Law Enforcment

[Griff]

To me the real problem is around the number of "policing" interactions people seem to be having with officers vs a more humanizing day to day interaction. My question is do we have cops doing too many things? DWI checkpoints, stops for bulbs out, black market arrests, pot arrests... I get that broken windows policing may make a more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood but once that neighborhood turns on its cops, everybody is screwed.

*24 hour news channels have a shit ton to answer for as well

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Blacks more likely to have to deal with police, more likely to have bad dealings... and less likely to be shot at.

Good summary.

Maybe the Black Lives Matter movement has such wide support because blacks have experienced that non-lethal bias and when they see the lethal bias on tv or youtube, it resonates with them. It fits with their experiences.

Maybe we need to try to eliminate that non-lethal racial bias.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Here's the Economist on it. It's in this week's edition so, tw, perhaps it is in the mail.

Read that article long before posting. It was part of that earlier response. Interesting especially when combined with other researchers and reporters.

Black and whites were just as likely to be shot ... when they attacked police. That is secondary. Problem occurs when blacks, et al do not attack police. For example, the kid who is waving around a toy gun. Or the man who does not resist until after being arrested. These were conditions that create controversy. These events are separate from others where the victim first attacked police.

Prof Gate did not attack police. But he suffered an 'excessive' police response only because he was trying to break into his own house. And even after properly identifying himself. We are only seeing more example of this 2009 example maybe because we are finally looking for it. Or because cameras now recored what has long been acceptable behavior among a minority.

Another reporter also spent (if I remember) most of a year riding with police in Newark. One fact remained apparent after enough observation. A major distrust exists between these police and citizens. Eventually he noticed a pattern. Police were always 'challenging' everyone. Constantly demanding an answer to "Why did you run?". Or "Come here." There was no cooperative interplay between these cops and citizens. The underlying bias of these cops was a constant "Everyone is a suspect."

Critical to cooperation between cops and citizens is the interplay where a cop and citizen can talk like friends. That program was instituted with success in Philadelphia. Among these Newark cops, everyone was distrusted. And so citizens routinely distrusted the cops. This was even observed with young kids. This would explain why some cops were more prone to use unnecessary violence and why emotions cause so much confrontation - both by police and citizens.

A man with a gun is always quick to make decisions based upon his biases - his emotions. That is why the NRA has been so quiet about tihis. That is why we want people with guns (more power) to be extra trained - to learn how to control those inevitable emotions. Still, some cops do not get it. We see that in recent videos including a lady cop in UT's Hummelstown PA video.

Some cops resort to excessive violence when not attacked. That is irrelevant to the other situation (described in the Economist) where a cop is attacked. Complaint is that some cops tend to be more (excessively) violent with a people who have a unique external characteristic when the citizen is not even violent.

The topic is not citizens who attack police. The topic is citizens who do nothing or only complain - and suffer an excessive police response. We know that is happening - apparently with a minority of officers whose training did not suppress their bias (emotions). And we know many who have these biases may even be unaware of their biases.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Black and whites were just as likely to be shot ... when they attacked police. That is secondary. Problem occurs when blacks, et al do not attack police.

Maybe read the article again

...he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks.

[tw]

Originally Posted by by Undertoad

...he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks.

Completely unrelated are people who *never* attack an officer. Major difference.

Move on to why this apparently exists. Many want to cast blame. Only fewer are proposing solutions based in identifying potential reasons for a problem. Some cops are professionally trained or acting as if everyone is a suspect. As a result, everyone is potential perp - not a friendly citizen. That attitude results in citizens treating cops as adversaries - to act as if a copy is a threat - not as friends or protectors. An attitude of both cop and citizen that caused violent confrontations when a citizen NEVER attacks a cop.

Not 'before' - never. A major difference exists in those two scenarios.

We are not discussing what a majority of cops do - ie less likely to shoot someone. A problem apparently lies with a minority who are likely to be violent when not even attacked. Their emotions perceive a threat that did not exist. Ie and again - your Hummelstown PA video. Where is an attack that justified a shooting? Before or Never?

Please do not combine what are two completely different scenarios. What a majority of cops do is apparently unrelated to what a minority of cops do - too often.

[Undertoad]

Dude, the category "blacks who were shot before attacking an officer" is describing those who did not attack an officer at all. That's precisely what this category indicates.

The category is not describing "blacks who were shot and then attacked the officer". We assume THAT number would be too low to be statistically interesting.

[sexobon]

Tw needs a new user title: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

Tw IS the Cellar jester. Thus is the fate of in-your-face developmentally impaired, tw.

[glatt]

"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.

[henry quirk]

Yep, no matter the issue, there are plenty of folks lookin' to spread blame far and wide, ropin' in as many folks as possible, never mind that most of those slathered with blame are blameless.

An anecdote some of you can appreciate...


When I worked for Stennis way back when, every one had ready and open access to the net...some dumbass took advantage and made a habit of enjoying porn sites...Stennis management, in it's profound wisdom, severely restricted all net access and did not fire the dumbass.


Slather that blame, spread the consequence, every one guilty till proven innocent.

More sensibly: can the dumbass and leave every one else alone; punish the cops who abuse their lent power and leave the rest alone; punish jackasses who shoot up malls, schools, whatnot, and leave the rest alone.

Each one innocent till proven guilty.

Institutional and unconscious bias is horse manure.

If Joe does crap hold Joe responsible, not Sam.

Toss 'we' and 'them' and (re)install 'I' and 'you' and 'him' and 'her'.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.

First, the Economist study is about all cops. We are not discussing all cops. We are discussing a minority who are a problem. How large is that minority? No statistics provided. The Economist study does not address that issue.

Second, UT's Hummelstown video demonstrates a problem. (And the victim was white.) Some cops have an adversarial attitude. We know people with more power (ie guns) are easily corrupted by that power - are quicker to make conclusions from their emotions rather then based in facts. A problem that the NRA does not want discussed. And yet that is the issue.

People with guns must be trained to become and remain more responsible. To act logical; not emotional. Apparently some venues still have a Mayor Daley or Mayor Rizzo attitude. Which then implies biases are imposed fastest on those one does not like.

How many cops have this attitude? How many venues spend more time in making friends of all citizens rather than let or encourage cops regard all as suspects? Unfortunately no quantitative statistics exist. Neighborhood policing was an example of how to avert a bad mindset.

Plenty of examples exist including Harvard Professor Gates confrontation with Sgt Crowley. And UT's Hummelstown video. Blacks have long complained about this double standard. Philando Castile's killing on livestream video in MN demonstrates that this problem clearly exists. As an excited cop yells at others after he shot Philando for no apparent reason (other than fear and emotion).

The Economist notes a completely different scenario. "Black lives matter" stems from other police confrontations where an officer was the only aggressor. As demonstrated by a reporter who followed Newark police for most of a year. Confrontation because those cops treated every person as a potential perp rather than a citizen to protect. How many officers have that attitude? The Economist study would say if it addressed that problem. Meanwhile, top cops in Newark disbanned that police unit after the reporter's video demonstrated that problem.

How many cops are trained in or have this bad attitude? We don't know. Statistics do not exist. We know the problem exists since complaints exist in all states. Including intentional profiling of blacks by NJ State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike as encouraged by top department management. We do not even know how many of those complaints are justified. We only know that a flurry of videos now demonstrate a problem is widespread. And probably has existed long before Professor Gates was arrested because he broke into his own house.

A situation escalated due to emotions by both men. Ironic that both men had a history of teaching for better inter-racial relations. And that both Gates and Sgt Crowley are distant cousins. But facts were irrelevant during the confrontation. Emotions and assumptions based in misinformation dominated that confrontation. In other situations, a guy with more power jumped to conclusions, in some cases, because power is a corrupting influence. Gun used when no threat justified that action. How often? No statistics exist.

UT's Hummelstown video is a damning example. Any reply cannot ignore a problem demonstrated by that video. How widespread is the problem? The Economist study does not address that issue. How many departments train their officers to not be confrontational to everyone. No facts exist. Economist does not ask. It was not the subject of their study.

How large is a minority of officers who jump to conclusions as 'wanna be' cop Zimmerman did by shooting Martin for no reason. Another example of a problem created when someone has too much power (ie a gun) and insufficient training (or mindset) to think logically. "He looks different. So he must be evil." A problem made worse when top management encouraged it as in the case in Newark and by State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike.

There are many adults who react like children - as demonstrated in that damning Hummelstown video.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.

"Without" would imply that he never was going to attack the officer. We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.

[Undertoad]

tw: "Question is not about one example... Address the race topic with numbers."

ut: "Here are your statistics."

tw: "These statistics do not address the topic of racial injustice."

ut: "They do, but you have misinterpreted them."

tw: "The topic is not racial injustice. Here is one example that shows a problem. There are no statistics on this."

Come on now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

ut: "Here are your statistics."

A blank line is your statistics? That is the point. Relevant statistics do not exist. Again, the Economists does not discuss a minority who apparently are the problem. What the other overwhelming majority do is irrelevant. And what one obvious problem is - cops who use excessive force (ie gun fire) when no threat exists. And cops who regard everyone as a perp.

The Economist does not distinguish between shooting of unaggressive suspects verse others who are aggressive. Your (what I can only assume you are citing) statistics do not apply to many events that even "Black lives matter" complain about.

Please stop being so emotional. Please return to an adult frame. If you posted a relevant number, then recited which number is relevant - so that logical discussion can continue. An obviously emotional reply makes honest discussion impossible. One can only *assume* which number you believe is relevant.

Explain why your Hummelstown video is irrelevant. Every post references your refusal to discuss it. Logical is to explain why that is irrelevant - since it demonstrates the problem. Was that Hummelstown policewoman shooting justified or not? An example of a problem embedded in "Black lives matter" protests.

And again today, another innocent (not an aggressor) man shot because a cop thought a mentally retarded man playing with a truck was a threat. Another example of a shooting because neither suspect *never* did and *never* was going to threaten a cop. Another shooting and the complaint was irrelevant to an Economist study. And not defined any of your numbers.

So calm down Sherlock. Answer in an adult and unemotional attitude. Posted are logical questions. Please answer them without so much irrational animosity. Start with what is obviously relevant - the Hummelstown shooting. Why are your still unknown numbers relevant?

Emotion attached to contempt for "Black lives matter" makes no logical sense.

[Undertoad]

And that's our interaction for 2016. See you next year.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.

Harvard professor shots cop who is a family member. Interesting. I never saw that headline.