Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mass. Court Says Blacks Can Run From Police!

FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:06:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In the case cited, the police were conducting an investigation.

Here is my ideal world situation, which admitted, probably won't happen, but...

If an officer approaches some one, anyone, it would be their duty to state their business.

"Good evening Mr. Public, I am officer Guyman, and I am investigating a break in in this area. I am looking for.... "

or any such good faith effort to engage said person.

From there, its up to the person being engaged to understand their rights, or terminate/decline the engagement. If in the course of an investigation, a person takes flight, to me, that would indeed be very suspicious.

While fleeing police is not illegal in its own right, if the person is doing something illegal while fleeing, that makes things a bit dicey. I don't see any reason why what illegal activity they were doing in the process of fleeing should not be held against them.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:53:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 12:06:46 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In the case cited, the police were conducting an investigation.

Here is my ideal world situation, which admitted, probably won't happen, but...

If an officer approaches some one, anyone, it would be their duty to state their business.

Dude seriously? I plead the 5th, so abolish the 5th?

"Good evening Mr. Public, I am officer Guyman, and I am investigating a break in in this area. I am looking for.... "

or any such good faith effort to engage said person.

From there, its up to the person being engaged to understand their rights, or terminate/decline the engagement. If in the course of an investigation, a person takes flight, to me, that would indeed be very suspicious.

While fleeing police is not illegal in its own right, if the person is doing something illegal while fleeing, that makes things a bit dicey. I don't see any reason why what illegal activity they were doing in the process of fleeing should not be held against them.

fleeing from the police is an additional charge generally
They fixed a problem that didn't exist, bravo
"On the second point, the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren"t charged with anything. "
so now what you will have is people getting a cops attention, running and if they do anything sue, liberal state after all, no surprise.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:04:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 1:53:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:06:46 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In the case cited, the police were conducting an investigation.

Here is my ideal world situation, which admitted, probably won't happen, but...

If an officer approaches some one, anyone, it would be their duty to state their business.

Dude seriously? I plead the 5th, so abolish the 5th?

The officer's business.

"Good evening Mr. Public, I am officer Guyman, and I am investigating a break in in this area. I am looking for.... "

or any such good faith effort to engage said person.

From there, its up to the person being engaged to understand their rights, or terminate/decline the engagement. If in the course of an investigation, a person takes flight, to me, that would indeed be very suspicious.

While fleeing police is not illegal in its own right, if the person is doing something illegal while fleeing, that makes things a bit dicey. I don't see any reason why what illegal activity they were doing in the process of fleeing should not be held against them.

fleeing from the police is an additional charge generally

Obstruction of justice, resisting arrest without violence. This infers the officer was conducting something about the person rather than with them.

They fixed a problem that didn't exist, bravo

"On the second point, the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren"t charged with anything. "

so now what you will have is people getting a cops attention, running and if they do anything sue, liberal state after all, no surprise.

Why is a cop chasing a random individual? If the cop is chasing some one, presumably its related to their investigation.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:36:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:04:59 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:53:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:06:46 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In the case cited, the police were conducting an investigation.

Here is my ideal world situation, which admitted, probably won't happen, but...

If an officer approaches some one, anyone, it would be their duty to state their business.

Dude seriously? I plead the 5th, so abolish the 5th?

The officer's business.

"Good evening Mr. Public, I am officer Guyman, and I am investigating a break in in this area. I am looking for.... "

or any such good faith effort to engage said person.

From there, its up to the person being engaged to understand their rights, or terminate/decline the engagement. If in the course of an investigation, a person takes flight, to me, that would indeed be very suspicious.

While fleeing police is not illegal in its own right, if the person is doing something illegal while fleeing, that makes things a bit dicey. I don't see any reason why what illegal activity they were doing in the process of fleeing should not be held against them.

fleeing from the police is an additional charge generally

Obstruction of justice, resisting arrest without violence. This infers the officer was conducting something about the person rather than with them.

They fixed a problem that didn't exist, bravo

"On the second point, the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren"t charged with anything. "

so now what you will have is people getting a cops attention, running and if they do anything sue, liberal state after all, no surprise.

Why is a cop chasing a random individual? If the cop is chasing some one, presumably its related to their investigation.

there's lots of things to this issue, The Supreme Court ruled that police can lie to get the information they want so for the police to state their business really doesn't mean anything.
"The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect."
http://criminal.findlaw.com...

It would be too difficult for anyone to make up a reason as to why they chased someone who ran. I saw him put something in his pocket, thought it could have been a gun, cells phones have been mistaken for guns, so really it would be extremely easy to justify, why would you run when you are free to talk and not talk? Sure you can run, but you can't say it's not suspicious since that's not what most innocent people would do.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:38:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:36:58 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:04:59 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 1:53:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 12:06:46 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In the case cited, the police were conducting an investigation.

Here is my ideal world situation, which admitted, probably won't happen, but...

If an officer approaches some one, anyone, it would be their duty to state their business.

Dude seriously? I plead the 5th, so abolish the 5th?

The officer's business.

"Good evening Mr. Public, I am officer Guyman, and I am investigating a break in in this area. I am looking for.... "

or any such good faith effort to engage said person.

From there, its up to the person being engaged to understand their rights, or terminate/decline the engagement. If in the course of an investigation, a person takes flight, to me, that would indeed be very suspicious.

While fleeing police is not illegal in its own right, if the person is doing something illegal while fleeing, that makes things a bit dicey. I don't see any reason why what illegal activity they were doing in the process of fleeing should not be held against them.

fleeing from the police is an additional charge generally

Obstruction of justice, resisting arrest without violence. This infers the officer was conducting something about the person rather than with them.

They fixed a problem that didn't exist, bravo

"On the second point, the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren"t charged with anything. "

so now what you will have is people getting a cops attention, running and if they do anything sue, liberal state after all, no surprise.

Why is a cop chasing a random individual? If the cop is chasing some one, presumably its related to their investigation.

there's lots of things to this issue, The Supreme Court ruled that police can lie to get the information they want so for the police to state their business really doesn't mean anything.
"The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect."
http://criminal.findlaw.com...

It wouldn't be too difficult for anyone to make up a reason as to why they chased someone who ran. I saw him put something in his pocket, thought it could have been a gun, cells phones have been mistaken for guns, so really it would be extremely easy to justify, why would you run when you are free to talk and not talk? Sure you can run, but you can't say it's not suspicious since that's not what most innocent people would do.

fixed feh
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:50:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Thoughts?

In the case cited, the police were conducting an investigation.

Here is my ideal world situation, which admitted, probably won't happen, but...

If an officer approaches some one, anyone, it would be their duty to state their business.

Dude seriously? I plead the 5th, so abolish the 5th?

The officer's business.

"Good evening Mr. Public, I am officer Guyman, and I am investigating a break in in this area. I am looking for.... "

or any such good faith effort to engage said person.

From there, its up to the person being engaged to understand their rights, or terminate/decline the engagement. If in the course of an investigation, a person takes flight, to me, that would indeed be very suspicious.

While fleeing police is not illegal in its own right, if the person is doing something illegal while fleeing, that makes things a bit dicey. I don't see any reason why what illegal activity they were doing in the process of fleeing should not be held against them.

fleeing from the police is an additional charge generally

Obstruction of justice, resisting arrest without violence. This infers the officer was conducting something about the person rather than with them.

They fixed a problem that didn't exist, bravo

"On the second point, the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren"t charged with anything. "

so now what you will have is people getting a cops attention, running and if they do anything sue, liberal state after all, no surprise.

Why is a cop chasing a random individual? If the cop is chasing some one, presumably its related to their investigation.

there's lots of things to this issue, The Supreme Court ruled that police can lie to get the information they want so for the police to state their business really doesn't mean anything.
"The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect."
http://criminal.findlaw.com...

Sure. However if the police are investigating something ELSE and decided to ask questions to a random passerby, lying to them in order to get a confession of an unknown crime is going to be quite difficult.

It wouldn't be too difficult for anyone to make up a reason as to why they chased someone who ran. I saw him put something in his pocket, thought it could have been a gun, cells phones have been mistaken for guns, so really it would be extremely easy to justify, why would you run when you are free to talk and not talk? Sure you can run, but you can't say it's not suspicious since that's not what most innocent people would do.

fixed feh

Sure, the cops can lie, but how many times will that fly? How many times do you as a cop want to keep saying "I thought the cell phone was a gun"? How many times would you like to state "I saw him put something in his pocket..." only to bust some one with just a wallet or keys in their pocket, leading, again for the officer to have to admit their paranoia?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 3:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:50:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Thoughts?

In the case cited, the police were conducting an investigation.

Here is my ideal world situation, which admitted, probably won't happen, but...

If an officer approaches some one, anyone, it would be their duty to state their business.

Dude seriously? I plead the 5th, so abolish the 5th?

The officer's business.

"Good evening Mr. Public, I am officer Guyman, and I am investigating a break in in this area. I am looking for.... "

or any such good faith effort to engage said person.

From there, its up to the person being engaged to understand their rights, or terminate/decline the engagement. If in the course of an investigation, a person takes flight, to me, that would indeed be very suspicious.

While fleeing police is not illegal in its own right, if the person is doing something illegal while fleeing, that makes things a bit dicey. I don't see any reason why what illegal activity they were doing in the process of fleeing should not be held against them.

fleeing from the police is an additional charge generally

Obstruction of justice, resisting arrest without violence. This infers the officer was conducting something about the person rather than with them.

They fixed a problem that didn't exist, bravo

"On the second point, the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren"t charged with anything. "

so now what you will have is people getting a cops attention, running and if they do anything sue, liberal state after all, no surprise.

Why is a cop chasing a random individual? If the cop is chasing some one, presumably its related to their investigation.

there's lots of things to this issue, The Supreme Court ruled that police can lie to get the information they want so for the police to state their business really doesn't mean anything.
"The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect."
http://criminal.findlaw.com...

Sure. However if the police are investigating something ELSE and decided to ask questions to a random passerby, lying to them in order to get a confession of an unknown crime is going to be quite difficult.

It wouldn't be too difficult for anyone to make up a reason as to why they chased someone who ran. I saw him put something in his pocket, thought it could have been a gun, cells phones have been mistaken for guns, so really it would be extremely easy to justify, why would you run when you are free to talk and not talk? Sure you can run, but you can't say it's not suspicious since that's not what most innocent people would do.

fixed feh

Sure, the cops can lie, but how many times will that fly? How many times do you as a cop want to keep saying "I thought the cell phone was a gun"? How many times would you like to state "I saw him put something in his pocket..." only to bust some one with just a wallet or keys in their pocket, leading, again for the officer to have to admit their paranoia?

not saying they would, just that they could, what I'm getting at is they have a lot of lee way to justify their actions, right or wrong they just do, they just need reasonable suspension right? pretty low threshold of proof is needed for that standard imo, but it's the best we got.
So the case in question was not the fact that he ran actually, but rather the description wasn't specific enough and didn't match up enough that they should have considered him a suspect to begin with.
Unless they are terrible new and poorly trained, if a cop is walking down the road, someone turns and runs, you really think they care? I would doubt that aside for the few who are super gun-hoe. How often is the occurrence of police stopping someone for the sole reason that they ran? That's how they make this sound, but it's not the real fact.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 6:56:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In my opinion, if the officer does not present a legal reason for us not to do so, it is reasonable to flee, and so no charges should be brought about such as resisting arrest, unless it is stated previously that the citizen is under arrest.

In my opinion, running away at the very sight of me is suspicious activity, and the officer was not in the wrong to investigate further. Here I believe its important to note, that suspicious activity does not mean concrete proof of wrong doing.

Under law, the guy caught was caught with a unlawfully carried firearm. It may be unreasonable to assume that he was fleeing for that reason over personal protection in the court of law, given consideration of east coast police brutality. The man should not be charged for fleeing the police officer if he was not under arrest.

The man should still be charged for his illegal possession of a firearm.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 7:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 6:56:47 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In my opinion, if the officer does not present a legal reason for us not to do so, it is reasonable to flee, and so no charges should be brought about such as resisting arrest, unless it is stated previously that the citizen is under arrest.

In my opinion, running away at the very sight of me is suspicious activity, and the officer was not in the wrong to investigate further. Here I believe its important to note, that suspicious activity does not mean concrete proof of wrong doing.

Under law, the guy caught was caught with a unlawfully carried firearm. It may be unreasonable to assume that he was fleeing for that reason over personal protection in the court of law, given consideration of east coast police brutality. The man should not be charged for fleeing the police officer if he was not under arrest.

The man should still be charged for his illegal possession of a firearm.

Also, more of a personal note. A lot of laws in this country are made, not to catch people on, but to give police officers the legal leverage they need to pursue criminals for actions that, for obvious reasons, are usually not directly observable to a police officer before investigation. Such a system was not needed in the past, as officers were allowed appropriate levels of common sense and judgement, but in this time of distrust, to the majority of citizens it is almost necessary to have "excuse" laws to still be effective at improving the community the work for.

If that guy got off because he was not technically breaking a law, well, I think that's kind of a bummer. Maybe, hopefully, they will get him next time. Of course that would add to the negative statistics in the news so that may be discouraged. That guy needs to be managed though, and we need to strive for a point where people can trust in the legal system to protect them if the police officer conducts a search without warrant.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 7:40:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

good luck finding those stats, I haven't yet, although I did see where Hispanic officers are more quick and willing to shoot.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 7:42:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 7:05:13 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/22/2016 6:56:47 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

In my opinion, if the officer does not present a legal reason for us not to do so, it is reasonable to flee, and so no charges should be brought about such as resisting arrest, unless it is stated previously that the citizen is under arrest.

In my opinion, running away at the very sight of me is suspicious activity, and the officer was not in the wrong to investigate further. Here I believe its important to note, that suspicious activity does not mean concrete proof of wrong doing.

Under law, the guy caught was caught with a unlawfully carried firearm. It may be unreasonable to assume that he was fleeing for that reason over personal protection in the court of law, given consideration of east coast police brutality. The man should not be charged for fleeing the police officer if he was not under arrest.

The man should still be charged for his illegal possession of a firearm.

Also, more of a personal note. A lot of laws in this country are made, not to catch people on, but to give police officers the legal leverage they need to pursue criminals for actions that, for obvious reasons, are usually not directly observable to a police officer before investigation. Such a system was not needed in the past, as officers were allowed appropriate levels of common sense and judgement, but in this time of distrust, to the majority of citizens it is almost necessary to have "excuse" laws to still be effective at improving the community the work for.

If that guy got off because he was not technically breaking a law, well, I think that's kind of a bummer. Maybe, hopefully, they will get him next time. Of course that would add to the negative statistics in the news so that may be discouraged. That guy needs to be managed though, and we need to strive for a point where people can trust in the legal system to protect them if the police officer conducts a search without warrant.

there was a time when they were peace officers who's only job was to keep the peace, they are now law enforcement officers, enforcing laws that keep the piece, raise revenue for the local government and generally have nothing to do with peace.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 9:11:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

Why would that matter?
#BlackLivesMatter
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 10:00:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 7:40:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

good luck finding those stats, I haven't yet, although I did see where Hispanic officers are more quick and willing to shoot.

The media is on a mission. If you wish to find information for unbiased result that are not presented by them, you need to bypass your usual sources and make your own statistics straight from the databases. It takes time but its well worth it.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 10:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 10:00:24 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/22/2016 7:40:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

good luck finding those stats, I haven't yet, although I did see where Hispanic officers are more quick and willing to shoot.

The media is on a mission. If you wish to find information for unbiased result that are not presented by them, you need to bypass your usual sources and make your own statistics straight from the databases. It takes time but its well worth it.

Agh, my writing is atrocious today.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 10:17:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

This news story is going to cause problems, because people are going to start trying to run from police nation wide, even though the ruling is based on Massachusetts state law.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 11:11:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 10:17:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 5:04:06 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Thoughts?

This news story is going to cause problems, because people are going to start trying to run from police nation wide, even though the ruling is based on Massachusetts state law.

I was thinking about starting a thread on that sometime once I get the framework laid out.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 11:11:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 9:11:32 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

Why would that matter?

If there is a racial divide between white and blacks we can expect it to manifest in the treatment of whites againsts blacks. If blacks treat blacks the same way whites treat blacks then the culture has nothing to do with white supremacy.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 11:16:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
This gives a new meaning to you can run, but you can't hide.

Though I don't know the legality of hiding in those circumstances. I'll have to look into this.

I do agree with the basis that knowing just that a person is in dark clothing is insufficient to go searching for every person in dark clothing reasonably.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:15:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 5:02:27 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
http://www.wbur.org...

"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:30:52 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 11:11:25 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/22/2016 9:11:32 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

Why would that matter?

If there is a racial divide between white and blacks we can expect it to manifest in the treatment of whites againsts blacks. If blacks treat blacks the same way whites treat blacks then the culture has nothing to do with white supremacy.

I do not think you can isolate individual police actions based on race when it comes to treatment. I think statistics such as "stop and frisk" usually look at the overall demographic that is effected, not the individual actions of specific officers and their ethnicity. There are white officers everyday that are accused of racism. However those claims very rarely get looked at by Internal Affairs. So the racial divide you are presupposing, can only be known when something crucial such as a police shooting would happen.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:35:31 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 12:30:52 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:11:25 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/22/2016 9:11:32 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

Why would that matter?

If there is a racial divide between white and blacks we can expect it to manifest in the treatment of whites againsts blacks. If blacks treat blacks the same way whites treat blacks then the culture has nothing to do with white supremacy.

I do not think you can isolate individual police actions based on race when it comes to treatment. I think statistics such as "stop and frisk" usually look at the overall demographic that is effected, not the individual actions of specific officers and their ethnicity. There are white officers everyday that are accused of racism. However those claims very rarely get looked at by Internal Affairs. So the racial divide you are presupposing, can only be known when something crucial such as a police shooting would happen.

This study found that police officers disproportionately target black people for searches, stops etc. If black officers also disproportionately target black people as well, would this not indicate a pervasive stereotype against blacks?

For a problem solving strategy to work, it needs to be able to identify the problem. I suspect the problem goes a little beyond mere racial divide and is actually cognitive. However, this study stops before pursuing the idea and leaves open the most available interpretation: This is a white vs black issue. I don't believe it's that simple.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:41:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 12:35:31 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 12:30:52 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/22/2016 11:11:25 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/22/2016 9:11:32 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

Why would that matter?

If there is a racial divide between white and blacks we can expect it to manifest in the treatment of whites againsts blacks. If blacks treat blacks the same way whites treat blacks then the culture has nothing to do with white supremacy.

I do not think you can isolate individual police actions based on race when it comes to treatment. I think statistics such as "stop and frisk" usually look at the overall demographic that is effected, not the individual actions of specific officers and their ethnicity. There are white officers everyday that are accused of racism. However those claims very rarely get looked at by Internal Affairs. So the racial divide you are presupposing, can only be known when something crucial such as a police shooting would happen.

This study found that police officers disproportionately target black people for searches, stops etc. If black officers also disproportionately target black people as well, would this not indicate a pervasive stereotype against blacks?

For a problem solving strategy to work, it needs to be able to identify the problem. I suspect the problem goes a little beyond mere racial divide and is actually cognitive. However, this study stops before pursuing the idea and leaves open the most available interpretation: This is a white vs black issue. I don't believe it's that simple.

Well speaking from anecdotal experience I know Latino Sherriffs in the jails treat Latinos different than blacks in the jails. I know there is a huge racial divide propagated by Hispanic and Black jailers. On the street, there are black officers that hassel specific people that are known gang members, and yes there are white cops that just target anybody that looks at them the wrong way or that are wearing what they perceive as gang colors. But again, that is anecdotal evidence not something that would be held true for other people.
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:49:47 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Actually this law is reasonabl except that it applies to just blacks which is odd.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:04:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 10:00:24 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/22/2016 7:40:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

good luck finding those stats, I haven't yet, although I did see where Hispanic officers are more quick and willing to shoot.

The media is on a mission. If you wish to find information for unbiased result that are not presented by them, you need to bypass your usual sources and make your own statistics straight from the databases. It takes time but its well worth it.

I tried find stuff but apparently the internet is racist because it was whites only stats, I think only 14% are black cops, not sure about Hispanics, why you can't find these stats maybe is selective, the fbi breaks it down by race, but couldn't find anything on cops by race, interesting omissions or just very well hidden.
Anyway Smithereens has some good posts too.
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:16:12 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:04:35 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:00:24 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/22/2016 7:40:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

good luck finding those stats, I haven't yet, although I did see where Hispanic officers are more quick and willing to shoot.

The media is on a mission. If you wish to find information for unbiased result that are not presented by them, you need to bypass your usual sources and make your own statistics straight from the databases. It takes time but its well worth it.

I tried find stuff but apparently the internet is racist because it was whites only stats, I think only 14% are black cops, not sure about Hispanics, why you can't find these stats maybe is selective, the fbi breaks it down by race, but couldn't find anything on cops by race, interesting omissions or just very well hidden.
Anyway Smithereens has some good posts too.

i JUST STATED THAT THOSE STATS REGARDING "WHITE VS BLACK" OFFICERS......(Turns caps off) are hard because statistics tend to look at police officers as a whole regardless of their individual races. Again, the only way the race of officers are identified is if there is a fatal situation such as a police shooting. Besides you cannot specify whether white officers statistically kill more blacks than black officers or try to see who treats who differently unless you go by specific departments and/or divisions.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:24:14 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:16:12 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:04:35 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 10:00:24 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/22/2016 7:40:07 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:45:46 PM, Smithereens wrote:
Do black police officers also disproportionately target black citizens? That might be something worth looking into, because if so, this might not be a race thing.

good luck finding those stats, I haven't yet, although I did see where Hispanic officers are more quick and willing to shoot.

The media is on a mission. If you wish to find information for unbiased result that are not presented by them, you need to bypass your usual sources and make your own statistics straight from the databases. It takes time but its well worth it.

I tried find stuff but apparently the internet is racist because it was whites only stats, I think only 14% are black cops, not sure about Hispanics, why you can't find these stats maybe is selective, the fbi breaks it down by race, but couldn't find anything on cops by race, interesting omissions or just very well hidden.
Anyway Smithereens has some good posts too.

i JUST STATED THAT THOSE STATS REGARDING "WHITE VS BLACK" OFFICERS......(Turns caps off) are hard because statistics tend to look at police officers as a whole regardless of their individual races. Again, the only way the race of officers are identified is if there is a fatal situation such as a police shooting. Besides you cannot specify whether white officers statistically kill more blacks than black officers or try to see who treats who differently unless you go by specific departments and/or divisions.

yeah exactly, since there's way more white cops any justified shooting will probably involve a white cop, it's a numbers game, don't point a gun at a cop, now those ones that were unarmed those cops clearly have mental issues of some kind, there's no way they could think they would get out of it and prison is a bad place to be if you were a cop and they know it. so the obvious ones are not about race, I can't believe it would be, they can't be that dumb, I think it's something else, stupid, some kind of mental thing dunno.