Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#252 Aug 02 2016 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.
But... aliens!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#253 Aug 02 2016 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.
But... aliens!
We're building a wall to keep them out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#254 Aug 02 2016 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.
But... aliens!
We're building a wall dome to keep them out.
Bucky Fuller wrote:
FTFY

____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#255 Aug 02 2016 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When we outlaw alien death rays, only outlaw aliens with have death rays...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#256 Aug 02 2016 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
...and they'll still shoot unarmed black people, and their kids.

Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 10:58am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#257 Aug 02 2016 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report himto his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.

Which one of those justifies the cop shooting you? Asking for a black friend.


None of them. However, those things do significantly increase the odds that the cop is going to search you or your car, and may result in an escalation of the encounter (especially if the driver responds with yet more belligerent behavior). Which might just be relevant to this discussion.

It's a feedback effect. Black people have a much greater perception that the cops are treating them differently because of their skin. So they tend to be more likely to react negatively when interacting with a cop, pretty much regardless of the situation. Remember professor Gates? The cops did nothing wrong at all. They responded to a call about a possible break in, and did the correct thing of asking the men breaking into the house for identification to prove that they lived there (which I'd assume the professor would expect them to do if it had been someone else breaking into his house). He went on a tirade, called them names, and otherwise escalated the situation. For no reason at all.

He's a freaking Harvard Professor. And that's how he reacted to a perfectly correct police encounter. Part of my point here is that while we can and should look at causes of the disparate stats, leaping to the conclusion that it's all because of racist cops is not only not a good way to go, it's almost certainly only going to make things worse. It will increase the perception, which will increase the rate of police encounters which escalate unnecessarily, which will increase the perception. And the whole thing grows.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#258 Aug 02 2016 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report himto his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.

Which one of those justifies the cop shooting you? Asking for a black friend.
None of them. However, those things do significantly increase the odds that the cop is going to search you or your car, and may result in an escalation of the encounter (especially if the driver responds with yet more belligerent behavior). Which might just be relevant to this discussion

Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?

Also, allow me to laugh at the notion that it's apparently okay for police to decide to detain you and search your vehicle because you called them "cracker" or threatened to take his badge number. But it's your fault for escalating the situation.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 3:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#259 Aug 02 2016 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?


Oh, I don't know... Perhaps at the point where you've assaulted the officer, attempted to grab his gun, ran away, the cop chased you, then you turned around and charged him? Maybe at that point?

Or maybe the point where you're asked to put your hands up, refuse, have a gun in your pocket, the cops attempt to disarm you, you struggle and reach for your gun? That point?

Obviously, there are some cases where the cop was clearly in the wrong. But when you mix those in with the cases where the person killed was clearly doing something violent and aggressive, and then mix in a social movement that seems to leap to the assumption of fault by the cops in every case, long before the facts are known, you add to an environment where the perception of the problem is far far greater than the reality of the problem.

Quote:
Also, allow me to laugh at the notion that it's apparently okay for police to decide to detain you and search your vehicle because you called them "cracker" or threatened to take his badge number. But it's your fault for escalating the situation.


The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it. Fair or not, we give them that curbside authority. The officer is always basing this decision on a subjective analysis of the person he's interacting with. And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.

You're free to try to play roadside lawyer with the cop, but that generally ends poorly for you regardless of your skin color.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#260 Aug 02 2016 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
gbaji wrote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it. Fair or not, we give them that curbside authority. The officer is always basing this decision on a subjective analysis of the person he's interacting with. And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.
Seems like this is the kind of thing you'd want to train people not to do? I mean, if that really is the case (CITE NAO PLZ!) Smiley: clown it points to the potential to miss something otherwise important if someone is less likely to searched just because they are "nice" or whatever.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#261 Aug 02 2016 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.


I'm not using broad statistics. I'm arguing *against* broad statistics. I'm examining the details behind those statistics and seeing that they don't match up with the broadly assumed reasons. But it's not like there isn't a ton of data on this sort of thing.

What's funny is that when you actually do some research on this topic, the overwhelming amount of data shows that it's not police bias that causes those disparate statistical outcomes, but a variety of factors, mostly involving environment and crime patterns to which the police are reacting. But on the "Blame the cops!" side exists just the broad resulting stats and a whole lot of emotion driven rhetoric.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#262 Aug 02 2016 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
Interesting that there's still an implicit bias that wasn't drawn out in the testing. Wish they would have done this with a police dept. that would see more diversity in its day-to-day interactions though. It'd give it more weight. Spokane isn't exactly a melting pot, and with like 2% of the population reporting as African American I think it'd be hard to know if their assumptions are more media-influenced than job-influenced.

Probably should hit the citations and see if there's something there? Wonder if it's the same thing in New York, or Chicago, or some place similar where there'd be more interactions with minorities. I mean, I'm not questioning their results or anything, just wondering how much it can be universalized.

Or as it was stated in one of the two studies that cited this one:

Quote:
It is important to take the findings thus far into context and not rush to judgment until additional research can determine the extent to which the findings uncovered by James et al. ([2]) are applicable to other police officers and agencies. In other words, the question of generalizability remains. Although the research presented here is some of the best being done with respect to simulator experimental research, caution is warranted in terms of not overinterpreting the findings. To date, the authors have studied a total of just 116 police officers from a single agency in the upper Northwest (i.e., Spokane, WA). History tells us that jumping to conclusions based on such a limited inquiry is probably not wise. The results may be completely different if officers from larger urban cities, or smaller rural areas, are studied.


Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 3:58pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#263 Aug 02 2016 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?
Oh, I don't know... Perhaps at the point where you've assaulted the officer, attempted to grab his gun, ran away, the cop chased you, then you turned around and charged him? Maybe at that point?

So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?
Quote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it.

Searching someone because they insulted you is, pretty much by definition, NOT doing so because the situation warranted it. Nothing about someone calling you "cracker" makes them more or less likely to deserving of a search or detainment.
Quote:
And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.

Why the quotes around unfair? Obviously it is plainly wrong for police to abuse their authority by detaining or searching people solely on the basis of liking them or not liking them. If they do so, the wrong was not on the guy who said some things that hurt the officer's feeling, the wrong is on the professional law enforcement agent who took an oath of honor and now decided to mess with a guy to teach him a lesson about saying "cracker".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#264 Aug 02 2016 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,289 posts
I wonder which pundit gave Gbaji "Blame the Cops" to replace "Black Lives Matter" so as to make it appear more inflammatory and accusatory.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#265 Aug 02 2016 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it. Fair or not, we give them that curbside authority. The officer is always basing this decision on a subjective analysis of the person he's interacting with. And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.
Seems like this is the kind of thing you'd want to train people not to do? I mean, if that really is the case (CITE NAO PLZ!) Smiley: clown it points to the potential to miss something otherwise important if someone is less likely to searched just because they are "nice" or whatever.


It's a matter of degrees though. Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite. And btw, the cops are pretty good at picking up on people faking politeness.

What's the alternative? Be more likely to search people who act nice to the cops? That seems... odd. And yeah, I suppose we could argue that the cops should just ignore the behavior and demeanor of the person he's interacting with, but while we can all stand around and stamp our feet at how "unfair" it is, the reality is that cops are actually quite good at interpreting the behavior of those they interact with. The unfortunate reality is that black people are disproportionately more likely to act in a manner consistent with someone who is "suspicious" than a white person is.

Ironically, the paper I linked a short while ago actually touches on this, although the paper researchers themselves didn't mention it. I would propose a fourth explanation for why the police in the study were more likely to associate black people with violence, but slower to react when presented with violence from black people in the simulation. Because they've become accustomed to a higher rate of "dangerous" seeming behavior from blacks than whites. As a result when a white person begins acting in a way that triggers the cops danger alarm, he's more likely to assume that person is actually about to do something like pull a gun on him. But he's more used to black people behaving that way, so he's going to wait longer to see if that's really a gun being pulled out.

It's just another possible explanation for the data. No way to know for sure how much this (or any other) factor plays in. The point though, is that there's a lot more to this than the ridiculously simplistic idea that cops are just racially biased towards blacks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 Aug 02 2016 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yeah, I suppose we could argue that the cops should just ignore the behavior and demeanor of the person he's interacting with..

No, that's exactly the answer. These are trained professional law enforcement. They have an obligation to act like it.

Pointing this out isn't "stomping feet", it's the most basic part of their job to do their duty professionally and without bias. That you'd think it's just pouting is just fucking baffling.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#267 Aug 02 2016 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Why the quotes around unfair?
Spend 20 minutes going a forum search of gbaji and unfair/fair.

Anyone with access to an DSM V would rightly assume he's reading the work of a person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#268 Aug 02 2016 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite.
Totally relevant to a cop deciding that he will want a higher fine for the initial offense (they have that prerogative depending on the offence) or deciding that you vehicle may have a minor exterior problem he's go ahead and cite you for, but being a dick to a cop is not sufficient grounds for an interior search (defined by you opening your trunk or the officer entering your vehicle). Said officer would need what the law calls a "compelling reason" such as an odor of pot or some item (weapon/crack pipe/dufflebag full of heads) in plain view.



addendum; I've been spelling and mispronouncing "prerogative" for almost half a century.Smiley: bah
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#269 Aug 02 2016 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Right. So THEN at what point are they justified in shooting you?
Oh, I don't know... Perhaps at the point where you've assaulted the officer, attempted to grab his gun, ran away, the cop chased you, then you turned around and charged him? Maybe at that point?

So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?


Yes. I get that you're drawing this out to make an implication, but the reality is that in the overwhelming number of cases where a black person dies as a result of an interaction with a police officer, it was either an accidental death while attempting to deal with an unruly subject (like Garner for example), or the police fired at the suspect out of a belief that his life or the lives of others in the area was in imminent danger. Obviously, there are some examples where a gross mistake was made (the 12 year old kid shot so quickly after the cops arrived), but those are actually quite rare exceptions. Sadly, our media allows us to highlight the exceptions, and thus skew public perception.

Quote:
Quote:
The police officer is free to choose to search your vehicle and/or detain you if he decides the situation warrants it.

Searching someone because they insulted you is, pretty much by definition, NOT doing so because the situation warranted it. Nothing about someone calling you "cracker" makes them more or less likely to deserving of a search or detainment.


It doesn't? Please explain.


Quote:
Quote:
And while you may think this is "unfair", the guy being belligerent to the cop is far more likely to be the subject of a search than the guy who's polite.

Why the quotes around unfair?


Because it's not actually unfair at all. Thought that was obvious.

Quote:
Obviously it is plainly wrong for police to abuse their authority by detaining or searching people solely on the basis of liking them or not liking them.


It's not about liking or disliking. It's about the concept that someone who is acting outside the norm for interactions may just be acting outside the norm in other ways (and thus may have drugs or other contraband in the car). You're zeroing in on the whole "cracker" bit, but that's hardly the extent of this effect. More commonly, it's a matter of acting nervous (more nervous than normal, since everyone is a bit nervous when pulled over), defensive, furtively looking around, etc. Unfortunately, some of that behavior is going to be the result of the fact that many black people believe that the cops are treating them unfairly, and so they are more nervous than they would be otherwise, more likely to act defensively, get upset for merely being pulled over, etc.

All of those are behaviors that are warning signs to the cops that the person may be up to something, and will result in him taking a closer look at the person. It's not about a specific word they may use Joph.

Quote:
If they do so, the wrong was not on the guy who said some things that hurt the officer's feeling, the wrong is on the professional law enforcement agent who took an oath of honor and now decided to mess with a guy to teach him a lesson about saying "cracker".


You're trying to frame this as though the officer is reacting emotionally. While I'm sure that does happen from time to time, it's more about view of law enforcement. And yes, there's a social narrative to this as well, but as a general rule, people who don't respect law enforcement also tend to not respect the law. Which means the odds that they are violating the law is higher than otherwise. Remember that the officer's job isn't just to enforce traffic violations. Modern patrol officers are still expected to do the same sort of job as the old style beat cops (honestly not as well though, which I think I mentioned earlier). Part of their job is to look for anything suspicious and investigate it. So when they pull someone over (and, as I mentioned, they sometimes do this just because the person was there and they weren't on a call at the time), they are looking for any sign that something might be amiss. And the person's behavior is a huge part of that. Most people don't drive around with their bags of dope sitting on the front seat, or their illegal gun out on the dashboard. A police officer is going to make an assessment of the people in the car and go from there. And yeah, disrespectful language is one of the signs they may look for. And not just because it might upset the officer.

And again, at the end of the day, we can sit here and talk about professionalism and whatnot all day long, but do you go out of your way to insult the guy making your food? No? Why not? He's a professional right? How much slower does that cashier suddenly become if you start calling him names as well? Tell you what? Next time you're in court for a traffic ticket, just start cussing at the judge and calling him names and see what happens. Politeness makes the world work. I get the ideal that people should do their jobs professionally no matter how we act, but I don't think that's an excuse to engage in poor behavior in the first place. It costs you nothing to be polite to someone. Why go out of your way to antagonize people, and then get upset if/when they react? That goes back to my earlier point about much of this being about creating conflict for the sake of creating a conflict.

Which just seems silly to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#270 Aug 02 2016 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?
Yes.

Thank you. You didn't need to try to spin anything else as this is the only correct answer, period.
Quote:
It doesn't? Please explain.

Please explain how saying "cracker" creates an increase in probability that you will have items on your person or in your car. Do they appear by magic? Is "cracker" a magical word that causes items to materialize? I mean, obviously it doesn't cause crackers to materialize because those are legal but are you suggesting that it makes drugs or guns or panda pelts appear?

Because, if not, I thought the explanation was self-evident.
Quote:
It's not about liking or disliking. It's about the concept that someone who is acting outside the norm for interactions may just be acting outside the norm in other ways (and thus may have drugs or other contraband in the car). You're zeroing in on the whole "cracker" bit, but that's hardly the extent of this effect

Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report him to his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.

Explain exactly how any other those things increases the risks of contraband in your car. Because common sense would tell me that if I had contraband in my car and was pulled over, I'd be super-duper polite and not make waves. But you're convinced that those are the marks for guns made out of heroin pandas. I need you to explain clearly exactly why this is.

Quote:
You're trying to frame this as though the officer is reacting emotionally.

"Frame it"? No, if the officer is making calls based on me saying "cracker" or anything else you listed it is 100% absolutely an emotional reaction because there is no rational basis by which to jump from "Said cracker, must have drugs!"

Quote:
And again, at the end of the day, we can sit here and talk about professionalism and whatnot all day long, but do you go out of your way to insult the guy making your food? No? Why not? He's a professional right?

So you figure the tax-paid civil servant who swore an oath to protect society and who carries a gun is somehow equivalent to the fry cook at Super Burgers. That's interesting. Retarded, but interesting.

Quote:
I get the ideal that people should do their jobs professionally no matter how we act, but I don't think that's an excuse to engage in poor behavior in the first place.

Wow, did you miss the point! There is no excuse to engage in unprofessional behavior regardless of how the person you pulled over is acting. None. Zero. That you're trying to defend it is, again, baffling.

Well, sadly, not really.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#271 Aug 02 2016 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite.
Totally relevant to a cop deciding that he will want a higher fine for the initial offense (they have that prerogative depending on the offence) or deciding that you vehicle may have a minor exterior problem he's go ahead and cite you for, but being a dick to a cop is not sufficient grounds for an interior search (defined by you opening your trunk or the officer entering your vehicle). Said officer would need what the law calls a "compelling reason" such as an odor of pot or some item (weapon/crack pipe/dufflebag full of heads) in plain view.


Being a dick to the cop doesn't give him legal grounds to do anything. However, the cop has legal grounds to do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with at any given moment. Being polite to the officer increases the odds that he wont exercise any of those options. Being impolite to him increases the odds that he will. I'll say the same thing I said to Joph. Being searched was just an example. There are many others. The officer can decide that you may be intoxicated (belligerence is a sign of intoxication, right?). He can then arrest you, have you spend the night in a drunk tank, and then have to pay to get your car out of impound the next day. That's a bit worse than having your car searched, isn't it?

Oh wait, you say. That's the cop abusing his authority! Well... good luck proving that. I guess I still don't get the idea of intentionally acting like a prick to a cop because you believe that they shouldn't treat you any differently because of it. I mean, I suppose we could speculate about some perfect world with perfect police officers, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the police have to deal with a ton of stuff that neither you nor I would ever want to deal with. The crazy guy who hasn't showered in a year and is running around flicking his poo at everyone? They get to grab him and take him away. The gang banger hopped up on pcp? They get to deal with that guy. The angry bikers looking for a reason to get into a fight? Get to deal with them too. And when they deal with these people, they can't be nice and gentle. I get that this may be shocking to see on TV, but that's the reality of the job. Trying to be gentle means you get hurt. And you have to realize that for the drunk guy resisting arrest, this is the one day in his life when he's going to get slammed to the pavement and may get inured in the process. For the cop? It's another Saturday night, and it'll be him getting slammed repeatedly every night if he doesn't act first and act forcefully.

So yeah. You should do everything you can to put yourself in the "normal" category as far as the cops are concerned, and not the "guy I may have to get physical with" category. Not because the cop personally cares about you or your own issues with cops, but because he's doing a job and one of his top priorities is not getting injured or killed while doing that job.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Aug 02 2016 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Being a dick to the cop doesn't give him legal grounds to do anything. However, the cop has legal grounds to do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with at any given moment. Being polite to the officer increases the odds that he wont exercise any of those options. Being impolite to him increases the odds that he will.

Yeah, that's a problem. I get that you don't care that it's a problem but, well, that's a separate problem.
Quote:
The gang banger hopped up on pcp? They get to deal with that guy. The angry bikers looking for a reason to get into a fight? Get to deal with them too. And when they deal with these people, they can't be nice and gentle. I get that this may be shocking to see on TV, but that's the reality of the job. Trying to be gentle means you get hurt.

This has nothing at all to do with detaining/searching someone (or otherwise "do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with") because he called you names or threatened to report you.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 9:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#273 Aug 02 2016 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ultimately, you're dealing with a subjective decision by the officer. He's going to weigh all of the factors present. Everything else being identical, he's more likely to be suspicious of the person who's being belligerent towards him than the person who is being polite.
Totally relevant to a cop deciding that he will want a higher fine for the initial offense (they have that prerogative depending on the offence) or deciding that you vehicle may have a minor exterior problem he's go ahead and cite you for, but being a dick to a cop is not sufficient grounds for an interior search (defined by you opening your trunk or the officer entering your vehicle). Said officer would need what the law calls a "compelling reason" such as an odor of pot or some item (weapon/crack pipe/dufflebag full of heads) in plain view.


Being a dick to the cop doesn't give him legal grounds to do anything. However, the cop has legal grounds to do a whole lot of things you probably don't want to have to deal with at any given moment. Being polite to the officer increases the odds that he wont exercise any of those options. Being impolite to him increases the odds that he will. I'll say the same thing I said to Joph. Being searched was just an example. There are many others. The officer can decide that you may be intoxicated (belligerence is a sign of intoxication, right?). He can then arrest you, have you spend the night in a drunk tank, and then have to pay to get your car out of impound the next day. That's a bit worse than having your car searched, isn't it?

Oh wait, you say. That's the cop abusing his authority! Well... good luck proving that. I guess I still don't get the idea of intentionally acting like a prick to a cop because you believe that they shouldn't treat you any differently because of it. I mean, I suppose we could speculate about some perfect world with perfect police officers, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the police have to deal with a ton of stuff that neither you nor I would ever want to deal with. The crazy guy who hasn't showered in a year and is running around flicking his poo at everyone? They get to grab him and take him away. The gang banger hopped up on pcp? They get to deal with that guy. The angry bikers looking for a reason to get into a fight? Get to deal with them too. And when they deal with these people, they can't be nice and gentle. I get that this may be shocking to see on TV, but that's the reality of the job. Trying to be gentle means you get hurt. And you have to realize that for the drunk guy resisting arrest, this is the one day in his life when he's going to get slammed to the pavement and may get inured in the process. For the cop? It's another Saturday night, and it'll be him getting slammed repeatedly every night if he doesn't act first and act forcefully.

So yeah. You should do everything you can to put yourself in the "normal" category as far as the cops are concerned, and not the "guy I may have to get physical with" category. Not because the cop personally cares about you or your own issues with cops, but because he's doing a job and one of his top priorities is not getting injured or killed while doing that job.
Did you smoke salvia all day?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#274 Aug 02 2016 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So nothing less than preventing immediate life-threatening harm, correct?
Yes.

Thank you. You didn't need to try to spin anything else as this is the only correct answer, period.


No spin. Just pointing out how often this is the factual case, but the initial media fueled assumptions pretty consistently manage to get it wrong. And much of BLM's activity is based on that false belief.

Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't? Please explain.

Please explain how saying "cracker" creates an increase in probability that you will have items on your person or in your car.


That by itself? No. A combination of statements and actions which indicate to the officer that you're overly not happy you were pulled over? Yeah. Because sometimes people are upset about being pulled over because they honestly don't think they did anything wrong. But those people don't usually rise to the level of verbal abuse I'm talking about. People who do that usually are trying to put the cop on the defensive and/or distract from something else going on.

Quote:
Do they appear by magic? Is "cracker" a magical word that causes items to materialize? I mean, obviously it doesn't cause crackers to materialize because those are legal but are you suggesting that it makes drugs or guns or panda pelts appear?


Go ask a cop how high the correlation is between someone starting right off verbally assaulting the cop for pulling them over, and the likelihood that they have some contraband in their car is. The foolish notion is that by berating the cop right off the bat the cop will pull back and be more hesitant to look too closely. That's wrong, of course, but you'd be surprised how often people try this.

Quote:
Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report him to his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.


Yeah. That's more than just calling him "cracker", right? Again, I think you simply don't realize how frequently people who really really don't want their cars to be searched start off the police stop by berating the cop, insisting before he's even gotten to the window that they did nothing wrong, the cop had no reason to stop him, it's racial profiling, etc. That's what I was talking about. Now is it possible some really stupid person might do that kind of thing too? Sure. But that would be... stupid.

Quote:
Explain exactly how any other those things increases the risks of contraband in your car.


Sigh. Because it's behavior that people who are trying to hide something from the cop do. You're looking at it wrong. Saying or doing those things doesn't put contraband in your car. People who have contraband in their cars tend to say or do those things. They're hoping (wrongly) that they'll make the cop concerned about a possible complaint on their record for pulling someone over "for no reason at all", and will thus maybe just apologize for pulling them over, maybe give a warning, and then be on their way or something. Of course, the cops know this. Which is why, if you foolishly engage in the same kind of behavior, it's going to make the cop more suspicious, take more time looking around the car, etc.


Quote:
Because common sense would tell me that if I had contraband in my car and was pulled over, I'd be super-duper polite and not make waves.


You'd think so. But you'd be wrong. Do you actually know anyone in law enforcement? You'd be amazed at the behavior patterns that they are well aware of, that people do engage in, but that make zero sense from an objective rational person's point of view. Heck. Have you watched an episode or three of cops, or worlds wildest chases, or whatever those shows are called? Obviously, those are the most dramatic scenes they can catch on video, but from the stories I've heard from friends of mine in law enforcement that sort of thing isn't that rare. And the patterns of behavior are quite consistent. People who berate the cop for pulling them over are almost 100% either drunk or high, or they have something in the car they don't want the cop to find. So if the cop doesn't think the person is intoxicated, but the person started out berating them, they immediately start thinking about how to obtain permission to search the car. And they're pretty sneaky about doing that as well.

Again, the thing that most people don't get is that while you may occasionally interact with a police officer on a traffic stop, the officer interacts at such stops every single day, all day long. He knows the script to every scenario. He's heard every approach to a stop that exists. And he can usually predict from the first couple sentences out of your mouth which script this particular stop is going to follow. When you hear about cops "having a feeling that something was up", this is why. I just tossed out a few funny bits as examples, don't take them as gospel or anything. The point is that the cops do know what "tells" people send out. And they're very very good at it.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 7:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#275 Aug 02 2016 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... ok. I see we're in the "I know a million cops and they all say..." portion of the program now so I'll just leave it with that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#276 Aug 02 2016 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because sometimes people are upset about being pulled over because they honestly don't think they did anything wrong. But those people don't usually rise to the level of verbal abuse I'm talking about. People who do that usually are trying to put the cop on the defensive and/or distract from something else going on.
This is true because...you say so?

Lemee try this:

Rich GOP voters hate poor people.


There; it's written online, therefore it must be true.


gbaji wrote:
don't take them as gospel or anything.
We won't, because you are grossly wrong. Unless that is how cops behave in your insulated little racist neighborhood.


Edited, Aug 2nd 2016 9:20pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#277 Aug 02 2016 at 9:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
While I don't condone any negative behavior towards police officers, it is absurd to expect *criminals* to all act like angels. Good, bad or indifferent, there should be a standard on how to react to people with rules of engagement. If the RoE doesn't say "smack a person who disrespects you", then you can't decide on your own to do so.
#278 Aug 02 2016 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
gbaji wrote:
But it's not like there isn't a ton of data on this sort of thing.
Huh, her two previous neurophysiological studies both found that "the participants were experiencing a greater threat response when faced with African Americans instead of white or Hispanic suspects." The new study of 80 patrol officers from the Spokane PD, 76 of which were white and 71 male, average age of 40 and with more than 14 years experience found that 96% of the officers demonstrated implicit racial bias, with 78% strongly or moderately associating blacks with weapons, and 0% associating whites with weapons on the Harvard Implicit Association Test.

What was that about "perception" again?

Edited, Aug 3rd 2016 12:16am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#279 Aug 02 2016 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
Almalieque wrote:
there should be a standard on how to react to people with rules of engagement.
There is, and gbaji is unaware of its existence.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#280 Aug 02 2016 at 11:26 PM Rating: Good
***
1,047 posts
Too many Gulenists in the USA, no wonder there's so much violence.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2016 1:42am by Kavekkk
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#281 Aug 03 2016 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Too many Gulenists in the USA, no wonder there's so much violence.
Thanks Trump.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#282 Aug 03 2016 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's just another possible explanation for the data. No way to know for sure how much this (or any other) factor plays in. The point though, is that there's a lot more to this than the ridiculously simplistic idea that cops are just racially biased towards blacks.
I'd imagine many people would agree there's more to it than just "bias against black people." That's more of a media simplification, or a soundbite that works for political purposes. You add in bias + poverty + cultural differences + other stuff and you get a situation where a bunch of compounding factors make a situation worse than any one would on its own.

gbaji wrote:
Ironically, the paper I linked a short while ago actually touches on this, although the paper researchers themselves didn't mention it. I would propose a fourth explanation for why the police in the study were more likely to associate black people with violence, but slower to react when presented with violence from black people in the simulation. Because they've become accustomed to a higher rate of "dangerous" seeming behavior from blacks than whites. As a result when a white person begins acting in a way that triggers the cops danger alarm, he's more likely to assume that person is actually about to do something like pull a gun on him. But he's more used to black people behaving that way, so he's going to wait longer to see if that's really a gun being pulled out.
For what it's worth I'll take it at face value that the cops were wary of the stereotype and simply were afraid of being one of "those cops who shot a black guy." Given the demographics and relatively high crime rate in Spokane, it's likely immediately associating white people with danger simply happens because most of the dangerous people they come across are white. In this case (and without further data) it's not hard to explain this as a very simple learned behavior. You get into a violent confrontation with a few white guys, and you learn to fear white guys. Maybe it's white guys with tattoos, or white guys dressed a certain way, etc. but that wasn't really addressed as much in this paper.

Again, it'd be nice to see this study done in different locations, with different demographics. It seems like an interesting methodology that has potential to shed some light on police decision-making. The novelty of it does make it hard to generalize the results though.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2016 8:47am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#283 Aug 03 2016 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ironically, the paper I linked a short while ago actually touches on this, although the paper researchers themselves didn't mention it. I would propose a fourth explanation for why the police in the study were more likely to associate black people with violence, but slower to react when presented with violence from black people in the simulation. Because they've become accustomed to a higher rate of "dangerous" seeming behavior from blacks than whites. As a result when a white person begins acting in a way that triggers the cops danger alarm, he's more likely to assume that person is actually about to do something like pull a gun on him. But he's more used to black people behaving that way, so he's going to wait longer to see if that's really a gun being pulled out.
For what it's worth I'll take it at face value that the cops were wary of the stereotype and simply were afraid of being one of "those cops who shot a black guy."


That's the most obvious explanation. I'm just presenting an alternative that I think may have some merit.

Quote:
Given the demographics and relatively high crime rate in Spokane, it's likely immediately associating white people with danger simply happens because most of the dangerous people they come across are white. In this case (and without further data) it's not hard to explain this as a very simple learned behavior. You get into a violent confrontation with a few white guys, and you learn to fear white guys. Maybe it's white guys with tattoos, or white guys dressed a certain way, etc. but that wasn't really addressed as much in this paper.


I was talking about the rate though, not the raw number. If 10% of the white people you interact with behave in a threatening manner, but 50% of the black people you interact with do, you're going to see that type of interaction as more typical in the case of a black person and atypical of a white person. Then you toss in the false positive factor. If out of the 10% of white people who are threatening/belligerent 90% of them actually do take a swing at you, or attempt to resit arrest, or whatever, then you can accurately assess that if a white person is acting in that manner, there's a high probability that the situation will become violent, so you're going to be quicker to react (you're expecting it). On the other hand, if the higher base rate of threatening/belligerent behavior by blacks is because of an innate distrust in cops, but maybe only 20% of those result in actual violence, then you're more likely to dismiss the exact same initial behavior from a black person because it's less likely to escalate into violence (per incident anyway).

The result of that would be that a cop will wait a bit longer to be sure the situation is actually heading into violent territory before taking action. And I'm not trying to narrow the definition here. I can't say personally what behavior might trigger a "danger" reaction by the cops. However, I think we can all agree that there are going to be telltale signs, body language, verbal statements, etc, that will indicate to a cop that danger might be heading his way. It's entirely possible that blacks are more likely to give these signs off than whites, even when they have no actual intent to do any sort of violence to the cop.

Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members. Which, Um.... Is not going to go unnoticed by the cops. On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.

Quote:
Again, it'd be nice to see this study done in different locations, with different demographics. It seems like an interesting methodology that has potential to shed some light on police decision-making. The novelty of it does make it hard to generalize the results though.


Yeah. I actually followed a link from another article about the subject that mentioned that very fact. And a bunch of other stuff. It's an interesting read.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#284 Aug 04 2016 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
gbaji wrote:
On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.
You really are sheltered, aren't you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#285 Aug 04 2016 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's tons of young white males trying to act tough or gangster*. Gbaji doesn't notice them because they're white and he's not threatened by their appearance. Confirmation bias.


*My own son leaves the house with in a pinstripe zoot suit and carrying a Tommy gun
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#286 Aug 04 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
***
1,047 posts
I had a white gangster friend like that once. It took a tremendous amount of force to embed them into any social situation. It's good they're really dull though I guess so they aren't so dangerous. I lost them after they wore blackface to a fancy dress party I threw them cleanly through the drywall where I could not recover them without tearing the whole wall open.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#287 Aug 04 2016 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
***
1,047 posts
Quote:
My own son leaves the house with in a pinstripe zoot suit and carrying a Tommy gun


Sounds like a pulchritudinous young gent to me. He takes after his father, I take it?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#288 Aug 05 2016 at 6:18 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members. Which, Um.... Is not going to go unnoticed by the cops. On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.
Wearing a skirt doesn't make you sluht. There is a difference between "behaving like a sluht" and wearing a skirt. If you start labeling every woman that wears a skirt a sluht, then the problem is with you.

What you have done is demonstrated the ignorance and fear of the unknown. So, basically, you just admitted that ignorant and fearful police officers tend to overreact with Black Americans. Furthermore, only real proven white gangsters are targeted. However, all Black Americans that are "wearing skirts" are "sluhts", so therefore should be treated as such.
#289 Aug 05 2016 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members.

Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child


Bonus points for using the conservative "thug" dog whistle. I bet Gbaji doesn't even know he was taught to do it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#290 Aug 05 2016 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
What was profiling called in the 1980s?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#291 Aug 05 2016 at 2:04 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Bonus points for using the conservative "thug" dog whistle. I bet Gbaji doesn't even know he was taught to do it.
His response came straight from Fox News, very Bill O'reilly like. Anyone who still brings up gangsta rap from the 90's is usually far removed from reality. While there are artists that might glorify that life, the genre has changed dramatically over the past twenty years.
#292 Aug 09 2016 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members. Which, Um.... Is not going to go unnoticed by the cops. On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.
Wearing a skirt doesn't make you sluht. There is a difference between "behaving like a sluht" and wearing a skirt. If you start labeling every woman that wears a skirt a sluht, then the problem is with you.


Interesting that I didn't mention clothing style at all, but that's where you went anyway. I was talking specifically about behavior. Body and verbal language.

Quote:
What you have done is demonstrated the ignorance and fear of the unknown.


No. What I've demonstrated is an objective view of the subject matter at hand, absent the usual emotion laden need to conform to politically correct, but factually incorrect themes. The reality is that a far far higher percentage of black males exhibit external behavior that is specifically designed to mimic the behavior of gang members than white males do. I get that you're all *gasp* at this revelation, but if we're going to have a conversation about why police may stop and question black males more frequently than while males, it's maybe relevant to point out that even if the police are ignoring skin color entirely, and looking only at behavior, we're still going to see a statistical bias in the results vis-a-vis white versus black.

As I've been saying all along, you can make all the changes to police policies you want, but you're never going to eliminate this effect via that methodology. I'd argue you're probably never going to even put a dent in it. Hence, why I believe it's the wrong target to focus on.

Quote:
So, basically, you just admitted that ignorant and fearful police officers tend to overreact with Black Americans. Furthermore, only real proven white gangsters are targeted. However, all Black Americans that are "wearing skirts" are "sluhts", so therefore should be treated as such.


No. They react consistently to behaviors of people around them. I get that you want to paint this narrative in the color of emotion and whatnot, but that's just not what's happening. As the data in the study I linked to shows, if anything Cops are more cautious when dealing with a black person than with a white person. The problem is that the rate at which they have to interact with black males versus white males is so ridiculously skewed that no amount of them trying to avoid anything that might trigger racially aligned outrage still results in enough of such events to fuel movements like BLM.

And at the risk of repeating myself, it's not about clothing. It's about behavior. And yes, a far higher percentage of young black males behave like they're in a gang or engaged in some kind of criminal behavior than young white males. I get that this isn't PC to say, but it's absolutely true. And until that fact changes, nothing the police do will fix this problem. And certainly, doubling down on this behavior (which is what BLM seems to be promoting) is only going to make the problem worse, not better.

Which, again, if your objective is to increase anger and increase conflict, is a very good route to go.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Aug 09 2016 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Interesting that I didn't mention clothing style at all, but that's where you went anyway. I was talking specifically about behavior. Body and verbal language.
Are you saying that attire and appearance have nothing to do with the police stereotyping you as a gangster?


Gbaji wrote:
No. What I've demonstrated is an objective view of the subject matter at hand, absent the usual emotion laden need to conform to politically correct, but factually incorrect themes. The reality is that a far far higher percentage of black males exhibit external behavior that is specifically designed to mimic the behavior of gang members than white males do.


Gbaji wrote:
No. They react consistently to behaviors of people around them. I get that you want to paint this narrative in the color of emotion and whatnot, but that's just not what's happening. As the data in the study I linked to shows, if anything Cops are more cautious when dealing with a black person than with a white person. The problem is that the rate at which they have to interact with black males versus white males is so ridiculously skewed that no amount of them trying to avoid anything that might trigger racially aligned outrage still results in enough of such events to fuel movements like BLM.

And at the risk of repeating myself, it's not about clothing. It's about behavior. And yes, a far higher percentage of young black males behave like they're in a gang or engaged in some kind of criminal behavior than young white males. I get that this isn't PC to say, but it's absolutely true. And until that fact changes, nothing the police do will fix this problem. And certainly, doubling down on this behavior (which is what BLM seems to be promoting) is only going to make the problem worse, not better.

Which, again, if your objective is to increase anger and increase conflict, is a very good route to go.

Stop and Frisk statistics say otherwise.

#294 Aug 09 2016 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:

Bonus points for using the conservative "thug" dog whistle. I bet Gbaji doesn't even know he was taught to do it.
His response came straight from Fox News, very Bill O'reilly like. Anyone who still brings up gangsta rap from the 90's is usually far removed from reality. While there are artists that might glorify that life, the genre has changed dramatically over the past twenty years.


Yes. I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the facts of what I'm talking about. You're zeroing in on one thing that you want to argue about (cause I happened to mention hip hop, so that's apparently the entire issue now), while ignoring the whole. You can bury your head in the PC sand all you want, but the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal. Period. Any objective person would make that assumption.

Defending the behavior because he wasn't actually breaking the law isn't the point. The behavior only has to be suspicious to draw attention. And it's that attention that affects the stats when it comes to rates of police stops.

I guess the problem I have with this entire issue is the sheer lengths people seem to be willing to go to protect the PC viewpoint on this. I mean, Martin? We could make some valid arguments about that. But Brown? Seriously? Guy's walking down the middle of the street, with stuff he just stole from a convenience store a few minutes earlier in his hands, and we're still going to put him in the stat category of "police unfairly profiling young black men"? You're kidding right? At what point is it ok for a police officer to stop a black man in your eyes then? Ever?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#295 Aug 09 2016 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Interesting that I didn't mention clothing style at all, but that's where you went anyway. I was talking specifically about behavior. Body and verbal language.
Are you saying that attire and appearance have nothing to do with the police stereotyping you as a gangster?


I'm saying that I am not talking about clothing. You're free to expound upon the possible relationship between various styles of attire and the exhibition of suspicious behavior which might draw a cop's attention, but that would be entirely your discussion. Again though, it's interesting how there seems to be a need among the PC crowd to talk about everything *except* behavior. Remember all the people wearing hoodies and holding skittles and cans of tea? That's making it about the clothes, or objects you were carrying, or anything at all, except the actual behavior that was what brought Martin to Zimmerman's attention.

Surely, you don't think a hoodie is "gansta" attire, right? So you kinda have your answer right there, don't you? It's about what you are doing, not what you are wearing. What clothes the person engaged in suspicious behavior may happen to be wearing may tell us something about his clothing choices, but it doesn't work in the other direction. Again, it's interesting that this is what you choose to focus on.


Quote:
Stop and Frisk statistics say otherwise.


No, they don't. We've had this conversation a number of times now. Stop and Frisk stats are perfectly consistent with the police profiling behavior, and not skin color. That this happens to result in disproportionate stop rates by skin color does not mean that the police are targeting people based on skin color. When you look past the surface level stats, you can see that there are behavior differences that affect the stats. Black drug dealers are more likely to be standing on a corner selling their wares than white drug dealers. Other black males, not themselves engaged in any criminal behavior, or carrying any contraband, are more likely to be standing on the same street corner hanging out with the drug dealer. So guess what happens? When the cop stops the group, there's one guy holding drugs and 8 guys not. When the cop stops the white drug dealer, it's just the one guy, and maybe one accomplice with him. The result? A lot more black guys stopped, and a lot more black guys stopped who didn't themselves do anything wrong (other than choosing to hang with the guy dealing dope). Get it? There's your stats right there.

We can wring our PC hands all we want over this, but the hard reality is that, for whatever reason, a higher percentage of black males are accepting of criminal behavior around them, and almost seem to idolize it and mimic it. This makes it very very hard for the cops to single out just the one black male in the crowd who's actually breaking the law. Add in the higher poverty stats (which almost certainly influences that behavior in the first place), and you have higher *actual* rates of criminal behavior, and more importantly, such behavior is more commonly and openly seen in the areas these young black men are growing up in, which in turn affects their own acceptance level. I linked to a source that mentioned this as a key difference between white and black poverty. White poor are far less likely to live in areas with a very high overall rate of poverty than black poor are. The makeup of the neighborhood itself affects the leaned behavior of those who grow up there. That's what needs to change, and the only way it's going to change is if we can figure out how to change the poverty stats. That's literally the start and end point to this issue.

Edited, Aug 9th 2016 2:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#296 Aug 09 2016 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal.

So your argument is that walking down streets and meandering from fence to fence is "black male behavior"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Aug 09 2016 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal.

So your argument is that walking down streets and meandering from fence to fence is "black male behavior"?
Pokemon GO nerd, black person, potential thief, lost short guy... pretty much can lump them all into the same group of ne'er-do-wells anyway.

Edited, Aug 9th 2016 3:29pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#298 Aug 09 2016 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stop and Frisk stats are perfectly consistent with the police profiling behavior, and not skin color.
Right. They were black people behaving like black people. Nothing to do with being black, though.Smiley: rolleyes


One day you may realize just how stupid your "logical" arguments sound.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#299 Aug 09 2016 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal.

So your argument is that walking down streets and meandering from fence to fence is "black male behavior"?


No. I'm saying that it is suspicious behavior. It's equally suspicious whether a white male or a black male is doing it. However, I'm also saying that young black males are more likely to engage in that kind of behavior than young white men, and that this contributes to the kinds of stats we see with things like Stop and Frisk.

Way to get the logic backwards though. I get that you need to view this whole thing through the lens of race, but can you consider for just a moment that from the cops perspective, he's not looking at the skin color, but the behavior? Is that possible for you to wrap your brain around?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#300 Aug 09 2016 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Stop and Frisk stats are perfectly consistent with the police profiling behavior, and not skin color.
Right. They were black people behaving like black people. Nothing to do with being black, though.Smiley: rolleyes


One day you may realize just how stupid your "logical" arguments sound.


One day you may realize just how stupid your illogical arguments sound. You're starting out assuming race is the determining factor, and thus rejecting all others. Your starting assumption is your ending conclusion. Which is kinda problematic if you're actually trying to figure out how to generate a solution.

Let's use an example that's not race, since apparently there's a mental block on this. Let's imagine that we hire a group of observers to watch a city street and record every instance in which someone skips down the sidewalk. Imagine if, after collecting data about people skipping down the sidewalk, they realize that a disproportionate number of those who skipped were children. We could propose two explanations for this disproportionate ratio:

1. The observers are biased towards children, and for some reason are consciously or maybe even unconsciously focusing on watching the behavior of children on the street, and thus are allowing their observation bias to skew the results.

2. A higher percentage of children skip than adults.


One of these is a far better and more likely explanation, right? Certainly, in the absence of other evidence, explanation number 2 should be our starting assumption. And when we have other evidence that supports the idea that children skip more often than adults, it should reinforce that explanation. And additional studies of development patterns of children should support it even more, right?

Yet what we have is the equivalent of people insisting that the fact that a higher percentage of children are seen skipping proves that the observers are biased in their observation. Which I find to be completely irrational. That's the equivalent proof of racial bias in Alma's argument. Which, again, I find to be completely irrational. How can we even begin to solve a problem if we're unwilling to be honest about what the problem is? We have a mountain of evidence that the problem stems from black poverty, yet all anyone seems to want to talk about is police bigotry. I get that the second makes for much more anger and resentment and stirs people up. But is that actually productive if your goal is to fix the problem?

I don't think it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Aug 09 2016 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
gbaji wrote:
We have a mountain of evidence that the problem stems from black poverty, yet all anyone seems to want to talk about is police bigotry. I get that the second makes for much more anger and resentment and stirs people up. But is that actually productive if your goal is to fix the problem?

I don't think it is.
Your problem is you are throwing out the possibility that there is any police bigotry (or very, very, very little) so it never enters your equation. Equally humoUrous is your blindness to the idea that bigotry might have quite a bit to do with the poverty problem.

I get that you are a virulent bigot, but all those words of yours really don't hide it.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 106 All times are in CDT
Bijou, ElneClare, Jophiel, lolgaxe, Samira, someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (100)