lot of posts and likes have been knee jerk in the past (I admit, I have been myself), but given history, statistics, and a increase in reports of bad apples from the police, it's not exactly something a number of us see anything to be optimistic about.

This is basically the point. From enslavement to active hostility and riots to curb any economic success to lynching and Jim Crow to the War on Drugs to continued economic and judicial disenfranchisement- America has a spectacular habit of just fucking black people over maliciously, to say nothing of other racial minorites (Natives got nuked, honestly). And on top of that, white people have never been proven on the whole to actually get it. There were Gallup polls in the 60s asking people if white and black people had equal access opportunity to schooling and housing, and in the face of obvious anti-discrimination laws over 60% of whites said "Well of course they do Gallup; I don't see what the marches are about." It's a willful ignorance to a level that can only be called blindness. And now I'm supposed to believe centuries of that kind of cultural segregation has just magically gone away, that the people who were alive during this time suddenly came around because laws or something, and that despite conscious efforts to view black people as equals, subconscious prejudice- a thing which we've documented and tested for positively time and time and time and time again- just isn't a thing and that our suspicions are crazy. It's blindness compounded with the arrogance that we don't know our own lived experiences that makes me throw my hands up. And on top of that, most people really don't want to recognize the existence of this kind of bullshittery. We like the idea that everyone is just a good Joe. But we're not fucking stupid either and we're not going to give this country the benefit of the doubt just because it's annoying to white people have to address the racial elephant in the room. I'm sorry, but we'll stop talking about racism when America stops being racist.

[Kuzu]

Which is damn near impossible because acknowledging America as racist would mean acknowledging the entire core founding of the country is flawed in and of itself. 

[Dizcrybe]

Which is damn near impossible because acknowledging America as racist would mean acknowledging the entire core founding of the country is flawed in and of itself. 

Which no one wants to do, and I think a big part of that denial is ego preservation. A lot of white people keep telling themselves nothing's wrong because they don't wanna believe anything's wrong, because to admit that would mean admitting that their people have been screwing over other races for centuries,, and they don't wanna have to have whatever shame that knowledge would bring them on their shoulders. Stepford denial, if that makes any sense.

This conversation is making me think of a Persona 4-esque scenario where White America is being confronted by its shadow, forcing it to look at all the racism it doesn't want to admit is prevalent in the country, ultimately resulting in it yelling, "YOU'RE NOT ME!" I dunno how good a comparison this is, but that's what came to mind.

[Tani Coyote]

I think everyone here understands why one would be quick to jump to conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of an officer.

 

That doesn't change the fact that one is ultimately undermined in their goals by automatically assuming the officer is guilty of ill intent. How am I supposed to take a person seriously when they made up their mind and the facts came out contrary to that? This is contrary to scientific reasoning.

 

Plus, let's reverse this again: isn't this basically racial profiling but with the roles reversed? Due to his occupation (and most likely race), the officer is presumed guilty. How is this any different from an officer profiling based on crime statistics? Seeing the higher violent crime rates, he made the assumption that a black person MUST be guilty of the violent crime. And that is how civil rights get violated and innocent people get unjustly punished. Similar to how people were calling for Wilson's head just about, and then it turns out he was justified in his shooting.

 

The ideal of the American justice system is innocent until proven guilty. We've all been over the structural inequalities based on race, but it's still the ideal that needs to be pursued. Yes, the system itself does not give the benefit of the doubt to minorities, but two wrongs do not make a right. It creates a culture of suspicion and distrust that reinforces the problem. It's rather like rioting; it may be seen as payback for institutional violence, but all it does is reinforce white prejudices (plus reduce the resources of an already-impoverished community in many cases; brilliant logic). This is to say nothing of the fact rioting looks increasingly petty as an option when you see the reasons white people have done it in recent years. Anyway: it's not fair, but the cause for social justice asks that those with the weaker position be the better people. I don't think "love thy enemy" was conceived without reason; it breaks the cycle of vengeance.

 

Long and short: there's a bunch of statistics supporting police brutality, profiling, etc. One can use those to good effect, but the application of the trend to specific cases needs to be done with care. Being wrong about the specifics of a case does not invalidate the presence of the wider problem, but it doesn't look good on one's impartiality. Which is doubly bad because now the white moderates who hear about racial inequality will be even less inclined to listen. Who is presenting the information is just as important as the information itself; a professor and a guy off the street could both be knowledgeable about the Theory of Relativity, but who are you going to consider credible?

 

Regarding foundation: it shows how shallow the sense of national pride is. If you're creative, you can easily be confident in America's ability to be great without likewise glorifying its darker past. After all, based on our doctrine of individuality, we are great because of what we do, not because of what our ancestors did. To recognize and repair racism would be the real mark of greatness.

 

Unfortunately, it's a case of making a conclusion when the facts say otherwise. The mainstream white public have convinced themselves America is near-perfect as much as racism being a thing of the past. Fantastic wordsmithing on their part; they conflate racism with the most violent forms of bigotry, enabling them to ignore the more casual and institutional manner that it remains in.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Wendigogilvie

[Nepenthe]

Profiling people based upon immutable qualities completely out of their control like race, gender, sexual identity, etc. is not the same as profiling someone based on the job they consciously chose to do and the behavior they display during that job, a job that is objectively demonstrably full of corruption, unnecessary brutality, and a disturbing lack of oversight, and it's utterly insulting to equivocate them. If you don't want to be seen as complicit to the problem of racism within the justice system and are tired of the criticism you and your boys in blue have been getting recently, perhaps you should either start visibly advocating for real change or choose another job. Seriously, anyone too immature to take some criticism of an institution they work under is not a person who I feel comfortable with in a policing profession.

It's also not on a black person to assume that an institution that has been allowed for centuries to kill without equivocal repercussion, to over-cite and over-police people in a bid to rack up quotas and pacify scared white people, and generally disrespect them and the black community is perfectly fine and dandy just because the legal system has decided to merely assume none of that stuff happens in order to work the way it wants to work. The court of law is not the court of public opinion and never will be. In general, it's perfectly demonstrative of the divide between white people and black people to always advocate that intangible ideals hold precedence over the real physical need to protect one's self, that black people are wrong or doing the most for being skeptical of an institution that's beat the shit out of them forever, the reflexive invention of ridiculous pacifist behaviors in the presence of police in order to come home alive to the point that it's a cliche', at least without actually offering up another plan that works better than what we have going on now. Kick an animal long enough and eventually it's going to start being aggressive in reflexive preparation for another kick. You don't blame the animal for overreacting every time it's approached, you blame the asshole for kicking it in the first place.

On top of that, the whole point of being a police officer is to be a professional upholder of the law. Since they possess more social power, they in turn have- or theoretically should- have a much higher standard of civic behavior to meet than the average citizen as a check in power. People in power do not deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are working with and for those on the bottom, and their feet should always be held to the fire in case they decide to get too big for their boots and start railroading and punishing those who lack the resources to fight back. If nothing else, this kind of anti-establishment sentiment is what the damn country was founded upon.

As for white moderates, y'all have never actually listened to black people even when we did come off as buying into this idea that subconscious racism doesn't exist. King dressed in a good suit, advocated for non-violence, was a man of the church, and ultimately a martyr everyone likes to use as a holy figure of, at best, good civic demonstrations, and at worse black respectability politics, and even he was like "Yeah, white moderates actually have no fucking backbone and would rather be comfortable than put in any real work to institute change for their fellow man." So being accommodating to their feelings and precious sensibilities doesn't and never has actually worked.

[Tani Coyote]

Profiling people based upon immutable qualities completely out of their control like race, gender, sexual identity, etc. is not the same as profiling someone based on the job they consciously chose to do and the behavior they display during that job, a job that is objectively demonstrably full of corruption, unnecessary brutality, and a disturbing lack of oversight, and it's utterly insulting to equivocate them.

Was it entirely the profession, though?

I don't see cases of black cops killing black men stirring the pot of controversy. They might get a token mention, but much like white rioting, they don't really gain any attention. The focus is on race, not brutality.

Which is probably why so few whites care about it. I think even Black Lives Matter concedes this, given they have started to cover brutality against whites. They want to change the debate to include the majority, even if it's a bigger problem for the minority.

You don't blame the animal for overreacting every time it's approached, you blame the asshole for kicking it in the first place.

I dunno. I'd say you're still wrong for reacting to one person with aggression because of how another person of the same race or occupation treated you.

A level of caution towards all people is healthy. Everyone has the same standard of trust they need to meet. I don't think holding people to different standards based on what their peers do is going to create good feelings.

On top of that, the whole point of being a police officer is to be a professional upholder of the law. Since they possess more social power, they in turn have- or theoretically should- have a much higher standard of civic behavior to meet than the average citizen as a check in power. People in power do not deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are working with and for those on the bottom, and their feet should always be held to the fire in case they decide to get too big for their boots and start railroading and punishing those who lack the resources to fight back. If nothing else, this kind of anti-establishment sentiment is what the damn country was founded upon.

Sure, but that doesn't change the original point. A person loses credibility when they argue x is true, but the evidence turns up x is false.

I wasn't seeing "Wilson needs to prove he had good cause to shoot Brown or else he needs to be punished." I saw "Wilson's a murderer."

As for white moderates, y'all have never actually listened to black people even when we did come off as buying into this idea that subconscious racism doesn't exist. King dressed in a good suit, advocated for non-violence, was a man of the church, and ultimately a martyr everyone likes to use as a holy figure of, at best, good civic demonstrations, and at worse black respectability politics, and even he was like "Yeah, white moderates actually have no fucking backbone and would rather be comfortable than put in any real work to institute change for their fellow man." So being accommodating to their feelings and precious sensibilities doesn't and never has actually worked.

Then what's the proposal?

Violence won't work. And even whites who aren't racist are generally okay with preserving the privilege system for obvious reasons, so voting's out. Peaceful secession is illegal, never mind impractical.

Sounds like a limbo.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Wendigogilvie

[Nepenthe]

Was it entirely the profession, though?

I don't see cases of black cops killing black men stirring the pot of controversy. They might get a token mention, but much like white rioting, they don't really gain any attention. The focus is on race, not brutality.

The focus is actually on both- the brutality that cops exert on black people due to subconscious racial biases, and the lack of proper judicial overview because the benefit of the doubt is given to police to simply investigate themselves, or rather people automatically assume blacks are guilty and get what's coming to them every time they get mowed down. These things are intertwined.

Just as well, mentioning black cops on black people comes across as a painful Detroit-style deflection, particularly since I've not seen anyone say that black cops who kill someone unjustifiably and are let off the hook are actually any better than white cops who do the same regardless of how the media acts, particularly since anyone who is the littlest bit aware of the working conversation about institutional racism doesn't believe that blacks magically escaped being indoctrinated with anti-black sentiments either. So, they're just as awful as the rest.

I dunno. I'd say you're still wrong for reacting to one person with aggression because of how another person of the same race or occupation treated you.

Why in the world do you keep comparing race with occupation?

A level of caution towards all people is healthy. Everyone has the same standard of trust they need to meet. I don't think holding people to different standards based on what their peers do is going to create good feelings.

If 9 out of 10 people in a gang are acting like assholes, I'm going to assume the 10th person- as well- is a douchebag as a matter of safety and not wasting my time. If the 10th person doesn't want that to happen, I suggest they either start policing their douchebag peers or find better friends, instead of complaining how unfair it us that human beings don't stop making generalizations and predictions when it suits them.

Sure, but that doesn't change the original point. A person loses credibility when they argue x is true, but the evidence turns up x is false.

No, you lose credibility for either making an assertion that isn't backed by evidence (which isn't what black people are doing when they say "this country's pretty fucking racist" because, well, it's pretty fucking racist), or by not changing your tune when proven wrong. Sorry to say, but people don't perfectly operate their lives on scientific neutrality because it's actually pretty inconvenient to the act of living to do so, and in general the benefit of the doubt that officers have for substantiating that they were acting as reasonably and impartially as possible has long since been pissed away. They're simply not to be trusted.

I wasn't seeing "Wilson needs to prove he had good cause to shoot Brown or else he needs to be punished." I saw "Wilson's a murderer."

Because the preponderance of evidence led some of the public to conclude that he killed Brown without legal allowance, which would make him a murderer. Again, court of public opinion. If you don't want people to think you're murdering people, here's some advice: don't shoot someone and then go into hiding. Don't take weeks to straighten out a story that should have been disseminated much earlier than the month or so it took. Don't let your buddies release irrelevant information about the dead kid that actually contradicts some of your early reporting in order to make the dead kid look bad. Don't investigate yourself and magically find yourself without fault. Don't get in the stand and use melodramatic and loaded language like, "He was like a demon!!!" Seriously, just don't act like a fuckboi. It's not hard.

Then what's the proposal?

Violence won't work. And even whites who aren't racist are generally okay with preserving the privilege system for obvious reasons, so voting's out. Peaceful secession is illegal, never mind impractical.

Sounds like a limbo.

The proposal is to basically keep doing what BLM has been doing: demonstrations, disruptions, putting the powerful's backs against the wall, education with the public, meeting with political figures, and continued resistance. White moderates are either in or they're out at this point. It's not on black people to coddle you. Instead, white people who give a damn should instead be talking to their fellow whites who don't give a damn. Seriously, actually taking a little bit of responsibility would go a long way to helping us out a little bit. And no, I don't really care to know how "hard" it is to have these conversations. Again, you're either in or out.

Or if we're going with this "nothing is going to work" route, I actually generally agree. While I believe in fighting the good fight as incremental progress is a noble goal in and of itself, I actually have no faith in humanity to straighten itself out anytime soon, if ever. But if that's the case, well, white people can simply continue being salty that black people are now vociferous in their critique of America's judicial system. *shrugs*

 

[Tornado]

*various words*

This really has nothing to do with what you just quoted. I wasn't talking about whatever internalized justifications the officer used when manhandling Garner. I was talking about the public response to Garner's death doesn't follow the typical assumptions usually seen in this thread, even though the public was mostly outraged at what happened in his case. Race probably did affect how the police handled that case and similar cases, but you don't have to listen to a right wing talk show to hear this sort of sentiment:

My point is that unless you have a heavy criminal record that would play a role in the police suspecting you of committing another crime, you are probably not going to end up like Eric Garner. Believing that you could easily up like Garner for simply being "tall and black" is ridiculous, because that's not even why the police came after Garner in the first place.

Even a morning drive time radio show is going to have tons of people calling in to say that sort of thing. Nor does that sentiment being at odds with the typical assumptions in this thread make it false. White people by and large don't care about the plight of minority treatment by the police. That much is almost certainly true. But what white people really don't care about (especially the sort of middle class suburban/urban white people that tend to hold the voting power in this country), by which I mean what white people actively ignore instead of just having general indifference towards, is the treatment of repeat criminal offenders at the hands of police. Garner's case spread like wildfire across the media, particularly as it combined with the Wilson shooting. Police basically strangled a guy to death on tape, especially heinous with the knowledge that those specific police aren't supposed to do that sort of thing to a suspect at all in the first place. When the officers basically got off without any real consequence, you couldn't really contain the outrage. Even the whitest dry toast suburbanites were uneasy about whether it was a race thing or not, because even actually racist white people don't want to be seen as racist.

 

 

Right up until the details of Garner's history with the police were made known. Then it went from "Did those police officers strangle that guy to death because he was black? That's not right, but... it's not my fight, I guess." to "Did those police officers strangle that guy to death because he was a repeat offender resisting arrest? Eh, whatever." And then most of the outrage that was present completely dissipates, and white people go back to automatically trusting police, because whatever. Only "criminals" suffer from the wrath of police, and middle class people would rather just not acknowledge those people even exist. And while there certainly is an undercurrent of racism there, I don't think the race element actually is at play the majority of time for your typical white middle-ish class people.

[Tani Coyote]

Just as well, mentioning black cops on black people comes across as a painful Detroit-style deflection, particularly since I've not seen anyone say that black cops who kill someone unjustifiably and are let off the hook are actually any better than white cops who do the same regardless of how the media acts, particularly since anyone who is the littlest bit aware of the working conversation about institutional racism doesn't believe that blacks magically escaped being indoctrinated with anti-black sentiments either. So, they're just as awful as the rest.

It's not meant as a deflection. It's meant to illustrate that I don't see the same outrage. Has there been any outrage? Do protests against black officer brutality go unnoticed in the press much like white riots do?

Then again it's maybe for the best if they do. If black officers can be shown to be just as inclined towards brutality towards minorities, that's going to sink affirmative action for police forces pretty fast.

If 9 out of 10 people in a gang are acting like assholes, I'm going to assume the 10th person- as well- is a douchebag as a matter of safety and not wasting my time. If the 10th person doesn't want that to happen, I suggest they either start policing their douchebag peers or find better friends, instead of complaining how unfair it us that human beings don't stop making generalizations and predictions when it suits them.

Sure. If it was 9 out of 10.

But how many police encounters actually end with abuse?

Plus let's shake things up a little. We mentioned that black citizens actually ironically trust the police system more than whites despite what they say consciously. Perhaps a fear that vigilante justice will not go over as well?

Or perhaps something else...?

 

2015 – Violent crimes committed by whites: 276,460

2015 – Violent crimes committed by blacks: 169,612

Whites shot by police over the course of 1999-2011: 2,151

Blacks shot by police over the course of 1999-2011: 1,130

 

Blacks are killed disproportionately… when you use the whole population. Not too surprising given that blacks have disproportionate rates of violent crime. That in mind, when you limit it to the violent criminal percentage of the population, an interesting thing occurs.

 

Whites. 2,151/276,460=0.00778

Blacks. 1,130/169,612=0.00666

 

Now that’s a twist. When you compare the shooting number to the number of violent crimes, we end up with a case where whites have a slightly higher rate of being shot.

This is not perfect, of course. Not all people who are shot were necessarily violent criminals; that's just the number of police homicides. The numbers aren’t complete because I had to take data from different years, never mind a little rounding. Then there's the fact this doesn't account for repeat offenders. Though given blacks' being punished more harshly for the same crimes... I wouldn't be surprised if that means the white criminal number would drop further, which translates into a higher rate of police killings of whites. Though the other big variable: there doesn't seem to be data on the race of the officer vs. the race of the victim.

Now, we do have profiling, arrests, and incarcerations, where I do believe we will see very genuine racial disparity (I recall the black incarceration rate bouncing between 3-4x as much as the white rate, so the violent crime rate alone has trouble accounting for it, even if we factor in harsher penalties for repeat offenders; if repeat offenses were the answer, logically there would be more equity given there's no shortage of violent whites).

However, it looks like homicides are roughly on par. And that's what we're focusing on here. To think, I went on my statistics hunt to try and see how much the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by blacks might explain disproportionate shootings. I ended up with a possibility that's far more terrifying.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Wendigogilvie

[Nepenthe]

It's not meant as a deflection. It's meant to illustrate that I don't see the same outrage. Has there been any outrage? Do protests against black officer brutality go unnoticed in the press much like white riots do?

Then again it's maybe for the best if they do. If black officers can be shown to be just as inclined towards brutality towards minorities, that's going to sink affirmative action for police forces pretty fast.

Your original point of mentioning this was to try and demonstrate that black people were only concerned about the racial aspect of the matter and not the overall institutional problem of policing and judicial processing, and only in a way that meant to implicate whites and no one else. If you're going to try and make that point I want you to find the breakdown of police homicides by the race of the officer and subsequently compare that reality against the language and points actually being made by the black populous and BLM. Otherwise, it comes across as if you're saying we let black officers off the hook.

Sure. If it was 9 out of 10.

But how many police encounters actually end with abuse?

Plus let's shake things up a little. We mentioned that black citizens actually ironically trust the police system more than whites despite what they say consciously. Perhaps a fear that vigilante justice will not go over as well?

Or perhaps something else...?

 

2015 – Violent crimes committed by whites: 276,460

2015 – Violent crimes committed by blacks: 169,612

Whites shot by police over the course of 1999-2011: 2,151

Blacks shot by police over the course of 1999-2011: 1,130

 

Blacks are killed disproportionately… when you use the whole population. Not too surprising given that blacks have disproportionate rates of violent crime. That in mind, when you limit it to the violent criminal percentage of the population, an interesting thing occurs.

 

Whites. 2,151/276,460=0.00778

Blacks. 1,130/169,612=0.00666

 

Now that’s a twist. When you compare the shooting number to the number of violent crimes, we end up with a case where whites have a slightly higher rate of being shot.

This is not perfect, of course. Not all people who are shot were necessarily violent criminals; that's just the number of police homicides. The numbers aren’t complete because I had to take data from different years, never mind a little rounding. Then there's the fact this doesn't account for repeat offenders. Though given blacks' being punished more harshly for the same crimes... I wouldn't be surprised if that means the white criminal number would drop further, which translates into a higher rate of police killings of whites. Though the other big variable: there doesn't seem to be data on the race of the officer vs. the race of the victim.

Now, we do have profiling, arrests, and incarcerations, where I do believe we will see very genuine racial disparity (I recall the black incarceration rate bouncing between 3-4x as much as the white rate, so the violent crime rate alone has trouble accounting for it, even if we factor in harsher penalties for repeat offenders; if repeat offenses were the answer, logically there would be more equity given there's no shortage of violent whites).

However, it looks like homicides are roughly on par. And that's what we're focusing on here. To think, I went on my statistics hunt to try and see how much the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by blacks might explain disproportionate shootings. I ended up with a possibility that's far more terrifying.

You actually haven't proven the black people consciously trust the police as an institution more anymore than you would be able to prove that anyone going to the DMV actually trusts the DMV as a quality institution. For one, you didn't take into account the amount of violent crimes that happen to blacks across all sociopolitical levels right in the same report, and overall it's higher than it is with whites or Hispanic/Latinos. Furthermore, the report concludes that the rate of calling didn't vary that much for blacks- probably because, again, violent crime rates are higher (we also don't know about the nature of the violent crime and whether or not the perpetrator was still in the area in those crimes, which may affect the likelihood of even calling in the first place). If anything, the conclusion is probably that black people are the most likely targets of violent crime and thus the amount of calls are just going to be higher as a natural consequence. (Also, none of this seems to account for statistics in mixed-race neighborhoods and situations. What happens to the amount of preemptive police calls when you put a young black male in a white neighborhood versus a young white guy in a black neighborhood?)

But how about we just ask black people directly how they feel about cops directly? Naturally, they don't like them. 

Also, you can't just simply ignore the amount of variables you had to leave out when coming to your conclusion about police shootings by breakdown like that. Even ignoring the fact that you just added a few years of different statistics together, statistics still need context to actually mean anything. Yes, if we could figure out the perceived violence level of these people, what conclusion could we come to about how police perceive the behavior of blacks versus the behavior of whites? And indeed, what about repeat offenders: how many chances does a white person have to fuck up versus a black person on average? These are the questions black people are really interested in answering.

And again, this isn't taking into account the other half of the equation, which is how more likely black people are to be fucked over when they're in the judicial system when taking into account similar crime statistics, something you already admit is undoubtedly much higher anyway. So....

[Tani Coyote]

Your original point of mentioning this was to try and demonstrate that black people were only concerned about the racial aspect of the matter and not the overall institutional problem of policing and judicial processing, and only in a way that meant to implicate whites and no one else. If you're going to try and make that point I want you to find the breakdown of police homicides by the race of the officer and subsequently compare that reality against the language and points actually being made by the black populous and BLM. Otherwise, it comes across as if you're saying we let black officers off the hook

I was trying to find such a breakdown, nothing occurred. The police aren't interested in recording the race of the officer.

However, it stands to reason there'd be a myriad of black cops engaging in abuse due to similar prejudices, something you yourself admitted is internalized. But I see no protests over such cases.

Then there's the historical fact that black-owned media has traditionally downplayed the vices of blacks seen as respectable (e.g. black newspapers wouldn't cover the numerous sex scandals that various black performers got into), in the interest of appealing to the white sense of morality and thus avoiding harming the cause of "uplift" as a whole.

BLM crossed the color divide by touching on the case of a white victim. But it doesn't seem interested in crossing it for perpetrators.

You actually haven't proven the black people consciously trust the police as an institution more anymore than you would be able to prove that anyone going to the DMV actually trusts the DMV as a quality institution. For one, you didn't take into account the amount of violent crimes that happen to blacks across all sociopolitical levels right in the same report, and overall it's higher than it is with whites or Hispanic/Latinos. Furthermore, the report concludes that the rate of calling didn't vary that much for blacks- probably because, again, violent crime rates are higher (we also don't know about the nature of the violent crime and whether or not the perpetrator was still in the area in those crimes, which may affect the likelihood of even calling in the first place). If anything, the conclusion is probably that black people are the most likely targets of violent crime and thus the amount of calls are just going to be higher as a natural consequence. (Also, none of this seems to account for statistics in mixed-race neighborhoods and situations. What happens to the amount of preemptive police calls when you put a young black male in a white neighborhood versus a young white guy in a black neighborhood?)

I dunno. Poor and low income urban whites have higher rates of violent victimization. Rural and suburban whites are in the same situation. Blacks of all stripes still reported more across the income spectrum.

The fact a black person chooses the police over a violent criminal speaks to some level of confidence in the institution. It's not like they're calling the Gestapo. Most encounters will NOT end in their victimization.

But how about we just ask black people directly how they feel about cops directly? Naturally, they don't like them. 

Most white people will say they feel all people are equals and hold no prejudice against black people when you ask them. Or how most men will say it's wrong to hit a woman.

A person's words are meaningless. It is their behavior that shows their true sentiments.

Most whites move out of neighborhoods the moment large numbers of blacks move in. And most blacks call the police despite this apparent paralyzing fear that every encounter ends in brutality. 

And that's what I'm getting at; the 9 out of 10 idea is sound, but that relies on an extremely high percentage. We do not have that percentage here. It is unreasonable to assume every cop killing is an act of savage murder. For every Gray, there's probably just as many Browns. To say nothing of the many more cases that didn't end in death.

Also, you can't just simply ignore the amount of variables you had to leave out when coming to your conclusion about police shootings by breakdown like that. Even ignoring the fact that you just added a few years of different statistics together, statistics still need context to actually mean anything. Yes, if we could figure out the perceived violence level of these people, what conclusion could we come to about how police perceive the behavior of blacks versus the behavior of whites?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/the-real-story-of-race-and-police-killings/?_r=0

Let's try something else then. Between 2013 and 2015, 49% of those killed by officers were white. 30% were black. In 2015, whites committed 62% of the violent crimes (only counting black and white crimes). 49% of 79% is 70%. Ergo: whites committed 62% of the violent crimes, but account for 70% of the police shootings, when we're talking strictly black and white.

Not all violent crimes end in being shot by the police, nor are all those shot necessarily violent, but I'm not seeing the right picture here.

I think racism may be at play, but in a different way than usually thought. It seems that while blacks are perceived as being more inclined to violence (racist sentiments being well-documented among the general public), whites are perceived as more of a threat when they actually partake in violence. That's not too surprising, given the belief of whites as inherently more intelligent.

Never mind it's also factual from a sociological perspective. A riot pales in comparison to the ability to engage in institutional violence. It's almost like... we're self-aware of our own racism but don't admit it.

Oh right, we are. We have our racist outbursts in texts and then request everyone delete the message. And that's when I'm thankful for screencap.

And indeed, what about repeat offenders: how many chances does a white person have to fuck up versus a black person on average? These are the questions black people are really interested in answering.

More, given the incarceration rates. But that just means that the number of whites accounted for drops. Which makes the killing of whites more disproportionate.

And again, this isn't taking into account the other half of the equation, which is how more likely black people are to be fucked over when they're in the judicial system when taking into account similar crime statistics, something you already admit is undoubtedly much higher anyway. So....

I don't doubt that, since that's fairly concrete and makes logical sense given the nature of judges. Though I'm more focused on police killings and whether or not it's a fair assessment to completely distrust the police.

Though I will admit I'm more concerned for incarceration rates than police killings. It destroys millions of families and condemns countless children to lives of poor educational performance and by proxy, crime. Killings of all kinds (I'd go so far to say even justified ones) are awful, but we only have a few hundred of those.

I'm mostly just surprised it's the police who earn ire and not the judges for the most part. I guess it's just in the nature of things. A guy shooting someone is more dramatic than a dude hitting a gavel. It's the same reason wallets fly open when homeless people are involved, but no one cares about the causes of homelessness; the latter is boring by comparison.

[Nepenthe]

I was trying to find such a breakdown, nothing occurred. The police aren't interested in recording the race of the officer.

However, it stands to reason there'd be a myriad of black cops engaging in abuse due to similar prejudices, something you yourself admitted is internalized. But I see no protests over such cases.

Then there's the historical fact that black-owned media has traditionally downplayed the vices of blacks seen as respectable (e.g. black newspapers wouldn't cover the numerous sex scandals that various black performers got into), in the interest of appealing to the white sense of morality and thus avoiding harming the cause of "uplift" as a whole.

BLM crossed the color divide by touching on the case of a white victim. But it doesn't seem interested in crossing it for perpetrators.

Probably because no one reporting these things, or perhaps I'm actually wrong and black cops simply are less likely to choke out a black man for no reason and not face punishment for the act of doing so (I will continue to remind you that white supremacy is only part of the issue), or because the whole point is to hold the whole institution responsible which inherently includes black people who work within it anyway, as well as the Hispanic/Latino, Asians, Indian, Native American, women and LGBT officers too. Again, if you're trying to pin hypocrisy against black people and BLM of giving minority officers a pass, some actual proof of deliberate downplaying would be nice.

I dunno. Poor and low income urban whites have higher rates of violent victimization. Rural and suburban whites are in the same situation. Blacks of all stripes still reported more across the income spectrum.

The fact a black person chooses the police over a violent criminal speaks to some level of confidence in the institution. It's not like they're calling the Gestapo. Most encounters will NOT end in their victimization.

Black people are actually smart enough to know that not every encounter will end in death, rather that the actual statistical likelihood of an encounter even being made in the first place (because we know we unconsciously scare people enough to even call 911 in the first place- and thus this might also affect calling rates considering most people do not live in multiracial neighborhoods), as well as the likelihood of something going wrong and of punishment being swift and harsher than it would be otherwise is higher for us than for other racial groups. I will continue reminding you that white officers killing black men is not the only problem that black people have with law and thus trying to boil the argument down to that is pretty dismissive.

Most white people will say they feel all people are equals and hold no prejudice against black people when you ask them. Or how most men will say it's wrong to hit a woman.

A person's words are meaningless. It is their behavior that shows their true sentiments.

We know claims of racial parity are bullshit because we've actually tested the subconscious mind over and over again to directly observe the differences in reactions people have between individuals of different races, to say nothing of actual racism that is commonly caught on camera when in private (I'm not going to touch the men thing because I actually do believe most men aren't wife-beaters). On the other hand, you've not actually gone to those kinds of lengths to account for the underlying subconscious or conscious reasons for the differences in call rates. You've simply concluded that using something means you must agree or trust it, which is pretty dishonest.

Most whites move out of neighborhoods the moment large numbers of blacks move in. And most blacks call the police despite this apparent paralyzing fear that every encounter ends in brutality. 

We don't think we're going to get beaten or die every time we meet a cop. C'mon now.

And that's what I'm getting at; the 9 out of 10 idea is sound, but that relies on an extremely high percentage. We do not have that percentage here. It is unreasonable to assume every cop killing is an act of savage murder. For every Gray, there's probably just as many Browns. To say nothing of the many more cases that didn't end in death.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/the-real-story-of-race-and-police-killings/?_r=0

The 9 out of 10 thing was a deliberately extreme percentage meant to illustrate the point that people are not going to trust something which has presented continuous, direct, and perceivable harm to them without any hint of retribution being paid to stop the harm from happening in the future, and that any part of the group complaining about this kind of compartmentalization isn't going to win favors.

More, given the incarceration rates. But that just means that the number of whites accounted for drops. Which makes the killing of whites more disproportionate.

I don't doubt that, since that's fairly concrete and makes logical sense given the nature of judges. Though I'm more focused on police killings and whether or not it's a fair assessment to completely distrust the police.

Whether or not it's objectively fair isn't actually the point here. The point is that people are going to engage in behaviors that are believed to decrease harm regardless of how unscientific or illogical the actions are in the effort not to be the statistic or suffer further, and dismissing the behavior versus tackling the impetus that leads to the behavior is misguided. Most women are raped by men they know but are still taught not to just go off with every male stranger they meet, and telling a woman they're being unfair to poor men for equating "men I don't know" as "potential assaulter" and thus shaping their defensive behavior accordingly is missing the forest for the trees. Subsequently, telling black people that most cop encounters don't end in death and that they're just paranoid is missing the point, both in that it's still possible to end up dead anyway and also because actual killings aren't the whole of why we're angry anyway. And all of this is to say nothing of the ridiculous comparison that continuously undermines this discussion of someone being judged for their occupation being just as oppressed as someone being judged because they were simply born to the wrong parents. You want us to be more trusting of cops? Fine. Just burn America's policing institution down to the ground and start over. The ball isn't in black people's court here.

Though I will admit I'm more concerned for incarceration rates than police killings. It destroys millions of families and condemns countless children to lives of poor educational performance and by proxy, crime. Killings of all kinds (I'd go so far to say even justified ones) are awful, but we only have a few hundred of those.

I'm mostly just surprised it's the police who earn ire and not the judges for the most part. I guess it's just in the nature of things. A guy shooting someone is more dramatic than a dude hitting a gavel. It's the same reason wallets fly open when homeless people are involved, but no one cares about the causes of homelessness; the latter is boring by comparison.

Juries are also partly to blame, but again there's more to policing than just drawing the gun. The citation and quota system for example is also ruining lives.

[Tani Coyote]

This quoting system makes me cry.

Probably because no one reporting these things, or perhaps I'm actually wrong and black cops simply are less likely to choke out a black man for no reason and not face punishment for the act of doing so (I will continue to remind you that white supremacy is only part of the issue), or because the whole point is to hold the whole institution responsible which inherently includes black people who work within it anyway, as well as the Hispanic/Latino, Asians, Indian, Native American, women and LGBT officers too. Again, if you're trying to pin hypocrisy against black people and BLM of giving minority officers a pass, some actual proof of deliberate downplaying would be nice.

The proof would be there's no shitstorm when a minority officer does it. Whereas when a white officer is involved in a dubious case, I can guarantee it will be beamed into every home for weeks on end until the only reaction one can have is "GOD DAMMIT" when the subject comes up in daily conversation.

Though the best part? Not even whites care when it happens to a white person. I must say whites are consistent if nothing else. Every person, white or non-white, is seen as getting what was coming to him or her.

Now that's what I call a case of really terrifying colorblindness. Even if criminal whites are killed at a higher rate by the police, it would make little difference; the white majority doesn't care. Criminals give up their right to live, you see.

...I actually wish I hadn't stumbled upon this data. This paints an even bleaker picture.

You've simply concluded that using something means you

must

agree or trust it, which is pretty dishonest.

It may not be complete faith in infallibility, but it overall indicates confidence in the system. The fact people will take their chances with an officer rather than a criminal speaks volumes; despite the problems with brutality, the officer is still better to be around.

Though it probably helps that nationwide the officers that are minorities are proportionate. 12% of police are black to 14% of the general public. Though there's of course great variation in different areas, as we saw with Ferguson.

Actually I ponder how the police shooting statistics would change if we accounted for geography. My gut feeling is that the South will be the shame of the nation as usual.

And all of this is to say nothing of the ridiculous comparison that continuously undermines this discussion of someone being judged for their occupation being just as oppressed as someone being judged because they were simply born to the wrong parents.

 

I'm not saying they're equally oppressed. I'm saying I don't like the reasoning. I'm used to "being cautious" being used as a way to defend racist behavior, e.g. avoiding the group of black people talking on the street because they MIGHT be criminals versus the group of whites. I can't get behind the idea of applying statistics to the individual.

Doubly so because trust is mutual. The black man making the first step will probably still be punished. The officer making the first step will probably still be mistrusted.

And so the cycle of vengeance continues unabated, because whenever someone on either side makes a conciliatory gesture, they will suffer for it. Joyous.

[Nepenthe]

This quoting system makes me cry.

I don't know why it sometimes works for me and sometimes doesn't but here we go. x.x

The proof would be there's no shitstorm when a minority officer does it. Whereas when a white officer is involved in a dubious case, I can guarantee it will be beamed into every home for weeks on end until the only reaction one can have is "GOD DAMMIT" when the subject comes up in daily conversation.

Do you think that's because black people are okay with getting the shit beat out of us when it's a minority officer? Or do statistics say that you are actually more likely if not entirely likely to get unfairly treated at the hands of a white officer than a minority one? Or does the media simply not consider these stories worthy of print, thus the public is unable to react to them and actually make them inclusive to the issue? Or, again, is it that the whole point of the grassroots movement is to implicate policing as an institution and thus every officer regardless of ethnicity is automatically implicated anyway, rendering it somewhat irrelevant? Until you answer these questions with something beyond a hunch you can't assert it as an argument that black people are, again, okay with a minority officer beating the shit out of us because they're a minority.

Though the best part? Not even whites care when it happens to a white person. I must say whites are consistent if nothing else. Every person, white or non-white, is seen as getting what was coming to him or her.

Now that's what I call a case of really terrifying colorblindness. Even if criminal whites are killed at a higher rate by the police, it would make little difference; the white majority doesn't care. Criminals give up their right to live, you see.

...I actually wish I hadn't stumbled upon this data. This paints an even bleaker picture.

That's kind of what happens when you are lucky enough to be indoctrinated into this idea that everything's a total meritocracy.

It may not be complete faith in infallibility, but it overall indicates confidence in the system. The fact people will take their chances with an officer rather than a criminal speaks volumes; despite the problems with brutality, the officer is still better to be around.

That's probably because everyone knows that criminals are held to a theoretically lower standard of behavior than a police officer should be, which is why people get more outraged when an officer walks free from a technicality than when a lowly criminal does. Again, this isn't actual substantial evidence that black people think the system is totally great so much as we have a general idea of how it's supposed to work and may use it.

I'm not saying they're equally oppressed. I'm saying I don't like the reasoning. I'm used to "being cautious" being used as a way to defend racist behavior, e.g. avoiding the group of black people talking on the street because they MIGHT be criminals versus the group of whites. I can't get behind the idea of applying statistics to the individual.

Doubly so because trust is mutual. The black man making the first step will probably still be punished. The officer making the first step will probably still be mistrusted.

And so the cycle of vengeance continues unabated, because whenever someone on either side makes a conciliatory gesture, they will suffer for it. Joyous.

It's fallacious to think that the reasoning used to substantiate an overall argument that is flawed or disagreeable in one aspect is automatically bad reasoning. No one is going to say "If A, then B" is suddenly a bad syllogism simply because I can apply it to something like "If slaves are federally granted freedom, then the Southern economy will collapse and families and children will suffer" to make the argument for the continued insistence of slavery in a racist/libertarian/capitalistic perspective. Arguments concerning social reform thrive on the context they are being made in, the ideal they are ultimately striving for, and the appeal to morality. A black person making sure to avoid contact with the cops because of the proven statistical likelihood of being harmed in some manner- whether it mean being hassled, unnecessarily cited or jailed, or beaten/tazed/killed- is not to be compared or equated to a racist shitheel who avoids black people because they believe the crime statistics are an actual biological marker of black people's devolved, animalistic natures.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Do you think that's because black people are okay with getting the shit beat out of us when it's a minority officer? Or do statistics say that you are actually more likely if not entirely likely to get unfairly treated at the hands of a white officer than a minority one? Or does the media simply not consider these stories worthy of print, thus the public is unable to react to them and actually make them inclusive to the issue? Or, again, is it that the whole point of the grassroots movement is to implicate policing as an institution and thus every officer regardless of ethnicity is automatically implicated anyway, rendering it somewhat irrelevant? Until you answer these questions with something beyond a hunch you can't assert it as an argument that black people are, again, okay with a minority officer beating the shit out of us because they're a minority.

Given the general lack of media enthusiasm for white riots barring a token mention that's quickly buried beneath other stories, I suspect the third one. The media is most interested in painting black citizens and white officers alike as vicious. It keeps the controversy going, emotions running high, and the money flowing in. The media would never support the entire picture, because the entire picture is more conductive to change, which translates into less money. Long and short, the media's interested in making blacks and whites take on the roles of the Indians and colonists in the Pocahontas song "Savages."

A black person making sure to avoid contact with the cops because of the proven statistical likelihood of being harmed in some manner- whether it mean being hassled, unnecessarily cited or jailed, or beaten/tazed/killed- is not to be compared or equated to a racist shitheel who avoids black people because they believe the crime statistics are an actual biological marker of black people's devolved, animalistic natures.

I dunno. My Mom was in a robbery before and she's a nervous wreck as a result. I can see why one would try to minimize chances of being a victim of robberies.

I can understand the discrepancy given the officer consents to his position, never mind race is a poor qualifier for criminal likelihood (class/income are much better tools to use for inferring criminal possibilities if one is interested), but I still can't entirely say it's right either way.

Then again, I've known a lot of officers in my time. Only one was a jackass. I'm inherently thinking of things from their perspective.

[Nepenthe]

The perspective of cops that says it's unfair for them to be given any kind of significant criticism and scrutiny for the sake of self-preservation on part of the public is not a complaint worth kowtowing to for two reasons. First, they're in a position of power above most people meaning they theoretically have a higher standard of civic responsibility to uphold; yet despite this they lack any sort of meaningful or significant check in power so they're essentially allowed to cause harm with far more impunity than a normal citizen can. This is significantly dangerous and how actual police states happen. Second is the fact that- again- any career you choose is a conscious choice. It's not society's responsibility to make your job easy, particularly one where you're allowed to draw your gun at someone at a moment's notice. Again, if you don't want to deal with the fact that people are scared of a section of a population that has a higher likelihood of killing them and walking away completely unscathed from judicial punishment aside from a fucking paid vacation, you should either start enacting change from within your institution or find a job where you don't have to deal with the pressure. We should not be coddling adults like this, or at the very least I'm not going to coddle adults.

[Tani Coyote]

Of course, I'm not seeing any reason an officer will want to pursue better measures. Human nature is to systematically disregard those who vilify you. So, change will most likely not come from within the institution. Doubly so given the oppressed population has a sizable number who are not averse to issuing death threats or participating in riots in the cases of killings. It rapidly breeds a "well screw you too" attitude.

 

To say nothing of the self-interest involved in maintaining a bloated police presence. As discussed, the data seems to indicate that we really don't need most officers' presence, since the numbers have little impact on crime, or even arrests (it would appear most people are committing their crime whether or not the police are around). Their numbers don't even change attitudes towards the force as a whole. But police will always say otherwise, because they like their jobs. Every institution desires to perpetuate itself.

 

Now I'm just pondering what police feel about the idea of more robust surveillance. It's not a cure all, but reports of brutality drop like a stone after implementation, and based on Oscar Grant's case, there's more accountability.

 

Heading off the likely responses: One may say that the officer in that case "got off," but two years imprisonment isn't "getting off" for me. It was a piece of cake to prove negligence in that case with video evidence. And negligence generally doesn't have that stiff a penalty. Grant's case is nothing like Rodney King's, where there is evident excess (even a conservative like H.W. Bush thought it was brutality; given the pro-police trend in modern GOP ideology, this speaks volumes) and the jurors just shrugged and went "not guilty." Now that is getting off easy.

 

Murder has a higher standard to prove, as it should. It is a blatant, malicious, intentional disregard for human life. The evidence, however, seems to point said officer was stupid and/or careless, not evil. With regards to this specific officer, I'd be mostly concerned if his appeal to have his record cleared so he could serve on the force was granted, myself. I'm okay with him not suffering for life because of a mistake, but I certainly don't want him being entrusted with lethal force again.

 

Doesn't even have to be a cop. My sister once pointed an unloaded AR-15 at my Mom as a joke. I'd be content with her being banned from firearms for life. One mistake is too damned many.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Wendigogilvie

[Tani Coyote]

Something different!

 

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/29281979/henderson-pd-focused-on-diversity-in-recruitment-efforts

http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/Local-law-enforcement-recruitment-strong/CcciCYChXE2gOUU5O7XHRw.cspx

 

Conscious of the ongoing tensions about brutality and race, the Henderson, NV police department is working with minority organizations to recruit more minority officers.

 

So far, the results are quite shocking; despite the tensions between minorities and police, minorities are vastly overrepresented in applicant pools. Blacks make up 5% of the population, but account for 16% of police applicants. Hispanics make up 15% of the population, but provide 23% of recruits. When you compare, this translates into a black person being 4-5x as likely as a white person to apply.

 

The application process can take a while, with several months minimum, so there doesn't seem to be any data on the actual recruits. However, it is sending a really strong message, I think. While the good benefits and starting pay of the job probably account for some of the applicant disparity, I think a lot of it is a desire to prove one's membership in society. It is much like the large numbers of minorities who made points to serve in the military during wars to prove their loyalty and patriotism.

 

I'm interested to see how this plays out.

 

It doesn't quite solve the underlying problem of racism and brutality - those will always be a problem so long as the economic stratification persists - but it's one step in the right direction.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Wendigogilvie

[Tani Coyote]

http://newsone.com/3303475/nypd-cop-who-fatally-shot-ramarley-graham-receives-raise/

Richard Haste, who shot an unarmed teen 4 years ago, has received a raise. People are up in arms over this because the investigation into the case is not yet complete. Haste has been assigned to a desk job in the meantime as a precaution. This criticism completely ignores the fact that the NYPD operates under a contractual system where the same raises are given to anyone with the same time on the job.

Now, the facts of the case would appear to show the NYPD as lying; they claim Graham ran into his home to escape pursuit, but camera footage shows him calmly entering. Haste claims he found Graham flushing marijuana down the toilet, and believing he was armed, shot him.

This is to say nothing of the fact 4 years to solve a misconduct case is actually unusual, and poses a severe problem because witnesses' memories fade as time goes by.

There are plenty of reasons to be upset about this case, but I must reiterate what I always say on this subject: choose the tools of engagement wisely. The crucifixion of Wilson backfired enormously on the cause to end brutality, and so will criticisms that aren't well-thought out or focused on the right targets.

Here, we have a documented lie. We have the questionable idea a possible threat merits lethal force. Then we have the extremely lengthy investigation which raises concerns of a lack of regard for the public good. His receiving a raise like any other officer would in the position is rather poor as something to argue over, given he hasn't been proven guilty of wrongdoing. One will raise the issue of investigation abuse, and I duly concur; I already noted that as a very serious issue. And I feel that lack of accountability would be a much better target than a contractual raise.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/baltimore-officer-edward-nero-freddie-gray-court-verdict.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I know the gut reaction is to be angry, but read more closely. The judge argued that Nero had the least role in Gray's death, and found no wrongdoing on his part. The other officers are still awaiting trial and they would have had a more direct hand in what happened to Gray.

We shall see how this develops.

It seems reasonable that out of a group of six officers, at least one wouldn't be that bad. I am interested to see what sorts of rulings the others get, however. Heads don't tend to internally decapitate on their own, so there must be someone at fault here.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I suppose so. But too many officers getting off with slaps on the wrist for obvious brutality isn't really going to make people realize that tho.

Having this happen too often makes people thirsty for some punishment to actually be handed out, and I can't say I blame them.

[Tani Coyote]

47 minutes ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

I suppose so. But too many officers getting off with slaps on the wrist for obvious brutality isn't really going to make people realize that tho.

Having this happen too often makes people thirsty for some punishment to actually be handed out, and I can't say I blame them.

And as much as I can see why they think that way, I will still deem them irrational. Collective punishment is inherently unjust. Once we go down that path, we're opening ourselves to all kinds of savagery.

I know there might be some sort of perverse satisfaction from an innocent officer being punished because of the trend of guilty officers getting off, but two wrongs do not make a right. Though it does speak to how well violence has been internalized by the non-white population.

It's awful what happens all too often with brutality going unpunished, but I'm going to consider those thirsty for blood and/or undue punishment bad regardless of their cause. Slaves were abused and well within their right to rise up, but I don't consider their murder of innocent whites anymore just despite their cause. We must punish the guilty, no more, no less (it goes without saying I consider rioting to generally be stupid as well, regardless of cause; that goes for the white riots as well that we never hear much about). As far as can be seen so far, it looks like Officer Nero is not one of the guilty; it remains to be seen what is said of the others.

Those folks throwing a fit over an officer with minimal involvement receiving no penalty are not thinking straight. We need to see how the other officers are treated to see if the judge's logic holds (because, again, there is reasonably someone seriously at fault here given the circumstances of Gray's death), or if he is prejudiced in his rulings. There is of course the federal option as well, given the federal courts are generally more equitable to blacks.

If nothing else we can be glad the officers in question are really dumb. With a shooting, an officer finds it very easy to get the benefit of the doubt. Gray's death, on the other hand, just smells of malicious intentions and cruel behavior.

Overall though, I'm disappointed to see this being treated as if all six officers were cleared of charges, which would be serious horseshit. It looks like the judge is doing the correct approach in analyzing each officer on a case by case basis.