Printable View
Clearly the term is not a legal term as the state cannot declare you innocent. Therefore its obvious when the statement 'innocent' is being used here is the general level of guilt/innocence of that person. Person with a rap sheet ain't some 'innocent.'Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
We are talking about (in that discussion chain) about who cops target. And guess what - targeting people with criminal histories isn't against the bill of rights or the law. Its called good police work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This might surprise you, but having the government kill people who don't pose an immediate threat without a trial violates multiple parts of the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If you don't know who they are and don't have a good reason--legally speaking--I think you'll find that it may very well be illegal to "target" them. In theory anyway, in practice people like you will be unwilling to punish cops for illegal searches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Again, I'd consider many people with rap sheets innocent. And you definitely not innocent, seeing as you're evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
They aren't going into the encounter with a 'I'm gonna shot this guy!' Come on. There are bad cops but they (like most people) are rational actors. The vast majority of shoots are good. The ones that are bad are typically bad because the cop made poor decisions not because they decided to wake up that day and kill someone. To suggest otherwise is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Many cases exist because individuals have put themselves in the situation to be confronted by the police. It is rare for someone to be pulled over 'for nothing.' It is rare that the police approach random people for no reason. In many of the cases the left bring up about police brutality are cases where there was a criminal on the other end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Eric Gardner who didn't deserve to die for selling tobacco had been arrested 30 times and was no choir boy.
Freddie Gray who didn't deserve to die for caring an illegal switchblade had more than 20 criminal court cases.
Were these people rightfully targeted? You know? Yeah. Career criminals. Did the police officers decide "yeah today we are going to kill these two" hell no. They targeted people like guilty of things appropriately - the actions afterward (especially the rough ride, if that is what happened) were not appropriate but they didn't come about because of illegal searches.
It is in fact common for people to be stopped and pulled over and searched without good cause, especially when it comes to black people and to a lesser extent other minorities.
Lewk, you clearly don't have any inkling of what it is to be a young black man in America. Perhaps a story to illuminate things for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I have a friend and former colleague from Baltimore who was working on his PhD at Hopkins. As was fairly standard for PhD students, he would on occasion stay late at lab to get some experiments finished, so would drive home relatively late in the evening. He is a studious, clean cut, well spoken and brilliant individual who has no criminal record - and happens to be black. On a routine basis he would be pulled over by Baltimore cops on his way home at night with zero cause (no driving infractions, no suspicious behavior) and searched. He would explain, calmly, where he was coming from and the cops wouldn't even believe him until he showed his Hopkins ID. This happened on - at a minimum - a monthly basis.
When you have this level of suspicion based purely on gender and race, it's no surprise that trigger-happy cops occasionally shoot someone who they shouldn't. My friend was smart - far smarter (and better educated) than your typical black man in Baltimore - and so he was always at pains to appear professionally dressed, speak respectfully and carefully with law enforcement, and to be scrupulously careful in how he presented himself. But it's telling that he was still doubted from the very beginning and it's incredibly damning that he felt the need to behave in this manner for his safety. I don't want our society to be one in which black men must grovel and be held to a higher standard when interacting with law enforcement, and certainly not one where reaching for your ID can get you shot.
The fact of the matter is that your average black man interacts a lot with law enforcement, both with and without cause, and that this friction will lead to mistrust and mistakes.
And yet when someone who isn't a police officer makes poor decisions you want to throw the book at them. Why not extend the same courtesy to police officers - people whose poor decisions can lead to the death of an innocent person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And let's not forget, police are (supposedly) trained and should know better what to do in such situations.
No that is a completely inappropriate statistic to use, there is no reason to use that at all. Besides the cops are supposed to survive their encounters while again given so many fatal encounters are due to murderers going on a rampage until they're taken out by the Police those people effectively are not supposed to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In an ideal world the survival rate should be basically 100% with virtually all encounters and then falling where a shoot is justified.
I don't ignore it. I've said that those using inappropriate force should be dealt with.Quote:
Incidentally, it is distasteful to see you continually ignore the fact that innocent black people are more likely than white people to be targeted by cops, and that cops are more likely to use inappropriate--and especially lethal--force on black people than on white people.
But here is where your logic conflicts with ... your logic.
How much more likely is a random black person to be targeted by a random white person? Both you and wiggin and others have said that black people are more likely to be targeted, to have more encounters. Just before wiggin spoke of someone who was pulled over on a monthly basis. All evidence points to blacks being stopped more than whites. So shall we conservatively estimate that a black person is four times more likely to have an encounter with the Police than a white person?
Yet a black person is "only" twice as likely to be killed than a white person is. Meaning on your preferred metric if my assumption and your claims on encounters is right, then a black person is less likely to be killed on that a white person is per encounter. Which is why per encounter is a meaningless metric.
I think that's misleading, RB. Most of the encounters black people have with cops are frivolous, but are still charged with potential violence, while most white people never have frivolous encounters with cops, and if they do the risk of violence is quite low. Essentially my argument is that most law-abiding white people don't have anything to fear from cops at a routine traffic stop (and they're far less likely to be stopped in the first place), while a law-abiding black man is going to be stopped all the time and is aware that every action of his may be seen as a threat deserving lethal force as a response. Even if the per encounter probability is lower (which may entirely be, given the frivolous nature of most stops), the overall combined risk is still quite high for your average blameless black man. And the aggregate chance of an unjustified shooting goes up when you have this much friction spread over this many encounters.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's not misleading it's simple maths. I completely 100% agree with you that it is aggregate figures that matter rather than the per frivolous encounter statistic that matters. But that was my point, I was rebutting the claim that it is per encounter that matters. One of the biggest and well-known problem that blacks face is not an individual encounter going wrong (though that happens and is the worst thing that can happen) but the sheer quantity of frivolous encounters. Which is why looking at per encounter is meaningless.
If you're having 12 encounters a year then the fact 11 of them went as they should is not good enough. If you're having
Total number of encounters matters as well as aggregate risk. There's probably a way to also figure out 'risk per frivolous encounter' or, perhaps, 'risk per low risk encounter' which would be a much better metric: sure, the denominator for your typical white is quite low, but the numerator is probably much closer to zero. And then there's the broader issue that we're not just interested in fatalities but a whole range of inappropriate behavior ranging from harassment to beatings to (non-lethal) use of lethal force to actual fatalities.
And even if the cop is innocent and was working according to his training that doesn't mean the training is right.
This tangent was specifically about the question of who should shoot whom in any given encounter based on an assessment of the risks to each participant. You divided the total number of black people shot to death in police encounters by the total number of black people in the US, and divided the total number of cops shot to death by the total number of cops. However, that's only interesting if we're looking at a scenario where cops and black people are randomly going around shooting people wherever they go (which, granted, is not an entirely inaccurate characterization of American police work), which, in this situation, is not interesting at all, because cops and black people aren't identical particles floating around in a solution and randomly encountering each other. You have to adjust for the exposure itself. Any given black person is less likely to be in a police encounter than any given cop, but in any given encounter a black person has with a cop, he has an unacceptably high risk of being harmed--financially, psychologically, physically even to the point of death--by that cop.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Looking only at absolute risk, neither cops nor black people should be shooting anyone.
You draw this conclusion because you do not realize that lethal force exists on a spectrum of violence and black people are more likely than white people to be subjected to all forms of violence from police, meaning the risk of harm in any given encounter is higher. Of course, this may also partly reflect the greater inclination for American cops to stop, search, harm or otherwise hassle black people for spurious reasons. The risk is nevertheless higher for black people in such cases compared to what it is for white people in similar circumstances (which occur far less frequently). Again, you have to take the exposure into account. For frivolous encounters, the risk is higher for black people than it is for both cops and for white people, and black people are also more likely to have such encounters compared to white people. I suspect the risk is higher for black people even in less frivolous encounters, but I only have anecdata on that atm because I can't find the few articles I've seen discussing that topic.Quote:
But here is where your logic conflicts with ... your logic.
How much more likely is a random black person to be targeted by a random white person? Both you and wiggin and others have said that black people are more likely to be targeted, to have more encounters. Just before wiggin spoke of someone who was pulled over on a monthly basis. All evidence points to blacks being stopped more than whites. So shall we conservatively estimate that a black person is four times more likely to have an encounter with the Police than a white person?
Yet a black person is "only" twice as likely to be killed than a white person is. Meaning on your preferred metric if my assumption and your claims on encounters is right, then a black person is less likely to be killed on that a white person is per encounter. Which is why per encounter is a meaningless metric.
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to argue at this point. There's a large body of more or less scientific evidence documenting the racial biases--implicit as well as explicit--that exist among cops in the US wrt unjustifiable targeting, perception of threat, inappropriate use of force etc. There are also several recent court cases, lawsuits and DoJ investigations that bear out the findings of such studies and paint truly stomach-turning pictures of the consequences of that bias--coupled with various aggravating factors--on communities of predominantly black Americans. We have seen once case after another of cops essentially getting away with murder, because the American justice system has a hard time convicting cops, leaving their employers on the hook for millions of dollars in civil liabilities paid out to victims' families.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...nalysis-finds/Quote:
Stanford psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt led a team of linguists and computer scientists who examined police body camera footage from one month — April 2014 — of routine traffic stops in the racially diverse city of Oakland, California.
They examined 981 stops, involving 682 black and 299 white drivers. These numbers mirror that national trend. Of the 26 million traffic stops recorded each year, a higher percentage are black drivers.
The computer analysis could also quantify the scale of a problem. White community members were 57 percent more likely to have an exchange filled with a highest degree of respectful language, whereas black drivers were 61 percent more likely to experience an exchange that fell into the category of least respectful.
African Americans are significantly more likely to be stopped. The ones stopped are significantly more likely to be treated rudely relative to white motorists. Think about that for a moment. For a white motorist to be stopped, they have to, on average, be doing something worse than a black motorist. Yet, they're still treated more respectfully (on average).
What is chicken and what is egg?
Their poor decisions are made with positive intent. As opposed to criminal behavior where it is negative intent is what the poor decision is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Here we have cops panicking and shooting because of adrenaline and possibly poor training and threat assessment management. The type of people I routinely call for harsh penalties are those who acted with malicious intent to steal, rape or murder.
I recently read a story about a young girl who was caught shoplifting a pair of shoes at a store. The police officer in question took her home and saw that she was stealing the shoes to provide for her family. No charges we pressed and he was able to raise a considerable amount of support from his department and the local community for her family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Now, under the framework I understand you to operate under, the second she made the poor decision to steal her life is essentially forfeit. Had the police officer rolled up and shot her for running then it would have been just another piece of criminal scum off the streets. But was this girl's intent positive? Providing for her family seems like good intent to me, even if the decisions she made were poor.
And frankly Lewk, and this is something I thought you of all people would appreciate, sometimes the intent just doesn't matter, or it is outweighed by the sheer magnitude of the error. I can have perfectly good intentions and still make horrific decisions, and if those decisions cost someone their life then I can, and should, still be held responsible.
The framework that death for shoplifting works is if the punishment actually occurs with some certainty. Which leads to less shoplifting and less death overall. The idea being that rational actors won't do things that get them killed. Irrational actors will quickly be identified and locked away/shot. You cannot simply apply the punishment to a single instance where that framework doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
That said - I hear what you are saying regarding the level of error however I still insist there is a difference. Deterring bad behavior and getting rid of people who do bad behavior is what stops it. Bad judgments while attempting to do positive can be fixed with training.
You blame poor people for being poor, for making bad decisions even with positive intent, even if they've never had the training to know better. So your statement here is just more bullshit from you, you still blame them for it. Unless they're cops. Because the cops are on your side while poor people are the enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I don't know about the egg but in this case I'd say you're the chicken :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Nah plenty of poor people make bad decisions with selfish intent or at best neutral intent. Deciding to smoke isn't positive intent. Deciding to drink beers instead of paying the water bill isn't positive intent. Deciding to spend upwards of 9% of your money on lotto tickets while on the government dole isn't positive intent. The inability to delay gratification is NOT positive intent, it may not be deliberately malicious but don't sugar coat that crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
See, now that last is absolutely positive intent. It's uneducated, but it is very clearly an attempt to improve their economic condition in a socially acceptable manner. But you don't think that needs education or training, you think it is exactly the kind of moral failing which you think the police are unable of committing every time they pull someone over for driving while black or shooting them for being responsible and telling the officer that they do possess and are legally carrying a firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Interesting that he'd choose to focus on a minority of poor people but refuse to acknowledge a far more destructive minority of cops.
Those cops aren't really destructive though. They're removing from society those who probably have a criminal record, or buy beer or smoke cigarettes, or play the lottery, or are a darkie, or are poor, or don't dress properly or don't show just the right amount of respect. You should be thanking these cops dammit.
Hell, I have a criminal record, I drink beer and used to smoke cigarettes, I've been poor, I play the lottery from time to time, I am slightly darkie in the summer months, I occasionally don't dress properly. I think I'll just hand myself in to the nearest copshop to save the cops the bother of shooting me. Society deserves better than I and my type.
I'm afraid your cops generally don't carry guns, maybe save it for a vacation abroad.
Not to mention exposing innocent and vulnerable people to pics of ur hairy derriere :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
:mad: protect our children :mad: :up:Quote:
I think I'll just hand myself in to the nearest copshop to save the cops the bother of shooting me. Society deserves better than I and my type.
I think I'm somewhat confused here - what exactly is stopping the police officers who are behaving poorly and making bad decisions? It is almost impossible for a police officer to be convicted in this country, even with overwhelming video evidence. According to your own philosophy, there is literally no legal deterrence for police officers to not behave in this way, seemingly little in the way of institutional reform, and you seem completely opposed to supporting any punishment on the police officers who have. I can't say I comprehend the double standard here. If police officers are rational actors, why wouldn't they shoot first and ask questions later if there is no deterrent not to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I think you'll find Lewk supports punishing bad cops in the abstract, while opposing it in any given specific instance.
Well, not ANY given specific instance. I'm certain he'd condemn the robbery ring a few cops had here in California a while back. They were infringing on property, after all, not something piddling like black people's lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Evil though Lewk may be, I think it's important to consider the possibility that his views on cops hassling, beating or outright killing black people are rooted in something other than malice. Given their similarities to RB's views in this thread, we may have to reconsider either the relevance of Lewk's black heart, or the color of RB's. It may be more accurate to blame ignorance, flawed reasoning, bias etc. Which, I guess, are all evil in their own way.
Ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence is malice.
Nah poor decision making is the hallmark of the lifelong poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Except there are deterrents. Cops lose their jobs. Get harassed. Have to go to court and play the jury lottery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I don't condone cops who steal. I don't condone cops bad behavior. I do support putting bad cops away in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Maybe I am missing something, but your moral calculus seems to goes something like this: steal a toothbrush, forfeit your life. Become a cop and murder someone in cold blood for doing something you ordered them to do and you get fired and have some mean articles written about you. Oh, and maybe if a big enough stink gets raised there might be a trial that you are almost guaranteed to walk away a free man from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Death for petty theft, a slap on the wrist for murder.
You think that these are just punishments that fit these crimes? Which is more important to deter, and are you reflecting that value in your respective punishments?
In theory, maybe. In practice, you do not. The Castile case was about as clear-cut as it could get. There's no amount of evidence you'd find acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski