Red Mosquito

digster wrote:

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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying where there's crime, there is likely to be a high number of encounters with police. If I'm a police officer in a neighborhood of all white people, and all of the crime is committed by white people, I will have encountered all white people. It's that simple. It's not that every time I see a white person I think they are a criminal.

Strat wrote:

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

I'm already married honey

digster wrote:

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.

You mean like a racist?

Strat wrote:

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.

Yes, there needs to be reform in poor, troubled communities. There needs to be less crime. But if there's crime, you need police. It isn't as simple as just leaving troubled neighborhoods alone. Remember, black people are the ones suffering in these communities. But it's mostly at the hands of other black people, not police.

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:

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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying where there's crime, there is likely to be a high number of encounters with police. If I'm a police officer in a neighborhood of all white people, and all of the crime is committed by white people, I will have encountered all white people. It's that simple. It's not that every time I see a white person I think they are a criminal.

I'm sorry, that is what you're saying. You were saying that since you argue data indicates that black people are more likely to commit more crime due to their circumstances, they are more likely to be stopped, arrested, etc.

And if a police officer believes that, that is going to show up in their work. What you seem to be arguing is that there is bias, but you would consider it justified considering the circumstances police face.

digster wrote:

tree_ wrote:

digster wrote:

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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying where there's crime, there is likely to be a high number of encounters with police. If I'm a police officer in a neighborhood of all white people, and all of the crime is committed by white people, I will have encountered all white people. It's that simple. It's not that every time I see a white person I think they are a criminal.

I'm sorry, that is what you're saying. You were saying that since you argue data indicates that black people are more likely to commit more crime due to their circumstances, they are more likely to be stopped, arrested, etc.

And if a police officer believes that, that is going to show up in their work. What you seem to be arguing is that there is bias, but you would consider it justified considering the circumstances police face.

Not stopped because of their skin color, but because they are actually committing the crime. You shouldn't be pulled over for the color of your skin. You should be pulled over for having committed a crime.

And of course mistakes are made. If you are a black man in a black neighborhood with high crime, you can expect to be mistaken for an actual criminal from time to time. If a police officer gets a call for a black man who looks like you driving a car of your make and model, you might get pulled over and questioned.

As you put it tree, "that's what the data shows." If you believe that black people are more likely to be committing more crime (because of poverty, where they live, whatever), and thus will have more encounters with police, that's a bias. Maybe you'd want to argue it's a justifiable bias, or a bias backed by data. But it's a bias nonetheless. And if law enforcement officers share your viewpoint, that bias will show up in the work. There's not really any way it wouldn't.

Tree actually made me curious yesterday with his article that showed that in Houston in 2016 the police were more likely to beat a black suspect, but not more likely to kill a black suspect.

Do you think if they controlled for the original reason for the interaction, that would hold true? How likely is a white person to be shot for having a counterfeit $20 compared to a black man? How likely is a white person to be shot for getting out his ID after the cop asks to see his ID?

digster wrote:As you put it tree, "that's what the data shows." If you believe that black people are more likely to be committing more crime (because of poverty, where they live, whatever), and thus will have more encounters with police, that's a bias. Maybe you'd want to argue it's a justifiable bias, or a bias backed by data. But it's a bias nonetheless. And if law enforcement officers share your viewpoint, that bias will show up in the work. There's not really any way around it.

I'm saying it's a data-proven fact. Of course, if you're a police officer in one of these high-crime black neighborhoods, you need to fight that bias. And I'm sure that's a problem. But is the source of the problem police bias? Or is it poverty and crime?

The source of why in law enforcement there may be an inherent bias towards black individuals is a different question than whether there is inherent bias in law enforcement. It seems like you're saying that the latter is not what you're arguing; there is inherent bias in law enforcement.

Just because black people are arrested at a higher rate does NOT necessarily mean that black people commit crimes at higher rates than white people.

digster wrote:The source of why law enforcement may have inherent bias towards black individuals is a different question than whether there is inherent bias in law enforcement.

If all I did was deal with white people committing crime all day, I'd have to watch my mind so I don't automatically assume a white person is a criminal. It is wrong to do so, obviously. But does it happen? I'm sure it does and I'm sure it can be a problem.

4/5 wrote:Just because black people are arrested at a higher rate does NOT necessarily mean that black people commit crimes at higher rates than white people.

Yeah, that's a whole different ridiculous argument. But I'm saying whatever the reasons why tree may think there is an inherent bias in law enforcement, and whether or not he thinks the data justifies it, nevertheless the bias exists.

Which makes me not understand why he's been arguing that there isn't systemic racism in law enforcement. An assumption that black people are more likely to commit crime that's pervasive in law enforcement is exactly what systemic racism would look like.

4/5 wrote:Just because black people are arrested at a higher rate does NOT necessarily mean that black people commit crimes at higher rates than white people.

If it's true that poverty creates crime, it'd be hard to argue against the data.

wease, strat, and mickey are just trolls in this thread. Why dont you guys just stay out?

knee tunes wrote:wease, strat, and mickey are just trolls in this thread. Why dont you guys just stay out?

Because I need to be frequently reminded of how much of a racist troll I am. And evidence isn't necessary, obviously.

Give up, digster.

knee tunes wrote:wease, strat, and mickey are just trolls in this thread. Why dont you guys just stay out?

The whole reason this thread exists is to keep from having to ban tree_ for being a troll. If he's going to make racist arguments with paltry data, he can expect to have his view ridiculed.

knee tunes wrote:wease, strat, and mickey are just trolls in this thread. Why dont you guys just stay out?

hey fuck you too tunes!