Red Mosquito

digster wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

So what are the justifiable reasons? If there isn't bias at play, the amount of stops of black individuals being far higher than those of whites should be easily explained. And what's making an officer think that a person walking or driving down the street of a high-crime area, as you put it, lives in that area?

One justifiable reason is crime. Where there's crime, there will be a high number of police encounters. How do you not see this?

Is what you're saying then is that due to the circumstances they face, like poverty, or living in high crime areas, as you cited, black people commit more crimes than other races, and thus are subjected to more scrutiny from law enforcement?

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

Hmmm. They're in a high crime area. They're black. They must be doing something illegal. **turns on light and siren**

tree_ wrote:

4/5 wrote:

tree_ wrote:I'm simply tired of the lie that police are hunting blacks in the streets. There are changes that need to be made, but the protests, the narrative is focused on lies. And the lies simply cause more harm than they do good.

But is anybody seriously saying that? That sounds like a strawman designed to justify ignoring/criticizing the protests.

"Stop killing us", "I can't breathe"... these are the chants. And the names of the victims. Black people being victims of police shootings is not the biggest issue for black people. There are important changes that need to be made, but this is nowhere near the top of the list.

People have rightly had a visceral response to images and videos of police murdering black people. Those images then become a rallying cry. Chanting "I can't breathe" is not the same as saying or believing that white cops hunting black people in the streets is what this movement is about. It's using a horrible injustice as something representative of the types of injustice the black community has always faced in this country.

Movements often (always?) need some kind of spark. And it usually (always?) has to be something so atrocious that even the vast majority of apathetic people who aren't affected it by it personally become aware that there is injustice taking place. The next step is figuring out what all the kindling is, what's the gasoline, and why that spark could ignite such an intense inferno. Sorry for torturing the metaphor.

Again, I agree with your last sentence. I've written that several times in this thread. The difference is you think that fact makes the whole movement wrongheaded and misguided or based on lies. To me, I'm worried about the movement missing the big picture and settling for symbolic victories that in the grand scheme of things are relatively insignificant compared major systemic changes that need to take place.

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

So what are the justifiable reasons? If there isn't bias at play, the amount of stops of black individuals being far higher than those of whites should be easily explained. And what's making an officer think that a person walking or driving down the street of a high-crime area, as you put it, lives in that area?

One justifiable reason is crime. Where there's crime, there will be a high number of police encounters. How do you not see this?

I currently work at a high school in an above average income neighborhood (lots of doctors' and lawyers' kids) and I've worked in some of the poorest schools in the county and I can assure you this is most certainly not true.

4/5 wrote:

tree_ wrote:

4/5 wrote:

tree_ wrote:I'm simply tired of the lie that police are hunting blacks in the streets. There are changes that need to be made, but the protests, the narrative is focused on lies. And the lies simply cause more harm than they do good.

But is anybody seriously saying that? That sounds like a strawman designed to justify ignoring/criticizing the protests.

"Stop killing us", "I can't breathe"... these are the chants. And the names of the victims. Black people being victims of police shootings is not the biggest issue for black people. There are important changes that need to be made, but this is nowhere near the top of the list.

People have rightly had a visceral response to images and videos of police murdering black people. Those images then become a rallying cry. Chanting "I can't breathe" is not the same as saying or believing that white cops hunting black people in the streets is what this movement is about. It's using a horrible injustice as something representative of the types of injustice the black community has always faced in this country.

Movements often (always?) need some kind of spark. And it usually (always?) has to be something so atrocious that even the vast majority of apathetic people who aren't affected it by it personally become aware that there is injustice taking place. The next step is figuring out what all the kindling is, what's the gasoline, and why that spark could ignite such an intense inferno. Sorry for torturing the metaphor.

Again, I agree with your last sentence. I've written that several times in this thread. The difference is you think that fact makes the whole movement wrongheaded and misguided or based on lies. To me, I'm worried about the movement missing the big picture and settling for symbolic victories that in the grand scheme of things are relatively insignificant compared major systemic changes that need to take place.

Have you considered this could be harmful for good police? Who in their right mind would even want to be a police officer anymore? Or for honest, productive conversation? If you're lying about what the actual issues are, you're only going to get more problems.

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

Hmmm. They're in a high crime area. They're black. They must be doing something illegal. **turns on light and siren**

How about this, you get a call for a black man of a certain height and shirt color who just murdered someone and ran. You see a black man who fits the description running down the street so you pull him over. Does this sound reasonable to you?

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

tree refuses to acknowledge the why behind it. This all started about systemic racism. Systemic racism is a direct cause as to why there are higher crime rates in these neighborhoods, higher police stops, higher violations, and more severe sentencing for similar petty crimes similar to higher income white neighborhoods.

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

tree refuses to acknowledge the why behind it. This all started about systemic racism. Systemic racism is a direct cause as to why there are higher crime rates in these neighborhoods, higher police stops, higher violations, and more severe sentencing for similar petty crimes similar to higher income white neighborhoods.

So, according to tree_ logic, all black people have to do is not be poor and not commit crimes and the police will leave them alone.

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

OK, so this is what I'm trying to understand; if I'm understanding you correctly, since black people may suffer from poverty, or may be more likely to live in high-crime areas, or for any number of other factors, you're arguing this means that they're more likely to be engaged in crime, and more subject to stops by law enforcement?

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

tree refuses to acknowledge the why behind it. This all started about systemic racism. Systemic racism is a direct cause as to why there are higher crime rates in these neighborhoods, higher police stops, higher violations, and more severe sentencing for similar petty crimes similar to higher income white neighborhoods.

So, according to tree_ logic, all black people have to do is not be poor and not commit crimes and the police will leave them alone.

No. The problem of poverty is a real one that should be discussed. This should be the conversation. People don't want to talk about it.

tree_ wrote:

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

tree refuses to acknowledge the why behind it. This all started about systemic racism. Systemic racism is a direct cause as to why there are higher crime rates in these neighborhoods, higher police stops, higher violations, and more severe sentencing for similar petty crimes similar to higher income white neighborhoods.

So, according to tree_ logic, all black people have to do is not be poor and not commit crimes and the police will leave them alone.

No. The problem of poverty is a real one that should be discussed. This should be the conversation. People don't want to talk about it.

WE are talking about it. You aren't. Or, rather, you aren't listening, but lay it on us....what is the real problem of poverty?

digster wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

OK, so this is what I'm trying to understand; if I'm understanding you correctly, since black people may suffer from poverty, or may be more likely to live in high-crime areas, or for any number of other factors, you're arguing this means that they're more likely to be engaged in crime, and more subject to stops by law enforcement?

That's what the data shows. Those who are committing actual crimes have more encounters with police. I'm not saying being black inherently makes you more likely to commit crime. I'm saying people who are criminals, who are committing crime, encounter police. This happens to be a high percentage of black people. The problem of poverty needs to be addressed. Police encountering criminals isn't high on the list of problems, but it's not perfect.

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

tree refuses to acknowledge the why behind it. This all started about systemic racism. Systemic racism is a direct cause as to why there are higher crime rates in these neighborhoods, higher police stops, higher violations, and more severe sentencing for similar petty crimes similar to higher income white neighborhoods.

So, according to tree_ logic, all black people have to do is not be poor and not commit crimes and the police will leave them alone.

No. The problem of poverty is a real one that should be discussed. This should be the conversation. People don't want to talk about it.

WE are talking about it. You aren't. Or, rather, you aren't listening, but lay it on us....what is the real problem of poverty?

I thought you were talking about cops holding the black community down? If you're ready to move on from this, I'm with you.

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

OK, so this is what I'm trying to understand; if I'm understanding you correctly, since black people may suffer from poverty, or may be more likely to live in high-crime areas, or for any number of other factors, you're arguing this means that they're more likely to be engaged in crime, and more subject to stops by law enforcement?

That's what the data shows. Those who are committing actual crimes have more encounters with police. I'm not saying being black inherently makes you more likely to commit crime. I'm saying people who are criminals, who are committing crime, encounter police. This happens to be a high percentage of black people. The problem of poverty needs to be addressed. Police encountering criminals isn't high on the list of problems, but it's not perfect.

OK, I think I understand. You're saying that due to all those circumstances you mentioned, those who are committing more crimes are more likely to be black.

Now imagine you're a cop, tree. Are you going to try and tell us that this belief you stated isn't going to show up in your work? Your argument that inherent bias isn't a problem in law enforcement only works if most of those in law enforcement don't think the way you do.

tree_ wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:Again, why? If not due to bias, there must be a reason they're being stopped.

Do you think that in high crime areas, there might actually be justifiable reasons for many, if not most of the encounters?

This is where you fail to see or learn. This is your brick wall you keep running into.

I am unclear what you guys are saying here. The rate of stops of black people by police is disproportionately higher than their share of the population?

Yes. And it's because of the higher poverty/crime rate.

tree refuses to acknowledge the why behind it. This all started about systemic racism. Systemic racism is a direct cause as to why there are higher crime rates in these neighborhoods, higher police stops, higher violations, and more severe sentencing for similar petty crimes similar to higher income white neighborhoods.

So, according to tree_ logic, all black people have to do is not be poor and not commit crimes and the police will leave them alone.

No. The problem of poverty is a real one that should be discussed. This should be the conversation. People don't want to talk about it.

WE are talking about it. You aren't. Or, rather, you aren't listening, but lay it on us....what is the real problem of poverty?

I thought you were talking about cops holding the black community down? If you're ready to move on from this, I'm with you.

its all fucking related, tree.

I would say the best part of the foe function is that it makes it incredibly burdensome to read this thread and therefore I tend not to get engaged.

Mickey wrote:I would say the best part of the foe function is that it makes it incredibly burdensome to read this thread and therefore I tend not to get engaged.

Get engaged. we need you