Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:All this .02% talk has me confused, is this the covid thread?

Rob wrote:I'm pretty sure B was highlighting that your argument, BI, always sounds very "white". And your response is no different. Maybe the cops don't need to patrol some neighborhoods so aggressively, and maybe that leads to a better environment.

And to be clear I don't mean "white" as a bad thing, I just mean you'd probably have a different opinion if you weren't. That's how I try to look at things.

“History shows that crime data was never objective in any meaningful sense,” Muhammad wrote. Instead, crime statistics were “weaponized” to justify racial profiling, police brutality, and ever more policing of Black people.

This phenomenon, he believes, has continued well into this century and is exemplified by William J. Bratton, one of the most famous police leaders in recent America history. Known as “America’s Top Cop,” Bratton led police departments in his native Boston, Los Angeles, and twice in New York, finally retiring in 2016.

Bratton rejected notions that crime was a result of social and economic forces, such as poverty, unemployment, police practices, and racism. Instead, he said in a 2017 speech, “It is about behavior.” Through most of his career, he was a proponent of statistically-based “predictive” policing — essentially placing forces in areas where crime numbers were highest, focused on the groups found there.

Bratton argued that the technology eliminated the problem of prejudice in policing, without ever questioning potential bias in the data or algorithms themselves — a significant issue given the fact that Black Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at disproportionately higher rates than whites. This approach has led to widely discredited practices such as racial profiling and “stop-and-frisk.” And, Muhammad notes, “There is no research consensus on whether or how much violence dropped in cities due to policing.”

elliseamos wrote:

“History shows that crime data was never objective in any meaningful sense,” Muhammad wrote. Instead, crime statistics were “weaponized” to justify racial profiling, police brutality, and ever more policing of Black people.

This phenomenon, he believes, has continued well into this century and is exemplified by William J. Bratton, one of the most famous police leaders in recent America history. Known as “America’s Top Cop,” Bratton led police departments in his native Boston, Los Angeles, and twice in New York, finally retiring in 2016.

Bratton rejected notions that crime was a result of social and economic forces, such as poverty, unemployment, police practices, and racism. Instead, he said in a 2017 speech, “It is about behavior.” Through most of his career, he was a proponent of statistically-based “predictive” policing — essentially placing forces in areas where crime numbers were highest, focused on the groups found there.

Bratton argued that the technology eliminated the problem of prejudice in policing, without ever questioning potential bias in the data or algorithms themselves — a significant issue given the fact that Black Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at disproportionately higher rates than whites. This approach has led to widely discredited practices such as racial profiling and “stop-and-frisk.” And, Muhammad notes, “There is no research consensus on whether or how much violence dropped in cities due to policing.”

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... -policing/

These days, the consensus among social scientists is that broken windows likely did have modest effects on crime.

Available research suggests hot spots policing – a practice where police focus on locations where crime is concentrated – produces short-term crime reduction effects without simply displacing crime into surrounding areas. Studies tend to find that these programs also have beneficial crime reduction effects in immediately adjacent areas.

Bi_3 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

“History shows that crime data was never objective in any meaningful sense,” Muhammad wrote. Instead, crime statistics were “weaponized” to justify racial profiling, police brutality, and ever more policing of Black people.

This phenomenon, he believes, has continued well into this century and is exemplified by William J. Bratton, one of the most famous police leaders in recent America history. Known as “America’s Top Cop,” Bratton led police departments in his native Boston, Los Angeles, and twice in New York, finally retiring in 2016.

Bratton rejected notions that crime was a result of social and economic forces, such as poverty, unemployment, police practices, and racism. Instead, he said in a 2017 speech, “It is about behavior.” Through most of his career, he was a proponent of statistically-based “predictive” policing — essentially placing forces in areas where crime numbers were highest, focused on the groups found there.

Bratton argued that the technology eliminated the problem of prejudice in policing, without ever questioning potential bias in the data or algorithms themselves — a significant issue given the fact that Black Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at disproportionately higher rates than whites. This approach has led to widely discredited practices such as racial profiling and “stop-and-frisk.” And, Muhammad notes, “There is no research consensus on whether or how much violence dropped in cities due to policing.”

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... -policing/

Ah, the classic "you cannot believe the data so you must believe me" approach that has served religion for so long.



https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/50010450 ... went-wrong

These days, the consensus among social scientists is that broken windows likely did have modest effects on crime.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/ ... acial-bias

Available research suggests hot spots policing – a practice where police focus on locations where crime is concentrated – produces short-term crime reduction effects without simply displacing crime into surrounding areas. Studies tend to find that these programs also have beneficial crime reduction effects in immediately adjacent areas.

It comes back to the question of what is the problem you are trying solve is. If you are trying to solve statistical inequity, then it is a failure. If you are trying to reduce crime, then it is a success.



Edit: I am not saying that they aren’t both problems that need to be addressed, but all of the solutions we (society) have come up with seem to be either or.

Bi_3 wrote:Totally agree, I don't know what we differently though from a policing perspective. Accept some level of victimization in the hope that things work out in a generation or two?

“You can have all the armored personnel carriers you want in Ferguson,” said Terry, “but public safety is more likely to come from redressing environmental pollution, poor education, and unfair work.”

elliseamos wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Totally agree, I don't know what we differently though from a policing perspective. Accept some level of victimization in the hope that things work out in a generation or two?

I not sure either, but less funding in one realm would certainly provide for other options to be explored:

“You can have all the armored personnel carriers you want in Ferguson,” said Terry, “but public safety is more likely to come from redressing environmental pollution, poor education, and unfair work.”

Bi_3 wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Totally agree, I don't know what we differently though from a policing perspective. Accept some level of victimization in the hope that things work out in a generation or two?

I not sure either, but less funding in one realm would certainly provide for other options to be explored:

“You can have all the armored personnel carriers you want in Ferguson,” said Terry, “but public safety is more likely to come from redressing environmental pollution, poor education, and unfair work.”

Looks we are about to conduct this experiment by having fewer and fewer police:

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelp ... 10423.html

Some community-based safety models have yielded important results. Smith singles out the Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets program (known as CAHOOTS) in Eugene, Ore., which supplements police with a community-based public safety program. When callers dial 911 they are often diverted to teams of workers trained in crisis resolution, mental health, and emergency medicine, who are better equipped to handle non-life-threatening situations. The numbers support her case. In 2017 the program received 25,000 calls, only 250 of which required police assistance. Training similar teams of specialists who don’t carry weapons to handle all traffic stops could go a long way toward ending violent police encounters, she said.

Bi_3 wrote:Unfortunately for the family invovled, this sounds more legit than stabby lady:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/body-cam- ... awyers-say

It must be really bad if the cops are sitting on this footage.

Bi_3 wrote:Unfortunately for the family invovled, this sounds more legit than stabby lady:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/body-cam- ... awyers-say

It must be really bad if the cops are sitting on this footage.