Black people twice as likely to be charged with drugs possession – report

Lewkowski, I agree with what you say as far as it goes, it just doesn't go very far. You have to ask yourself where these destructive cultures come from. People don't just pick them out of a hat. The fact is that certain sub-groupings, will, if treated like dog-shit by the parent culture, develop their own cultural values hostile to that parent culture (and usually pretty self-destructive to boot). Plenty of material from de-converted ex-Jihadi British muslims explains the role that being on the receiving end of racism had in their radicalisation - if you're made to feel like shit on a daily basis by the culture around you, then you gotta get your sense of self-worth from somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Lewkowski, I agree with what you say as far as it goes, it just doesn't go very far. You have to ask yourself where these destructive cultures come from. People don't just pick them out of a hat. The fact is that certain sub-groupings, will, if treated like dog-shit by the parent culture, develop their own cultural values hostile to that parent culture (and usually pretty self-destructive to boot). Plenty of material from de-converted ex-Jihadi British muslims explains the role that being on the receiving end of racism had in their radicalisation - if you're made to feel like shit on a daily basis by the culture around you, then you gotta get your sense of self-worth from somewhere.

---

Some cultures have problems endemic to their own culture that precede 'being on the receiving end of racism'. There are historical basis for it.

EG I do not believe the poor treatment of women - including "honour killings", FGM, treating as second class citizens etc, etc has to do with receiving racism. Its worth noting historically our own culture treated women as second class citizens and we've changed past that and certain other cultures haven't.
I do not believe the poor treatment of homosexuals is due to receiving racism etc

There is only one culture I have personally had many problems with over years and that is Gypsies. I do not (from personal experience) respect Gypsy culture. A culture where unfortunately from my experience too often the worst stereotypes are based on truth - that allows and even encourages theft, deception etc. If dealing with a Gypsy then I will be on my guard to not be distracted or stolen from. Having worked in a shopping centre years ago it wasn't due to racism that all shops were warned whenever Gypsy caravans moved into one of the parking lots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Some cultures have problems endemic to their own culture that precede 'being on the receiving end of racism'. There are historical basis for it.

---

The point is about how you treat an individual before you're aware of any wrongdoing and dickishness on his part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The point is about how you treat an individual before you're aware of any wrongdoing on his part.

---

I will treat everyone the same but if I believe that someone is a Gypsy I will be more cautious. Polite and friendly still, but on my guard. Is that wrong?

I will also be more cautious and on my guard around drunks and many other more suspicious individuals who are probably not up to anything bad but could be. Is that wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I will treat everyone the same but if I believe that someone is a Gypsy I will be more cautious. Polite and friendly still, but on my guard. Is that wrong?

I will also be more cautious and on my guard around drunks and many other more suspicious individuals who are probably not up to anything bad but could be. Is that wrong?

---

Wrong? I don't know. But you may end up making someone innocent and decent feel distrusted and creepy for no good reason. Would that be right? It'd be wrong if you were to repeatedly stop such a person in the middle of the street, interrogate them, and then frisk them for guns and drugs. For the record, when you're cautious, on your guard, suspicious, the person you're talking to can actually pick up on that--no matter how polite and friendly you think you are acting--unless his brain is wired differently from the brains of most humans. No RB, you're not a professional actor.

No I'm not a professional actor. But when you work in a shop, it is your job. When every few months caravans turn up in your carpark and the people in those caravans try their luck at scamming and stealing from as many shops as they can before they move on is it racist to warn people when the caravans turn up next time?

When I started working there I thought naively that it was. After a while you realise sadly its not.

Who's more responsible for the concern? The person trying to get on with their job who's been attempted to be scammed repeatedly or the people doing the scamming?

Do you or do you not understand the differences between "guilty people" and "innocent person"?

Do or do you not understand the concepts of caution and concern?

Being cautious with people who concern you is your job. Being cautious with everyone can also be your job. If you put gloves on before handling a bleed on someone else are you implying that they have a disease you don't want to catch or are you just taking precautions?

FYI Story Amanda told me about how messed up attitudes can sometimes be in SA which is behind that example:

Amanda when she was a student in South Africa worked at a Hairdressers. Her father had taught all his daughter's First Aid and got them to carry a First Aid kit to work. One day a black woman came in bleeding and needing First Aid and nobody else wanted go near her. Amanda went and got her personal First Aid kit her dad had given her, put on her gloves and treated the wound. Afterwards she got accused of being racist as she'd put on gloves before handling the bleed. As she'd put on gloves she was implying the woman had HIV because she was black :bulb:. The fact she was the only one to help was neither here nor there, she should have helped without putting gloves on :bulb:

And btw, while I've always assumed that crime rates are likely to increase substantially in an area when travellers camp there, I've never actually seen any good studies supporting that assumption.

Not sure how high it would be to justify substantial. But while not all Travellers are dodgy, enough are to warrant taking sensible precautions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Do or do you not understand the concepts of caution and concern?

Being cautious with people who concern you is your job. Being cautious with everyone can also be your job. If you put gloves on before handling a bleed on someone else are you implying that they have a disease you don't want to catch or are you just taking precautions?

---

If you are very much more "cautious" when dealing with a girly-man or a black person because of a fear of catching HIV then you may be closer to doing the former than to doing the latter.

Do you or do you not understand the concept of differential treatment of individuals based on prejudices about groups?

Let me ask you again, but break it down into simpler sentences: do you understand the difference between guilty and innocent? Yes or no? Okay, now do you understand the difference between "people" and "person"? Yes or no? Okay, now do you understand why it may be problematic to treat an innocent person--who hasn't by any actions of his own given you good cause to believe he's guilty of anything--as if he's guilty based on your prejudices about guilty people who happen to look like him or come from the same country as he does or anything similarly superficial?

Would you like to be treated like a likely rapist by passing police officers simply because you happen to be a white man? Or would you prefer to enjoy the presumption of innocence and being treated like an individual?

I'll answer your questions if you answer mine. Yours first:

Understand the difference between guilty and innocent? Yes.
Understand the difference between "people" and "person"? Yes.
Understand why its problematic ...? Yes.
Would I like to be treated as a likely rapist by Police Officers? No. But if there was an investigation going on I'd be happy to co-operate.
Would I prefer the presumption of innocence? Yes.

Question you never asked:
Would I be OK at being treated as a potential rapist be a woman? Yes.

Now will you answer mine:
Do you understand the importance of taking precautions?
Do you accept that some can displays more signs of suspicious behaviour than others?
Do you accept people reacting to that?
Do you understand the difference between Police actions and individual safety?

If you as a man walking down the street alone in the dark saw a woman walking alone in the dark the other way and she crossed the road to the other side would you think that is objectionable sexism? Or if she made sure to walk under street lights?
Do you care more about your feelings of innocence than her feelings of safety?

I would rather my female friends, family and my wife take precautions than not. If we have daughters then I'd want them to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Wrong? I don't know. But you may end up making someone innocent and decent feel distrusted and creepy for no good reason. Would that be right? It'd be wrong if you were to repeatedly stop such a person in the middle of the street, interrogate them, and then frisk them for guns and drugs. For the record, when you're cautious, on your guard, suspicious, the person you're talking to can actually pick up on that--no matter how polite and friendly you think you are acting--unless his brain is wired differently from the brains of most humans. No RB, you're not a professional actor.

---

It's not an individual's job to place the feelings of another person over their own safety. The way I think about it, if you have a brief interaction with another person, and this interaction doesn't make much of a difference to either of your lives, you should act on the basis of probability and gut feelings. If I know that drunk teens are substantially more likely to attack me than an elderly couple, I would cross the street if I saw the former heading toward me. I don't care if they feel bad as a result. If, on the other hand, those teens are my students or they're potential employees, it would be incumbent upon me to examine their personal characteristics and base my actions on those. Doing the same in the brief interaction is neither feasible nor desirable (from a cost-benefit point of view).

As I live in Maine, the teens that are dangerous are white, thus when I see a group of unruly teens I keep an eye out for trouble...thus I must hate white people. It is unreasonable for me to ready my self for trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

As I live in Maine, the teens that are dangerous are white, thus when I see a group of unruly teens I keep an eye out for trouble...thus I must hate white people. It is unreasonable for me to ready my self for trouble.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It's not an individual's job to place the feelings of another person over their own safety. The way I think about it, if you have a brief interaction with another person, and this interaction doesn't make much of a difference to either of your lives, you should act on the basis of probability and gut feelings. If I know that drunk teens are substantially more likely to attack me than an elderly couple, I would cross the street if I saw the former heading toward me. I don't care if they feel bad as a result. If, on the other hand, those teens are my students or they're potential employees, it would be incumbent upon me to examine their personal characteristics and base my actions on those. Doing the same in the brief interaction is neither feasible nor desirable (from a cost-benefit point of view).

---

You're correct in that it's not necessarily an individual's job to place a stranger's feelings over their own safety in brief otherwise meaningless interactions. But if many individuals are treated like scum throughout their lives on the basis of prejudice rather than on the basis of observable and demonstrably dangerous behaviour then the society in which they exist has a problem and it'd also be understandable if many of those individuals kinda feel like shit in interactions with the people who treat them like scum.

It's curious that you two both bring up the example of roving gangs of drunk teenagers. Is there any particular reason why you believe that's analogous to a solitary young black man happening to stand outside his own home? Drunkenness and rowdiness are often clearly observable behaviours that can be causally linked with eg. being hassled, assaulted, disturbed, etc. Do you believe in treating a well-behaved sober teenager in the same way as you'd treat a gang of drunk teenagers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'll answer your questions if you answer mine. Yours first:

Understand the difference between guilty and innocent? Yes.
Understand the difference between "people" and "person"? Yes.
Understand why its problematic ...? Yes.
Would I like to be treated as a likely rapist by Police Officers? No. But if there was an investigation going on I'd be happy to co-operate.
Would I prefer the presumption of innocence? Yes.

Question you never asked:
Would I be OK at being treated as a potential rapist be a woman? Yes.

Now will you answer mine:
Do you understand the importance of taking precautions?
Do you accept that some can displays more signs of suspicious behaviour than others?
Do you accept people reacting to that?
Do you understand the difference between Police actions and individual safety?

If you as a man walking down the street alone in the dark saw a woman walking alone in the dark the other way and she crossed the road to the other side would you think that is objectionable sexism? Or if she made sure to walk under street lights?
Do you care more about your feelings of innocence than her feelings of safety?

I would rather my female friends, family and my wife take precautions than not. If we have daughters then I'd want them to.

---

I don't think those actions would be objectionable regardless of any sexist component, nor do I think men in general should feel slighted--in general--by such actions considering the otherwise privileged position men enjoy in society (compare this to white men crying about being subjected to "reverse racism" in the form of affirmative action :o), considering the public awareness of how scary it is to walk home alone at night as a woman, and considering the negligible impact a woman crossing the street has on an innocent man walking home alone at night. I do think it'd be sad if a woman were more inclined to treat a coloured man as a potential rapist than a white man.

Now, do you think walking home alone at night constitutes "suspicious behaviour"? Do you think the police should stop and interrogate and frisk a man for exhibiting that particular behaviour? Do you think that should happen over and over again?

Wrt responsibility, I think that in any non-threatening interaction, and in any longer interaction, both sides have a responsibility to keep a somewhat open mind, to give each other the benefit of the doubt and to be ready to re-evaluate each other. Unless they hate each other of course, but they should hate each other for reasons better than "you're a brownie from Bangladesh with a Muslim-sounding name".

A third of black males ages 20-29 have spent time in prison. If you see two young black males late at night, you're faced with a ~45% probability that one of them is a felon and little prospect for getting help. They're also a large enough group that they're responsible for a large portion (often the majority) of the crimes in a given area. Think about that.

In Britain, the percentages for poor white youths are probably not much better, which is why it's a good idea to avoid white youths traveling in groups wearing a specific style of clothing.

Hey, what happened to scrutinizing police policy, what they consider "suspicious behavior", and profiling by race that has nothing to do with actual behavior? :confused:

Rand, you didn't answer my questions a page back, but added anecdotes about Gypsies/Travelers/Roma. That describes your take on personal safety (that may/may not be related to racism or bigotry), but doesn't address the role of police in the community. :confused:

The US also has roving caravans, especially after disasters when construction trades are needed but hard to find...but they're not all Roma gypsies, let alone scammers. Sometimes they're a group of unemployed white guys pooling their resources to go where the work is, and yes sometimes they are scammers. Local police want to be notified, to check out permits and validity of insurance or warranties, and pass on "suspicious behavior" to state or federal officials that track interstate fraud, or elaborate scams that harm the public.

That doesn't mean restaurants or grocery stores (or even motels) can deny them service, based on some vague feeling that they're "bad" people or scheming crimes. That kind of soft bigotry is just as insidious and destructive as outright racism, with the added element of vigilantism that's outside the criminal/legal justice systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

A third of black males ages 20-29 have spent time in prison.

If you see two young black males late at night, you're faced with a ~45% probability that one of them is a felon and little prospect for getting help. They're also a large enough group that they're responsible for a large portion (often the majority) of the crimes in a given area. Think about that.

---

Yeah, let's think about what that actually means. That stat shouldn't be seen in isolation, or used to presume "black males are more likely to commit crimes". It's also a reflection of disparities in income, tax bases, and conflicts-of-interest within our police and legal systems. Public defenders are understaffed/underfunded, compared to police and prosecutors. Tax payers are more likely to vote for "tough on crime" Sheriffs, DAs, or Attorney Generals. And traditionally more willing to approve public funding for prisons/jails....even outsourcing to private for-profit entities....while cutting funds for early Education, Social Services, Mental Health, Rehab facilities, Halfway Homes, etc.

If I see two young black/brown males late at night in Philly (where my son lives), your "probability" stat doesn't really mean shit. It doesn't mean much more in my home city (which BTW has a statistically higher rate of theft and violent crime, per capita, than Philly!).

Quote:

---

In Britain, the percentages for poor white youths are probably not much better, which is why it's a good idea to avoid white youths traveling in groups wearing a specific style of clothing.

---

I take it that's what "Chav" means to Brits, and they're identified by their clothing? Same could be said about US gangs that use 'colors' and certain clothing to identify themselves. Difference is that US gangs generally commit crimes against other gangs, not 'random' attacks on just anyone walking down the street. They have a (perverse) criminal code similar to the Mob or organized crime, something "chavs" don't seem to share. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You're correct in that it's not necessarily an individual's job to place a stranger's feelings over their own safety in brief otherwise meaningless interactions. But if many individuals are treated like scum throughout their lives on the basis of prejudice rather than on the basis of observable and demonstrably dangerous behaviour then the society in which they exist has a problem and it'd also be understandable if many of those individuals kinda feel like shit in interactions with the people who treat them like scum.

---

Except that we're now fast moving on from prejudice purely on attacking someone based somebodies skin colour etc outside their control to areas of self-preservation where there is a concern based on legitimate observable trends.

Quote:

---

It's curious that you two both bring up the example of roving gangs of drunk teenagers. Is there any particular reason why you believe that's analogous to a solitary young black man happening to stand outside his own home? Drunkenness and rowdiness are often clearly observable behaviours that can be causally linked with eg. being hassled, assaulted, disturbed, etc. Do you believe in treating a well-behaved sober teenager in the same way as you'd treat a gang of drunk teenagers?

---

If I'm alone at night I'd keep a wary eye on any teenager (black or white).

Quote:

---

I don't think those actions would be objectionable regardless of any sexist component, nor do I think men in general should feel slighted--in general--by such actions considering the otherwise privileged position men enjoy in society (compare this to white men crying about being subjected to "reverse racism" in the form of affirmative action :o), considering the public awareness of how scary it is to walk home alone at night as a woman, and considering the negligible impact a woman crossing the street has on an innocent man walking home alone at night. I do think it'd be sad if a woman were more inclined to treat a coloured man as a potential rapist than a white man.

---

Go on compare it. You said compare it so do so please.

What great privilege does a white child of a trailer-park single mother have over the black child of two wealthy and successful Harvard Law School graduates? You pointedly refused to ever answer this in that thread so if you are now talking about "crying" about "reverse racism" I'm guessing you are implying that such privileges do exist and/or that in your opinion racism is perfectly acceptable in the right circumstances?

Quote:

---

Now, do you think walking home alone at night constitutes "suspicious behaviour"? Do you think the police should stop and interrogate and frisk a man for exhibiting that particular behaviour? Do you think that should happen over and over again?

---

Maybe. Need further information.

Do you think driving home at night constitutes "suspicious behaviour"? Do you think the Police should stop and interrogate and breathalyse a man for exhibiting that particular behaviour? Do you think that should happen over and over again?

Quote:

---

Wrt responsibility, I think that in any non-threatening interaction, and in any longer interaction, both sides have a responsibility to keep a somewhat open mind, to give each other the benefit of the doubt and to be ready to re-evaluate each other. Unless they hate each other of course, but they should hate each other for reasons better than "you're a brownie from Bangladesh with a Muslim-sounding name".

---

You can simultaneously both give the benefit of the doubt and treat people with caution etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Hey, what happened to scrutinizing police policy, what they consider "suspicious behavior", and profiling by race that has nothing to do with actual behavior? :confused:

Rand, you didn't answer my questions a page back, but added anecdotes about Gypsies/Travelers/Roma. That describes your take on personal safety (that may/may not be related to racism or bigotry), but doesn't address the role of police in the community. :confused:

---

It has nothing to do with racism. Travellers are not a race and are not identifiable by skin or accent or any such - and I never said Roma, I've never dealt with Roma. They're identifiable by behaviour.

Quote:

---

The US also has roving caravans, especially after disasters when construction trades are needed but hard to find...but they're not all Roma gypsies, let alone scammers. Sometimes they're a group of unemployed white guys pooling their resources to go where the work is, and yes sometimes they are scammers. Local police want to be notified, to check out permits and validity of insurance or warranties, and pass on "suspicious behavior" to state or federal officials that track interstate fraud, or elaborate scams that harm the public.

---

Then that would be a different situation. Its more common for people to live in mobile homes in the US and of course after natural disasters (which we don't get so aren't relevant) its different. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

That doesn't mean restaurants or grocery stores (or even motels) can deny them service, based on some vague feeling that they're "bad" people or scheming crimes. That kind of soft bigotry is just as insidious and destructive as outright racism, with the added element of vigilantism that's outside the criminal/legal justice systems.

---

I've NEVER denied service to someone. I would refuse to swap change (due to "change scamming" which I've been burned by just one before) but since I've never worked in a bank that's not a denial of service. They'd be served but I'd make sure the payment went through smootly.

I was a victim of a change scam once when new to dealing with cash and the public. Since then keeping precautions has prevented it being repeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I take it that's what "Chav" means to Brits, and they're identified by their clothing? Same could be said about US gangs that use 'colors' and certain clothing to identify themselves. Difference is that US gangs generally commit crimes against other gangs, not 'random' attacks on just anyone walking down the street. They have a (perverse) criminal code similar to the Mob or organized crime, something "chavs" don't seem to share. :bulb:

---

Chavs are identifiable by appearance. Hard to exactly put your finger on it other than a "know it when you see it". Typically shaved head, particular style of clothing, etc, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Go on compare it. You said compare it so do so please.

What great privilege does a white child of a trailer-park single mother have over the black child of two wealthy and successful Harvard Law School graduates? You pointedly refused to ever answer this in that thread so if you are now talking about "crying" about "reverse racism" I'm guessing you are implying that such privileges do exist and/or that in your opinion racism is perfectly acceptable in the right circumstances?

---

I haven't answered it because I hadn't yet figured out how to explain to you that you were attacking something that doesn't really exist, namely a situation in which "black skin" trumps all other considerations in selecting a prospective student or an employee. Oh look, I guess it was easier than I thought it'd be, so easy that I'm surprised you couldn't figure it out in your own head :confused:

Quote:

---

Maybe. Need further information.

---

You don't have further information, that's all you get. Based on fears and trends etc. it may be perfectly all right for a woman walking home alone at night to distance herself from a random unknown man also walking home alone at night in the same general direction. Does that man's walking home alone at night constitute suspicious behaviour in and of itself? Is it suspicious enough in and of itself to justify being stopped and frisked? For a very large number of NYPD's stops and gropes of innocent citizens the police could or did not even articulate a cause, perhaps because "he was black" isn't a legitimate suspicious behaviour and "I need to seem more keen" isn't a legitimate cause.

Quote:

---

Do you think driving home at night constitutes "suspicious behaviour"? Do you think the Police should stop and interrogate and breathalyse a man for exhibiting that particular behaviour? Do you think that should happen over and over again?

---

I don't think driving home at night in and of itself constitutes "suspicious behaviour". If the driving is characteristically erratic or otherwise dangerous and illegal then that might justify a stop. I am wary of recommending screening initiatives by police unless it can be ensured that they're implemented in effective and fair ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

It has nothing to do with racism. Travellers are not a race and are not identifiable by skin or accent or any such - and I never said Roma, I've never dealt with Roma. They're identifiable by behaviour.

---

"Gypsies" (aka Roma) would probably say your use of language is at least a false stereotype, and quite possibly bigoted. If you're worried (or paranoid) about strangers in vehicle caravans....what do you think when motorcycle clubs, motor home clubs, or "The Carnival" comes to town? :confused:

Quote:

---

Then that would be a different situation. Its more common for people to live in mobile homes in the US and of course after natural disasters (which we don't get so aren't relevant) its different. :rolleyes:

---

You made some wrong assumptions, based on unfounded, negative "stereotypes". Natural Disasters don't affect just "mobile home" dwellers, and construction trades don't mobilize across state lines, after a tornado, just to scam people. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

I've NEVER denied service to someone. I would refuse to swap change (due to "change scamming" which I've been burned by just one before) but since I've never worked in a bank that's not a denial of service. They'd be served but I'd make sure the payment went through smootly. I was a victim of a change scam once when new to dealing with cash and the public. Since then keeping precautions has prevented it being repeated.

---

Okay, same could be said for any other restaurant, motel operator, or vendor concerned about "scams". Monetary fraud can appear in many forms, from cash/coins to check writing or credit/debit cards. What's your point? A few petty thieves in-person are more dangerous to businesses than organized digital/computer credit card fraud and theft that happens behind the scenes, on grander scales?

Quote:

---

Chavs are identifiable by appearance. Hard to exactly put your finger on it other than a "know it when you see it". Typically shaved head, particular style of clothing, etc, etc

---

Sounds like the description of pornography. :bulb: How does UK police deal with this inexact group of people? I recall an attempt to ban hoodies in shopping districts and malls, which didn't turn out so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Yeah, let's think about what that actually means. That stat shouldn't be seen in isolation, or used to presume "black males are more likely to commit crimes". It's also a reflection of disparities in income, tax bases, and conflicts-of-interest within our police and legal systems. Public defenders are understaffed/underfunded, compared to police and prosecutors. Tax payers are more likely to vote for "tough on crime" Sheriffs, DAs, or Attorney Generals. And traditionally more willing to approve public funding for prisons/jails....even outsourcing to private for-profit entities....while cutting funds for early Education, Social Services, Mental Health, Rehab facilities, Halfway Homes, etc.

---

All of which is utterly irrelevant when making an instant decision about whether you are in danger. Color of skin is an easily noticeable trait, even if there's no causal impact of being black. You can't always tell whether someone is poor, violent, etc.

Quote:

---

If I see two young black/brown males late at night in Philly (where my son lives), your "probability" stat doesn't really mean shit. It doesn't mean much more in my home city (which BTW has a statistically higher rate of theft and violent crime, per capita, than Philly!).

---

"Today, blacks are 42 percent of Philadelphia’s population and 83 percent of known murder offenders. Whites are now 37 percent of the population and 4 percent of known murder offenders."

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/mayor-cha...ce-discussion/

In sum, your judgment skills leave a lot to be desired.

There are other groups of travelling people, eg. the Irish travellers in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

In sum, your judgment skills leave a lot to be desired.

---

It's probably all right, her son is white and the vast majority of black men aren't murderers anyway. While relative risk numbers are interesting we can't just ignore absolute risk.

You're assuming that a person faces only one such decision over his lifetime. Someone living in Philly has a 1.2% chance of being the victim of a violent crime and a 3% chance of being the victim of a property crime in a given year. Those numbers both skyrocket for certain neighborhoods, and presumably for anyone who's not smart enough to know where it's ok to walk at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

All of which is utterly irrelevant when making an instant decision about whether you are in danger. Color of skin is an easily noticeable trait, even if there's no causal impact of being black. You can't always tell whether someone is poor, violent, etc.

---

Isn't that what I said? Deciding "danger" by comprehensive visual clues is more valuable than judging by skin color alone. Some important variables are whether you're alone, if you're facing an individual or a group, if it's night or day time, in a familiar or strange environment...and gender.

Quote:

---

"Today, blacks are 42 percent of Philadelphia’s population and 83 percent of known murder offenders. Whites are now 37 percent of the population and 4 percent of known murder offenders."

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/mayor-cha...ce-discussion/

In sum, your judgment skills leave a lot to be desired.

---

:rolleyes: Your analytical skills are crap. Philly has many different areas, from the wealthy Main Line to pockets of inner city poverty. Colleges and universities can be top-notch, while being located near or around those pockets of poverty and crime. University of Pennsylvania and Temple University are two good examples.

Problems often attributed to race might be better explained by poverty. Entrenched poverty, generational poverty, institutional poverty. The kind of (white) poverty seen in farming and mining communities from Appalachia to Wyoming.

Nice of you to finally acknowledge the obvious. Note how everyone here was talking about young males. But I guess it's ok to avoid people on that basis...

And yet the murder rates in those poor mining and farming communities aren't very different to the nation as whole. Can't say the same for inner cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're assuming that a person faces only one such decision over his lifetime. Someone living in Philly has a 1.2% chance of being the victim of a violent crime and a 3% chance of being the victim of a property crime in a given year. Those numbers both skyrocket for certain neighborhoods, and presumably for anyone who's not smart enough to know where it's ok to walk at night.

---

I'd love to see the source thank you (not denying numbers or anything mind you).

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/pa/philadelphia/crime/

Violent crime = 12 per 1,000 = 1.2%
Property crime = 3.9 per 1,000 = 3.9% (typo in previous post)
Combined = 5.1% chance of being the victim of a reported crime (many crimes aren't reported)

Both are annual statistics