Author Topic: Is this offensive?  (Read 2441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +657/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #87 on: July 13, 2012, 10:47:16 AM »
One of the strongest voices in NYC against stop and frisk is City Councilmember Jumaame Williams. 

I hate stop and frisk.  I do not understand how it is legal or constitutional.  I do not understand how we as a society allow it.  That it even exists tells me that Americans have no idea what the Bill of Rights means and everything we like to think about ourselves being free and having liberty is a pleasant myth.  If we were who we think we are, we would have at the very least voted out any politician who thinks it is a good idea.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #88 on: July 13, 2012, 11:00:22 AM »
One of the strongest voices in NYC against stop and frisk is City Councilmember Jumaame Williams.  Ironically, a few months ago, at the city’s West Indian Day Parade, he got a taste of what it feels like to be tackled, put face down on the ground, and handcuffed.

That is truly a sad story. But even sadder when you consider:
Now these two stories are newsworthy because the detained individuals are so clearly in the right.  But the mouthy 18 year old kid?  If a cop says he punched him, whether it happened or not, the charges are assault. And if that kid had a joint in his pocket, or a knife or an expensive piece of jewelry for which he doesn’t happen to have a receipt, he’s not going to college in September.  He’s going to jail.   

That's what scares the shit out of me. True story, my dad was a cop. It should be known that I was not raised by dad, didn't visit my dad, nor did I have anything to do with him during the time of his job as a cop. Allegedly my dad responded to a domestic violence call. When he got there for whatever reason he attempted to detain the man. He ended up using his nightstick on the man. The man died. The problem was after the autopsy they revealed the man was beaten several times after he was dead.

It was explained to me that my dad was asked to take an early retirement. Really? An early retirement, no investigation, no charges? I tried to find this story online numerous times to get more details but the best I can get his hearsay from my mom and vague and angry information from my dad. (I no longer have contact with him. And it's not exactly something I was ever in a place to fully ask about anyways)

But if everything I was told is true then it reaffirms that we live in a very scary world. One where the police can often act with deadly force and their only punishment is early retirement.

Here is some stop and frisk data from NYC in recent years. 

Thank for the source.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +657/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #89 on: July 13, 2012, 11:34:23 AM »
clueless white people:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2012/07/utah-salutes-women-of-color.html

Of course, they're mormon.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1316
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #90 on: July 13, 2012, 04:07:02 PM »
So if we play the game of probabilities how likely is that you will get busted for possession vs dealing/soliciting?

I don't think that works exactly.  At just about every one of those stages, someone caught by law enforcmenet could be arrested for more than just posession, ie attempt to deliver, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy, etc.  If you've just reupped, for example, you've probably got enough on you to be arrested for possession with intent to distribute, even if you haven't bothered bagging/vileing it.

Possession is also easier to prove in court than the intent to sell or distribute. It's also likely that lots of people would plead down to a simple possession charge than a higher charge if offered a plea bargain.

That's very true.  People plea to lower charges all the time.  But we're not talking about drug convictions.  We're talking about drug arrests.

I'm not a hardcore researcher, I don't have stats to back this up, but IMO it seems logical that possession charges would be more frequent than any other drug charges. I'm not even taking in to account that there are prob more drug users than drug dealers so that too would increase the probability.

True.  But what's at issue really isn't what sorts of drug crimes people are being charged for.  The question is why is there such a racial disparity.  I was only zeroing in on the distinction between possession and sales/production because you were trying to use differences you've observed in the behavior of drug dealers of different backgrounds as a possible explanation for that disparity.

Can we pretend we all know what Dr Dre did here? Can we also stop pretending that main stream rappers don't use a "gangster" image to sell albums? I'm not talking about anything that shouldn't be widely known or accepted Timo.

I personally think Dr Dre has a very professional look now one that I think he has is more distinguished. The lyrics in his songs have also progressed. But lets not pretend how he got where he is today wasn't by personifying the gangster image.

Dr. Dre began cultivating his gangster image well over 20 years ago.  And the way he tried to cultivate that image changed over time, as styles changed.  He didn't dress the same way in 88 that he did in 95.  And the picture you posted of him post-World Class Wrecking Crew isn't really even in that gangster era as far as I'm concerned.  I really don't see anything that I'm supposed to code as gangster rather than say, black or urban.  Same with Em.  That's why I asked:

Does this differ significantly from people in the same community and in the same age cohort that are not involved with the drug trade?

In other words, Dre's wearing an oversized Nike shirt in that photo.  Why do you code that as "gangster" as opposed to "athletic"?  And if it's the pose then really, that'd only make sense if drug dealers were walking around making gun fingers at everyone.

You don't have to play coy with me. We all know what I was talking about.

I'm not playing anything.  I really don't what you were talking about.  The examples you gave 10 plus year old, Chronic 2001/Slim Shady LP era images of Dre and Em and I don't think they convey what you think they convey.  And in any case, styles have changed.  The kids have moved on.  Nowadays there are rappers and hippity hop people wearing all kinds of different things:



Kitty Pryde and Danny Brown



Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All



Kreayshawn and Left Brain (of Odd Future)



Kendrick Lamar and Heems (of Das Racist)



Random Axe (Guilty Simpson, Black Milk and Sean Price)



Drake and Lil Wayne



Joell Ortiz and Joe Budden (of Slaughterhouse)



K-Foxx (of Hot 97), Pusha T and Alicia Keys



Nicki Minaj and Nas



Azealia Banks

Can you guess which of the rappers pictured sometimes rap about using and/or selling drugs?  Which one of them would you say is dressed like a typical rapper?

And really, a lot of the rappers that go out of their way try to cultivate a drug dealer image often try to do so by dressing in ways that don't necessarily code as young and black and instead hearken back to movies like Scarface or the Godfather.  For example, here's a few of Rick Ross:







So nah...we don't all know what you mean.

And I'm sure there are plenty of kids/adults who dress like these rappers and who aren't criminals. That's why in your profiling stats you can see a discrepancy in the amounts of innocent people who are profiled, of all races. But we can't ignore some for the sake of all. Meaning you can't pretend that the images, experiences, and types of drug dealers/users exist just because it doesn't always fit the mold. Which was entirely my point.

I think that Quesi's post makes nonsense of this.  The data that the NYPD collected demonstrates that police officers who are on the street all the time, presumably using their best judgement, are still wrong almost every time.  And it's not right to say that there are "plenty of" people that dress a certain way aren't criminals, nearly 90 percent of the people that are profiled are not criminals.

But lets not pretend that there aren't certain stereotypes that exist because people actually fit the mold. The problem is distinguishing when it's okay to search them or accuse them of a crime.

It's okay to search someone for contraband when you have probable cause.  It's okay to search someone for weapons when you have reasonable suspicion that they are armed.  It's not okay to search someone for contraband because they're dressed like they're in a Rick Ross video.

I think you are right to a degree. I'm curious about what alternative you would suggest to the problem of trying to stop non residents from entering the buildings with broken locks? Should police not monitor suspicious behavior in projects? Are there measure that we can take to stop crime in the projects?

I honestly don't know a better way for police to try to protect the people in the projects. Can you agree that the projects can be a dangerous place? What if the police just left and didn't go to the projects at all? Would crime rate increase? How do the police move forward to keep innocent people safe?

I don't think that the danger in that neighborhood is in dispute.  As I wrote, the residents there agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed by the police, even if they don't agree with how the police are handling it.  And I don't think it really makes sense to act as if we must choose between an invasive policy like stop and frisk and no police pressence at all.

As far as what I would do if (Zeus forbid) I were in charge is, I would probably fix the locks, which would probably be cheaper than having two police officers posted up in every project lobby.  I would immediately end stop and frisk, since I believe that it's counterproductive in that it engenders animosity towards law enforcement, which makes people less inclined to cooperate or report crimes.  I would see about adding more recreation and after school programs for the youth, establish some sort of community oversight board for the police, and bring in officers from different cities to discuss best practices.  Or something.
Nah son...

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #91 on: July 13, 2012, 05:49:55 PM »
I don't think that works exactly.  At just about every one of those stages, someone caught by law enforcmenet could be arrested for more than just posession, ie attempt to deliver, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy, etc.  If you've just reupped, for example, you've probably got enough on you to be arrested for possession with intent to distribute, even if you haven't bothered bagging/vileing it.

Possession is also easier to prove in court than the intent to sell or distribute. It's also likely that lots of people would plead down to a simple possession charge than a higher charge if offered a plea bargain.

That's very true.  People plea to lower charges all the time.  But we're not talking about drug convictions.  We're talking about drug arrests.

I'm sorry I must have missed that some where in the pages of stats I read this morning. I thought it was talking about convictions.


True.  But what's at issue really isn't what sorts of drug crimes people are being charged for.  The question is why is there such a racial disparity.  I was only zeroing in on the distinction between possession and sales/production because you were trying to use differences you've observed in the behavior of drug dealers of different backgrounds as a possible explanation for that disparity.

I don't know why there is a racial disparity. I would say there are lots of factors, most of which based on your's and Quesi's stats seem to be caused by racial profiling.

It hard for me to think about because I try to imagine what the cops who are doing these things are thinking. How do we judge their intent? How to do be judge if it's helping more people than it's hurting? These are things I've not thoroughly considered. I appreciate you being patient and thorough with me. As I explained my world view has been limited. I have honestly never discussed this topic outside of my immediate circle of friends or family for fear of offending people.

Dr. Dre began cultivating his gangster image well over 20 years ago.  And the way he tried to cultivate that image changed over time, as styles changed.  He didn't dress the same way in 88 that he did in 95.  And the picture you posted of him post-World Class Wrecking Crew isn't really even in that gangster era as far as I'm concerned.  I really don't see anything that I'm supposed to code as gangster rather than say, black or urban.  Same with Em.  That's why I asked:

Does this differ significantly from people in the same community and in the same age cohort that are not involved with the drug trade?

In other words, Dre's wearing an oversized Nike shirt in that photo.  Why do you code that as "gangster" as opposed to "athletic"?  And if it's the pose then really, that'd only make sense if drug dealers were walking around making gun fingers at everyone.

I'm not playing anything.  I really don't what you were talking about.  The examples you gave 10 plus year old, Chronic 2001/Slim Shady LP era images of Dre and Em and I don't think they convey what you think they convey.  And in any case, styles have changed.  The kids have moved on.  Nowadays there are rappers and hippity hop people wearing all kinds of different things:

<snip>

So nah...we don't all know what you mean.

What I'm trying and apparently failing to express is that it's not just the clothes. It's the complete package, the clothes, demeanor, and also the physical affect drugs have on your body and the way you carry yourself.

Maybe I should try another approach... When you were in school could you, generally speaking, determine who the snobs, jocks, geeks, drug dealers, drug users, goths, emos, punks, musicians, etc were? Sometimes these group of people overlap and mingle amongst each other right? But for the most part people have a social identity. Sometimes this social identity changes.  But generally speaking you could take people from your school and figure out what crowd they hung in right?

Well that's basically the observation I was trying to make originally.[1] That I saw white people who you would never believe in your wildest imagination sold drugs. It would go against everything socially accepted at that time. The principles would have had no clue, wouldn't believe it, and prob would have thought you a liar unless they had proof.

There were people who could blend in to society so much so that you also had no idea they were gay. Or you would have no idea that they were also a closet dungeons and dragon player. Or that they were secretly suicidal. None of these examples are especially good, but I think being able to conceal your drug use or distribution would decrease your chances of a cop wanting to waste their time profiling you.

Then there were people who were so outright flamboyant with their drug use that you really wondered if they even attempted to hide it. In my experience most of these people thought they were partying like Dr Dre, or in my exs example Playa Fly[2]. My ex in particular became enmeshed with rap music and used song lyrics to express his "unique" lifestyle, up bringing, and justify all the injustices in his life. So, perhaps him and his friends have cultivated my unfair treatment of the rap industry but I still get migraines thinking about listening to how he rationalized his life style through music.

But I do know lots of young men and women who looked up to these people as role models. And who thought it was cool to call women derogatory names because some dude did it in a rap video. (I personally loved Nan Nigga by Trick Daddy when I was a teen. Until I went to a Trick Daddy concert and witnessed what fame a greed did to him. But that's another story for another day.)

Any ways, I'm not sure I can articulate what I'm trying to say any differently. It's not some fancy justification for racial profiling. Just an observation and opinion.

I think that Quesi's post makes nonsense of this.  The data that the NYPD collected demonstrates that police officers who are on the street all the time, presumably using their best judgement, are still wrong almost every time.  And it's not right to say that there are "plenty of" people that dress a certain way aren't criminals, nearly 90 percent of the people that are profiled are not criminals.

Well I can't say that. I don't what these people looked like, what reasons they were stopped, what ques the cops read, what guidelines the cops were given, etc. I'm also not saying that it matters. However, if a cop stopped a known crackhead to see if they had crack on them and they just so happened to be not be carrying this time, does it mean the person wasn't really a crackhead as previously profiled?

I can't even begin to understand the situation because I really don't understand the laws and how they are allowed to be interpreted. I'm sure I would be rather pissed off if I was one of the innocent people who got stopped because I was on the wrong side of town, having a bad hair day, tired from being up all night with a baby, had bags under my eyes, and may have looked like a drug user. So I get it, I understand and agree for the most part. I just don't know that I know a better alternative. I'd rather an hour of standing in the heat being searched, embarrassed, etc than know that that cop didn't stop a drug dealer reaching his destination to go shoot some 14 year old for whatever reason. I understand that this is an appeal to emotion, and that I'm sacrificing my civil liberties assuming there was ever a crime to prevent to be stopped. When in fact there may never be a crime worthy of stopping. But I seriously don't know a better alternative.

It's okay to search someone for contraband when you have probable cause.  It's okay to search someone for weapons when you have reasonable suspicion that they are armed.  It's not okay to search someone for contraband because they're dressed like they're in a Rick Ross video.

I agree and should have articulated myself better. It wasn't just about clothing. I tried to articulate myself better above, if I've still failed then IDK what else I can say.

I don't think that the danger in that neighborhood is in dispute.  As I wrote, the residents there agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed by the police, even if they don't agree with how the police are handling it.  And I don't think it really makes sense to act as if we must choose between an invasive policy like stop and frisk and no police pressence at all.

So what is there to chose from? I'm completely naive to current systems that work as well or better so please educate me if you have information that can offer an alternative.

As far as what I would do if (Zeus forbid) I were in charge is, I would probably fix the locks, which would probably be cheaper than having two police officers posted up in every project lobby.  I would immediately end stop and frisk, since I believe that it's counterproductive in that it engenders animosity towards law enforcement, which makes people less inclined to cooperate or report crimes.  I would see about adding more recreation and after school programs for the youth, establish some sort of community oversight board for the police, and bring in officers from different cities to discuss best practices.  Or something.

I think that's a good start. The locks being a primary response. I forget if they mentioned it in the video but if these were government owned buildings there's no excuse for them to not be repaired. The fact that they are left unrepaired is telling of other issues than crime in that neighborhood.

I love the idea of afterschool programs, but what if it's not safe for the children to get there. Like what if the walk to/from school to this location isn't safe? Should the cops be around during those hours to make sure no one interrupts the children's ability to get to and from safely? How much police involvement is okay. What if a "suspicious character" walks up to one of the children and the cop stops him and searches him. Only to find out it was the brother who was just trying to great their sibling? I'm sure it's not an easy job they are asking these officers to do.

When I was a teen I was a bit unruly. There were lots of officers in and out of my house. Mostly because my mom thought a domestic argument always meant the cops needed to be called. Most of these cops talked down to me like I was just a stupid kid. They made sure I knew I had no legal rights and that they could send me to a night in the detention center even if what my mom's claim was a lie and she had no proof. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure several of them broke rights numerous times, and at the very least were guilty of police intimidation. But there was one officer, Officer Lusk. He was a hard ass but he also he always treated me with respect and listen to my side. He had to arrest me once or twice because I was truant and got caught skipping school. But he was pivotal in my becoming a "better me" as I like to call it. A few years later he responded to a call for my brother and I got the opportunity to thank him for guiding me to the correct path.

Any ways, you see Timo, I'm not unfamiliar with police abusing their powers to intimidate and even harass people. I can't even begin to tell you how pissed off I was at times. It sucks when people try to break you down and turn you in to an ant with no rights or power. I don't think we should accept this from our officers. I think there are also a valuable asset who, when use the right methods, can help people. I just don't always know where that line is.
 1. Also keep in mind this was over a decade ago, I don't have any current examples because my life style shifted to associate with people with common interests. Also as adults you tend to start losing more of the stereotypical labels and develop more of an independent social identity.
 2. http://artistwiki.com/playa-fly/biography
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1316
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #92 on: July 14, 2012, 04:07:37 PM »
I'm sorry I must have missed that some where in the pages of stats I read this morning. I thought it was talking about convictions.

We can talk about convictions too.  But I was just using drug arrests as my example.  The statistics I brought up, the ones that you responded to, were arrest statistics and so I don't see how the fact that people often make plea agreements should really enter into it...though it probably is important to remember that when someone tells you that such and such percentage of people in prison are "non-violent drug offenders," there is a portion of that population that are actually drug-dealers that copped a plea.  No doubt.

It hard for me to think about because I try to imagine what the cops who are doing these things are thinking. How do we judge their intent?

I don't know how much we really can.  For one thing, I don't think that racial bias is always or even usually a malicious or even a conscious thing.  The football players in that video are, I think, a pretty good example of that.  The police that were stopping them may or may not have been profiling them because they were young and black, but when they started carrying their helmets home, the police could see immediately what those kids were about and didn't feel compelled to deal with them.  In other words, the police probably weren't acting out of any kind of animosity towards black youth but were instead making assumptions about them because they were black youths.  But they had no problem with throwing out those assumptions when they saw their helmets.

What I'm trying and apparently failing to express is that it's not just the clothes. It's the complete package, the clothes, demeanor, and also the physical affect drugs have on your body and the way you carry yourself.

I completely disagree with you about using clothes (aside from say, gang colors in gang neighborhoods) but with the rest of it, there's no problem with police stopping someone that they believe might be intoxicated, especially when we're talking about vehicle stops.  And if you've been arrested and convicted for a drug charge, if you're a 'known' to the police as a  'crackhead' isn't it more likely than not that you are on probation and could therefore probably be legally compelled to submit to a search whether or not a police has a warrant?

But I do know lots of young men and women who looked up to these people as role models. And who thought it was cool to call women derogatory names because some dude did it in a rap video. (I personally loved Nan Nigga by Trick Daddy when I was a teen. Until I went to a Trick Daddy concert and witnessed what fame a greed did to him. But that's another story for another day.)

Indeed.  You're reminding me of my dude J-Zone's story about how repeating things he heard in songs used to get him in trouble:

http://www.egotripland.com/j-zone-5-rap-songs-that-got-me-in-deep-sht/

In his case, it was probably excusable seeing as how he was in junior high though. 

Well I can't say that. I don't what these people looked like, what reasons they were stopped, what ques the cops read, what guidelines the cops were given, etc. I'm also not saying that it matters. However, if a cop stopped a known crackhead to see if they had crack on them and they just so happened to be not be carrying this time, does it mean the person wasn't really a crackhead as previously profiled?


Actually, let me correct myself.  I wrote that 90 percent of those profiled were innocent.  That was a mistatement.  We don't know how many were profiled.  I've seen one estimate that at least 30 percent of the stops made in NYC (in 2009 I think) were probably unconstitutional but presumably there are many more stops that are completely warrented.  If someone appears to be intoxicated, for example, a police would be justified in stopping and questioning them.

And even in other circumstances, there are cases where the police will detain and even arrest an individual that will later be found to be completley innocent of any wrong doing, where the police were doing everything exactly as you would want them to.  Let me give you an example.  With that whole Treyvon Martin thing, everyone got to talking about 'the talk' that we black and brown people give to our young, and especially our young men about how they can expect to be treated by society at large and especially by law enforcement.  Well, a few weeks before Mr. Martin was killed, I had the dubious honor of giving that sort of talk to one of my friend's sons when I picked him up from the police station.  Little dude is 15, he's mixed race (black and Mexican, aka black with "good" hair) and he was caught outside of his girlfriend's house attempting to sneak in through her bedroom window, which is visible from the street.  They had apparently been texting back and forth before he walked over but he didn't get the text where she said she had to leave to go out to dinner with her parents.  Everything was eventually sorted out but I think it's important to say that this was an instance where the police behaved exactly as they should have.  They found a kid trying to get into a house through a window that claimed to have been invited even though the house was empty.  And they were perfect gentlement throughout the whole process.  (Even little dude didn't have shit bad to say about them.)

Still, that being said, if we know that at least 30 percent of stops are unwarrented and possibly racial profiling and that the rest are either legitimate stops or exist in that grey area and that 90 percent of stops overall are going to yeild nothing, what should we make of the efficacy of this program?

I'd rather an hour of standing in the heat being searched, embarrassed, etc than know that that cop didn't stop a drug dealer reaching his destination to go shoot some 14 year old for whatever reason.

Couldn't I just as easily wonder if maybe the police were wasting their time with you and missing your hypothetical murderous addicts in the process of (probably illegally) detaining and searching you?  And wouldn't the distrust that frequent stops, stops that the community finds to be excessive and unwarrented, cause that community to view police with suspicion and thus make them less likely to report crimes or cooperate with criminal investigations, which would thus make law enforcement less able to prevent crime and catch criminals?  Wouldn't that kind of environment make it easier for murderous folks to get away with murdering people?

I love the idea of afterschool programs, but what if it's not safe for the children to get there. Like what if the walk to/from school to this location isn't safe? Should the cops be around during those hours to make sure no one interrupts the children's ability to get to and from safely? How much police involvement is okay. What if a "suspicious character" walks up to one of the children and the cop stops him and searches him. Only to find out it was the brother who was just trying to great their sibling? I'm sure it's not an easy job they are asking these officers to do.

I actually kind of know a little bit about after school programs.  I'm pretty sure that most after-school programs, at least most programs in the LA area, whether they're administered by the school district or by an outside group, either work at the school site or pick their students up from their school site in a bus or a van.  Also, as far as students possibly walking to off site programs goes, if the area between their school site and the program site is dangerous, that probably means that their walk home from school site, no matter what, is going to be dangerous and so it's kind of a moot point.  Danger is something this child will have to deal with.  It's baked into the cake.  As for suspicious persons, most school campuses I've been to have had a police officer assigned until at least 4 or 5 o'clock.  If someone shows up to pick up a child they can be asked to show some kind of ID or, more often, the child will simply identify them.  Unless you're talking about an older child, like a junior high or high school student, children usually have a list of five or so people that are allowed to pick that child up from the program on file, unless their parents say otherwise.  And junior high and high school kids tend to be able to just walk home whenever they want to.
Nah son...

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #93 on: July 14, 2012, 05:30:03 PM »
This is a crazy good discussion about race, police, crime, profiling, discrimination, how different people see and experience the world. This is the kind of talk that should have happened in the US after Trayvon Martin was shot. This is the discussion we should be having all over this country, all the time.

A few mentions: I would not want to be a police officer in a country where every fool has a gun. Period. I feel for police, who have to make the call every second whether a person is going for a pencil, a wallet or something that will kill them. Seems to me that the conservatives would be all for gun control to help protect the police, but they are too paranoid (afraid of black folks?) themselves.

Institutionalized racism means that an individual cop does not have to hold hatred of blacks or latinos. It means that certain clothing styles or behavior will be interpreted wrongly as meaning "dangerous criminal" when it really means "young person of color". That is why some (white) people said stuff like, "well, he was wearing a hoodie, so that means he was going to do something wrong" implying that Trayvon's shooting was some kind of pre-emptive strike.

I teach young people and I know how they dress. As the stats show, 90% of them are not involved in any dangerous criminal activity. But they will get followed, harrassed, stopped, searched and arrested, when they have done nothing wrong. Some kids adopt a tough "gangster" pose because they are actually terrified a lot of the time. Like the little dude in Timo's story, they know that one stupid thing: wrong move, wrong remark or wrong facial expression that would be ignored in a white kid could mean they end up in jail or shot.

We are not a safer society when the police are spending time on innocent people, basically creating criminals out of whole cloth. The real bad guys are the drug kingpins and the so-called legit business people who make money off of poverty and screw all of us into the ground. When the police start following, harrassing, stopping, searching and arresting bankers for destroying people's lives, we will see the really big (white collar) crime rates fall.[1]

Last point. Why isn't Lindsey Lohan in jail on a 15-20? If she was poor, black, latino or any of the above, she would not see the light of day for a long time.
 1. Violent crime goes down when the economy improves, when society invests in communities,  and when young people age out of the stupid years.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #94 on: July 14, 2012, 05:46:00 PM »
I completely disagree with you about using clothes (aside from say, gang colors in gang neighborhoods)

I see your point. Especially when considering the football player story. I'm not sure I've changed my mind but I will think about it further. You could be entirely right, I just need more time to absorb the idea and think it through.


Actually, let me correct myself.  I wrote that 90 percent of those profiled were innocent.  That was a mistatement.  We don't know how many were profiled.  I've seen one estimate that at least 30 percent of the stops made in NYC (in 2009 I think) were probably unconstitutional but presumably there are many more stops that are completely warrented.  If someone appears to be intoxicated, for example, a police would be justified in stopping and questioning them.

Glad you pointed that out. I wasn't even considering it on that level.

I had the dubious honor of giving that sort of talk to one of my friend's sons when I picked him up from the police station.

I don't think that's any different from a talk I would have with my daughters if I was in a similar situation. I'm pretty sure I would make sure they knew if they weren't using the front door it was prob a bad idea to start with. I was notorious for sneaking out of my window at night. (I really was not a good teenager.) So I know all about going in and out of windows. I had to borrow my neighbors ladder once to get back in, that was embarrassing. But my point is that we should be having these talks with our kids, or children we mentor no matter what their race is. My mom never took the time to give me any kinda talk about anything, and I can see now as parent myself how such conversations could have helped prevent me from having to learn things the hard way.

Couldn't I just as easily wonder if maybe the police were wasting their time with you and missing your hypothetical murderous addicts in the process of (probably illegally) detaining and searching you?  And wouldn't the distrust that frequent stops, stops that the community finds to be excessive and unwarrented, cause that community to view police with suspicion and thus make them less likely to report crimes or cooperate with criminal investigations, which would thus make law enforcement less able to prevent crime and catch criminals?  Wouldn't that kind of environment make it easier for murderous folks to get away with murdering people?

I hadn't considered that. I agree that your perspective is likely as well. I still don't know an alternative.

I actually kind of know a little bit about after school programs.  I'm pretty sure that most after-school programs, at least most programs in the LA area, whether they're administered by the school district or by an outside group, either work at the school site or pick their students up from their school site in a bus or a van.

That's good to know. We don't do any after school programs so I have no experience with them.

Timo,
I have really enjoyed this conversation. You have given me a few things to think more about. It's obvious we as a society still have a lot more progress to make. I don't personally know of better alternatives but the first way to start change is to think about it and discussing it. Thank you for doing so in a friendly manner.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #95 on: July 14, 2012, 07:05:59 PM »
I would not want to be a police officer in a country where every fool has a gun. Period. I feel for police, who have to make the call every second whether a person is going for a pencil, a wallet or something that will kill them.  <snip>

Like the little dude in Timo's story, they know that one stupid thing: wrong move, wrong remark or wrong facial expression that would be ignored in a white kid could mean they end up in jail or shot.

Slightly off-topic, but this is something that we don't have to worry about in the UK. As our regular police don't carry guns, we don't have to worry about being shot by them if we're stopped for something.

And likewise, because people aren't licensed to carry guns, the police are less jumpy about sudden movements.

Not that our police are paragons of virtue; they're not, and institutional racism and other corruption (see the Leveson enquiry) are ongoing problems.

But it's nice that they don't carry guns.

Sorry, carry on.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +657/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #96 on: July 14, 2012, 09:15:51 PM »
A few mentions: I would not want to be a police officer in a country where every fool has a gun. Period. I feel for police, who have to make the call every second whether a person is going for a pencil, a wallet or something that will kill them. Seems to me that the conservatives would be all for gun control to help protect the police, but they are too paranoid (afraid of black folks?) themselves.

I don't feel for police.  I think if you cannot do the job without feeling completely paranoid, ready to blow away anyone at any moment, then that is not the job for you.  I have a problem with them being every benefit of the doubt when they shoot someone.  I think it is a problem that they get to kill people because they feel threatened and when it turns out they were wrong there are no repercussions.

These people are supposed to be protecting us.  but for some reason, their subculture creates a division between them and us, and everyone who is not a cop, is a suspect.  I could be wrong about that. Their attitudes could be very different.  But this is how it seems to me.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #97 on: July 15, 2012, 09:17:12 AM »
I'll try and come back with some intelligent contributions later, but I just saw this on facebook and could not resist posting. 


Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #98 on: July 15, 2012, 09:05:24 PM »
You know, I think that geography has a lot to do with it.  And it becomes a vicious circle.

Quite a few years back, during the Giuliani administration, I was invited to a public forum with the police to discuss issues in our neighborhoods.  It was a good idea.  A few hundred people, mostly people of color, who cared about their communities, in a medium sized auditorium, with a bunch of beat cops and brass on stage with microphones, discussing policies and practices.

I’ll never forget one woman.  She was dressed elegantly, with a hat and gloves, in her Sunday best, to attend the meeting.

She stood up and said, “My son works at LaGuardia Airport.  He gets home from work every night at 2 AM.  Every night at 2 AM he crosses xyz street and goes to abc bodega and buys a roast beef sandwich and a diet pepsi.  And every night you stop him, and pat him down and make him open up his bag and show you his roast beef sandwich and diet pepsi.  Why is my son being harassed every night?”

And a police officer responded without missing a beat.  “That is a known drug intersection, ma’am.  Your son should not be out there at 2 AM.” 

There was a pause.  Silence in the room, as the community members tried to absorb the police response.  Another cop stepped up to the microphone, and said “Maybe you could cook his dinner for him ma’am.” 

I think he meant it as a joke.  And the cops in the room laughed.  But the community members didn’t laugh. 

The cop had already told her it was her fault that he son was being frisked on a nightly basis.  She raised him in the wrong neighborhood.  Then another cop insulted her role as the mother of a young adult son, who had what was probably a good union job at the airport. 

So nogodsforme should have moved from her nice apartment, walking distance from work, to avoid harassment.  This mom, and/or her son, should have moved from their neighborhood surrounded by drug dealers to avoid harassment.  When does it stop being a question of personal responsibility, and start being recognized as an institutionalized problem? 

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #99 on: July 17, 2012, 03:34:52 PM »
^^^^Word. As we used to say back in the day. Back in the hood.

My (white) boss and coworkers seemed to have the attitude of "Well, what do you expect, as a black female person? Aren't you used to eating nice big plates of sh!t everyday anyway?"

As a feisty black female friend of mine says, I expect to be treated exactly the same as a wealthy white man is treated. I quit that job and moved back to Chicago.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #100 on: July 17, 2012, 04:56:40 PM »
As a feisty black female friend of mine says, I expect to be treated exactly the same as a wealthy white man is treated.

Don't we all?
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #101 on: July 17, 2012, 04:58:03 PM »
When does it stop being a question of personal responsibility, and start being recognized as an institutionalized problem?

We can be accountable for ourselves as much as humanly possible, if after that the system fails then we know where the problem is.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #102 on: July 17, 2012, 05:20:31 PM »
I don't feel for police.  I think if you cannot do the job without feeling completely paranoid, ready to blow away anyone at any moment, then that is not the job for you. 

I'm sure even the most noble of cops have human emotions that let them down from time to time. We could only eliminate that with robocops, but then we have an entirely new set of problems.

I have a problem with them being every benefit of the doubt when they shoot someone.  I think it is a problem that they get to kill people because they feel threatened and when it turns out they were wrong there are no repercussions.

I agree 100%.

These people are supposed to be protecting us.  but for some reason, their subculture creates a division between them and us, and everyone who is not a cop, is a suspect.  I could be wrong about that. Their attitudes could be very different.  But this is how it seems to me.

It's like that in other portions of society. We seem to have this tendency to let authoritative roles assume dominate positions. I see it at work everyday. We have various tiers of employees. The higher the tier the higher the pay grade. Each tier typically only mingles with people of the same rank. Those higher typically talk about how stupid the lower tiers are and those lower typically talk about how snobby the higher tiers are. It's all rather humerus to watch from the sidelines, office politics aren't a game I play so I typically fly under the radar which has it's own down side. But for some reason when someone gets a promotion they become the bad guy to the team they just left. Occasionally they will still mingle with their previous peers but eventually it seems like the associate begins to isolate to the current rank only. And then the cycle repeats.

Before I got my current role I had several of my current peers talk down to me and treat me like I was inferior even though I had never done anything to warrant that treatment. When I got a promotion they no longer treat me that way. So magically over night a new found title changes who I was as a coworker? Not really, I'm the same me, no new skills, no new training, I just have more control over my accounts. But some how now I'm magically treated with the respect I deserved in the first place. A promotion, pay grade, or tier level shouldn't warrant how we treat our coworkers. I doubt these people really sit around and consciously do this stuff either. My feelings are that it's so ingrained in us most people aren't even aware that they respond to one another the way they do.[1]

Our social hierarchy seems to dictate how we treat each other. It's not really a new concept or phenomenon either. (See below.) We can tie to to more than just race, job title, income, poverty level, etc. We are so judgemental of one another that I often wonder how we ever manage to coexist at all. And it's pretty common that power corrupts people. You can watch this social hierarchy at the smallest level even here on the forum if you engage in any forum politics you will see that it eventually becomes admin VS member. (Ask HAL he was treated this way numerous times, for no reason other than he was the man on top.)

 1. I spend a lot of time watching social interactions because it intrigues me.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 05:23:50 PM by Kimberly »
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Online LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1214
  • Darwins +125/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #103 on: July 17, 2012, 08:02:57 PM »


 
I can't speak for Chris Rock, but I don't understand why you think that this is coming from a place of self-pity. 

He's a comedian! Lighten up, Francis!
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Online LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1214
  • Darwins +125/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #104 on: July 17, 2012, 08:16:53 PM »
A few mentions: I would not want to be a police officer in a country where every fool has a gun. Period. I feel for police, who have to make the call every second whether a person is going for a pencil, a wallet or something that will kill them. Seems to me that the conservatives would be all for gun control to help protect the police, but they are too paranoid (afraid of black folks?) themselves.

I don't feel for police.  I think if you cannot do the job without feeling completely paranoid, ready to blow away anyone at any moment, then that is not the job for you.


Police are unionized.  They have access to councellors, good health insurance and plenty of vacation time.  If the stresses of the job get to them they should use it.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +657/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #105 on: July 18, 2012, 07:03:36 AM »
It's like that in other portions of society.

I do not disagree with what you said, but I think with cops and certain other professions it is different.  It is not so much a hierarchy things as it is they have their own subculture.  Because of their job hours, because they are such a tight knit group, because "civilians" cannot always relate to them, they tend to be very insular and often do not have friends outside their profession.  This creates a very...myopic and distorted view of the world.  And their reaction to the world is based on that view.

Car salesmen are similar. 
http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/confessions-of-a-car-salesman.html

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Kimberly

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #106 on: July 18, 2012, 08:24:44 AM »
Because of their job hours, because they are such a tight knit group, because "civilians" cannot always relate to them, they tend to be very insular and often do not have friends outside their profession.  This creates a very...myopic and distorted view of the world.  And their reaction to the world is based on that view.

Oh I see. Yes, that would be dangerous.

I remember one of my friends when they came home from being overseas in the war. He basically said he hated civilians that we just could live up to his moral, ethical, and whatever other expectations the army made for him. We just weren't up to par so to speak. Perhaps this is a similar problem? My friend overcame his perception on civilians after he became reacclimated with society.

Perhaps we should find a way to make the police interact outside of themselves? Such as perhaps X amounts of community service per month with young kids, teenagers, other adults, elderly, and disabled folks (Of all races)? IDK maybe it would only add to the resentment they already seem to have against society? But it could remind them of the greater parts of our society other than crime.

Edit to add: When all you live, breathe and witness everyday is crime I can see how you would see everyone as criminal. IDK that there's much we can do to stop that conditioning as I'm sure it's a coping mechanism of sorts.
Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +657/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #107 on: July 18, 2012, 12:28:02 PM »
Perhaps this is a similar problem?

I think so.  People who volunteer for the military self select and frequently come from "military families" that have a history of generations of military service.  They cultivate a sense of superiority for defending our rights while simultaneously thinking we do not deserve them.  Society and the media reinforce this by lionizing anyone in a uniform.   They are not all heroes.  This is one reason I think we should reinstate the draft (without exception for money, college, etc).  Getting a broader selection of society will make the military more representative and less insular.

Not coincidentally, a lot of ex-military end up as cops.  And a lot of cops come from cop families that have served for several generations.

Perhaps we should find a way to make the police interact outside of themselves?

Maybe, I dunno.  I don't know how you would do that. 

Perhaps we should just look at the way they police and adjust?  Maybe we make policing a little less like cowboys and indians?  Maybe we crack down on police corruption?  Why are cops who are not responding to emergencies allowed to break pretty much every traffic law?

Or perhaps we draft a certain percentage of police recruits?

anyway, I digress from the topic.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Is this offensive?
« Reply #108 on: July 18, 2012, 04:20:12 PM »
These are all good ideas to consider. Esp. the draft (with very few deferments) for military and community police service. Maybe local police sevice for people with families who want to stay near home, and overseas military for single people? Let more people handle the load, and let the police and military be part of the community.

Also, more police training on how to detect and deal with drugged up or mentally ill people besides tasering or shooting them. I would guess that relatively few people in their right minds want to engage physically with the police.  Would be nice if we treated and cared for the low-income mentally ill instead of throwing them out onto the street to fend for themselves, or expecting families to deal with them with no help or resources.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.