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:
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.
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
. 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.