Unarmed black shot in the back by white cop
- Thread starter holyearth
- Start date
Your anti-religious comments earlier could not derail the thread, so why not try 9/11?
Related topic: Police departments refusing to hire individuals who have too high of an IQ (as a matter of explicit policy).
Examples: https://www.google.com/search?q=police+won't+hire+high+iq
Cops just suck
White guy getting a beating
Sheriff Orders Immediate Internal Investigation Into Arrest Seen on "Disturbing" Video | NBC Southern California
White guy getting a beating
Sheriff Orders Immediate Internal Investigation Into Arrest Seen on "Disturbing" Video | NBC Southern California
No need for that - I've heard it as the acronym for Law Enforcement Officers and use it as a catch-all. I'm not sure how widely used that is though.
Anyway, I like and agree with your post. The broader "black" profile is far to wide to be useful, but it underscores an important point: that some level of profiling is necessary. Far too many people refuse to even acknowledge this point. The current system needs improvement no doubt, but wherever you draw the line it will never be perfect. So where can we start without offending someone? The way you talk? Walk? Dress? Act? All of these should be included in a profile, but it meets resistance because it's not popular to think that you can judge a book by it's cover. As if outward appearance isn't a reflection of the inner personality. We're told that everyone has value and should be loved for who they are and what they do. You see this often when we see teams of people trying to figure out what "childhood issue" caused them to kill another, and that somehow it's not their fault. I'm of the opinion that if you present yourself as an unkempt animal, through your actions and appearance, you deserve to be treated as such.
So we're left with a system that we know is broken, but why? It gives rise to a lot of questions. Sure, some cops suck. Most people suck too. Both sides seem to refuse to use common sense a lot of times. Are cops justified in how they react to people by appearance? Why not? When a person is being questioned by cop, they both know the other viewes them with some level of distrust, so they get overly cautious or agressive quicker than they should. Hell, I'm guilty of that myself. It's a downward sprial as things get worse. People today go out of their way to try and get am overreaction from any officer, simply to videotape it and "prove that cops are assholes." I'm not offering any sort of fixes either, because I don't know what the answer is, and as UG said, it's not going to be figured out here.
I've been fairly critical of the public instead of cops for a reason. Most people here are anti-law, and it's very easy to find example after example of shitty cops, police brutality, and law enfocement overstepping their bounds. Everyone here knows that. I too think that the system is broken from the top down, and that laws need to be reigned in significantly. That is really the bigger problem, and although it is related, dealing with the behaviors of those at the "top" is a different beast than dealing with those at the "bottom". I just think it's important as you think about what changes you'd like to see, to keep in mind that the motivations, worries and day-to-day thoughts of cops in the street differ from the "law makers" and that the people cops have to deal with are shitty to a large degree.
So many people are content to say "all cops are evil, and the system is evil, get rid of it." It's not even a productive line of thought because short of a world-wide catastrophe, this country isn't returning to lawless barbarism any time soon. Even if that were the case, pretending that they have the capacity to protect yourself under that circumstance in any meaningful way is laughable.
My son is a 24 year old white male with LONG hair he gets pulled over constantly for shit that results in no ticket. The cops say ... you rolled through the stop, stupid shit like that. But at the end of the day it is because he has long hair. He is being profiled.
Cops suck PERIOD. I don't trust them. I don't respect them. They suck. Truth is all of the judicial system sucks. Corrupt assholes justifying their existence mostly by locking up WAY too many people for low level crime. Starting with the cops and ending with the judges... The brunt of that injustice is dolled out on the poor.
Cops suck PERIOD. I don't trust them. I don't respect them. They suck. Truth is all of the judicial system sucks. Corrupt assholes justifying their existence mostly by locking up WAY too many people for low level crime. Starting with the cops and ending with the judges... The brunt of that injustice is dolled out on the poor.
amazing...the suspect gets on the ground spread out in total submission position face/body down on the ground, and yet several cops all rush in and kicks the suspect 17 times, punches him 37 times. absolutely unnecessary violence toward the suspect. all they needed was to have couple of cops 'knee down' on the suspect's back to immobilize the suspect in order to apply the handcuffs. amazing...in many ways this is worse than the rodney king beatings. (with rodney king there were some amt of 'gray areas' of rodney resisting arrest. but in this situation, i don't see any 'gray areas' in this video. the suspect was totally spread on the ground in a submission position...).
I have no idea why that didn't occur to me. It now seems intuitive.
Absolutely agree. The purpose of profiling - at least, with respect to identifying intent on the part of suspected criminals - is to forecast actions based on whether an individual meets select criteria associated with those actions.
As you note, it's far from a perfect science. But I cringe at the thought of cops using an insufficient list of criteria to forecast actions.
Thus far, our conversation has been focused on the rightness or wrongness of cops looking at blacks through a harsher lens than whites. But we can easily substitute skin color with employment status, number of years living in the U.S., sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc., and arrive at the same conclusion. That is, a profile built on an overly-simplistic model (e.g. "That dude is a muslim! He's probably the one who did it!") is certain to yield a high number of false positives. (It is also likely to lead to false negatives, but that's a lesser problem in my view.)
I don't mind people taking offense. In fact, I'd say profiling on any level is impossible without at least some of the targeted group taking offense.
As you probably know, criminal profiling is a contested science. It has advocates and critics. And certainly, the manner in which LEOs seem to apply it - e.g. race/gender/age - deserves close scrutiny.
Outward appearance and mannerisms are definitely criteria that should be used. But they should be joined by many others. The overly-simplistic race/gender/age profile seemingly used by cops - at least, when it comes to confronting blacks - is akin to Google profiling sites based on link popularity. It's primitive, inadequate and doomed to yield poor results.
I agree. However, cops differ from people in a very important way: they operate based on a unique set of incentives and disincentives. That, of course, is a whole 'nuther conversation.
I prefer to consider the effectiveness of a cop's reaction to appearance rather than the justification for it. Appearance alone is a very primitive form of profiling, not far removed from the use of skin color. Without other - perhaps more useful - criteria, it is doomed to yield poor results (both false positives and false negatives).
An example: In my late teens and early 20s, I had hair down to my waist (I played rock guitar in a band). This was long before everyone inked up, so extremely long hair on a guy was a spectacle.
Cops used to stop me for no reason. To be fair, they were nice about it. This was long before the militarization of police agencies. But they were still working with a primitive profile. As such, my friends and I were regular false positives.
Such people are foolish. Entertaining, but foolish. (I'm excluding the few who might have a monetary or branding incentive to act that way.)
I have great disdain for cops because they have willingly and knowingly stepped forward to accept payment with monies taken from me to serve as herding dogs to me and mine. I feel the same way about IRS agents and myriad others.
But again, that's off-topic.
For what it's worth, I'm not anti-law (and not suggesting you said so). I'm very pro-law. But I believe law should spring from natural rights involving private property (including ownership of self), not the arbitrary dictates of a continuous rotation of state agents.
I agree to a point. Much depends on the cop's beat.
I have a friend who is a private investigator. He was with the LAPD for more than 25 years, and has a jaded view of Los Angeles residents. By contrast, I've spoken with a few cops working the "better parts" of Orange County. They seem far less jaded, probably because the majority of the people they meet aren't as shitty.
The problem is the system of incentives and disincentives, granted via a legal monopoly on law enforcement, that compels cops. The cops in my city have zero competition. They have near-zero concern about consequences for acting poorly (sans a video going viral, of course).
That would make for a good discussion.
just to add on my previous post.
rant:
I'm now seeing major media outlets like cnn, etc, discussing what they saw in the video above (re: horse thief) and debating whether this was excessive force or not. amzing. what's there to debate about? it's sad how much the major media entities have changed. the U.S. press used to be the defenders of the common man, the weak, the defenseless, etc. they used to stand up against tyranny, the powerful who abused their powers, etc. now i see them as nothing more than 'crisis mgmt actors' who're so worried about inciting the masses, or propaganda machines for the powerful. ppl have often mentioned about this here & how they hated the major media outlets for this, so it's definitely nothing new being said. still, i just needed to say it. :disgust:
Statistics are fun. You have the statistics that show a higher percentage of blacks committing homicide, assault, etc. But, forgetting percentages and per-capita, a larger number of white people are committing murder and/or aggravated assault...because it's a larger population. Thus, as an individual, trying to protect themselves, isn't the cop more likely to be killed by a white person?
Let's see (fbi stats) ... yep.
So skewed from a per-capita basis, but if you're betting on the race of the next person to kill a cop, betting on black isn't smart
Or, tl/dr, statistics show whatever you want them to.
Except that 7 times more white people than black were stopped/interacted with to arrive at those figures.
Which just means that people are uneducated. It has nothing to do with the colour of the persons skin. You don't see educated black people going on murder rampages. In fact, we view that uneducated portion of society (regardless of colour) exactly how you do.
Stop being ridiculous.
Blacks are also over-represented in white collar crime. I think low average IQ is more likely a contributing cause. The average white has a higher IQ than something like 85% of all blacks.
Yes, stop being ridiculous. There is more to it than education, unless by education you are speaking about something greater than what a person learns in school.
I am. To be absolutely clear this is a class issue not a skin colour issue. To those of you that actually believe that skin pigmentation leads to violence....
If that makes you feel better about yourself. Sure. All the black people I associate with are professors, researchers, investment bankers, founders, PhD candidates or neuroscientists. I would love to see you walk into one of our meetups and start this discussion. Laughter is good for the soul.
I didn't say there weren't any smart blacks. Of course, there are. That doesn't change the fact that the average black IQ in the US is around 85. The average white IQ is around 100. The average black IQ in Africa is around 70. And the average east Asian IQ is slightly higher than the average white IQ.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. Just take a look at sub-Saharan Africa. Then take a look at Europe. Also, the wheel was never invented in sub-Saharan Africa. No need to hate, bro.
