Police Brutality.

[Goatzbro]

As we all know, there has been much debate recently on the topic of police brutality. While a lot of it has been hyped by the media in the wake of the deaths of Eric Garner (New York), Mike Brown (Fergusson) and Freddie Grey (Baltimore), my question is whether or not this hype is justified. Do we (the U.S) have a problem with police brutality?

In terms of my personal connection with it, I have an uncle who was the most crooked cop imaginable. Some of the shit that he got away with was just disturbing and not even in the interest of public safety.

I guess I just want to have a rational and informed debate on whether or not the extent of police authority needs to be relaxed.

For those who are not from the U.S, we have a set of fundamental liberties called our "constitutional rights", most of which are from the "Bill of Rights".

I will paraphrase the important ones:
1. Freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, and general expression.
2. Right to bear arms.
4. Right against unwarranted search and seizure (with the exception of probable cause to have committed a felony or confirmed visual by an officer that a felony is occurring).
5. Right to remain silent.
8. Protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In the U.S often times police officers will get away with infringing upon these because of their position. It is very rare that an officer will actually be prosecuted and convicted of their crimes (usually it is because they are being filmed, but this is rare).

I guess my question is, do we need stricter legislation on officers to prevent them from infringing on our rights and getting away with it?

[ClaraWho]

Well that is a very loaded question. It assumes they are actually infringing on your rights. Are they? Are they personally infringing on your rights? On your neighbours? On your teachers? Etc.

In terms of 'no charges tend to be brought unless it is filmed', a lot of times these things don't reach mainstream press. Certainly not nationally. Disgraced officers are usually fired, taken to court, and charged accordingly. They just don't tend to publicise it unless someone gets killed unlawfully.

If we look at these 3 incidents in 3 different States, compared to the millions of police officers and millions of jobs they do CORRECTLY, I'd say the vast majority of police officers are decent people risking their lives to keep you safe.

A single wrongful killing is of course unacceptable, but one (or 3 unconnected) officer's actions do not accurately reflect the USA's entire police force. I guarantee for every negative story there are more than a thousand positive ones.

Scum exist in every walk of life. They are unavoidable, but hopefully more can be done to mitigate their impact before they are uncovered. Limiting police power will only allow more crime to occur and go unpunished.

It has been banded around in the media that weapons should be restricted (less powerful) for police. I guess if you're going to just sell guns to anyone in your country (as a misinterpreted 'right') then it's a balancing act. Cus who would want to be a U.S. cop without a half decent firearm, when all the bad guys have assault/sniper rifles and automatic handguns...

~ Clara

[Goatzbro]

I agree with your point on the fact that we can not generalize these 3 specific cases. However, I cherry-picked a few of the most damning. What I am mostly referring to is the harassment or "Stop and Frisk" tactics of police officers conducted against minorities or anyone whom an officer has an agenda against.

Essentially, it is all too often that citizens (often minorities) are assumed guilty and must prove their innocence, when in reality our rights say that it is the other way around.

I'm just tired of policemen going around assuming that everyone is out looking to commit crimes, when that kind of mentality in fact increases crime. It creates a nationalism among ethnic groups/ street communities and creates gangs, who are responsible for a lot of the violence and crime. It's a vicious cycle and the police are liable. They need to be the end of the nationalism and stop promoting the perpetual circuit of poverty, crime, and jail.

[Sugaree]

As we all know, there has been much debate recently on the topic of police brutality. While a lot of it has been hyped by the media in the wake of the deaths of Eric Garner (New York), Mike Brown (Fergusson) and Freddie Grey (Baltimore), my question is whether or not this hype is justified. Do we (the U.S) have a problem with police brutality?

In terms of my personal connection with it, I have an uncle who was the most crooked cop imaginable. Some of the shit that he got away with was just disturbing and not even in the interest of public safety.

I guess I just want to have a rational and informed debate on whether or not the extent of police authority needs to be relaxed.

For those who are not from the U.S, we have a set of fundamental liberties called our "constitutional rights", most of which are from the "Bill of Rights".

I will paraphrase the important ones:
1. Freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, and general expression.
2. Right to bear arms.
4. Right against unwarranted search and seizure (with the exception of probable cause to have committed a felony or confirmed visual by an officer that a felony is occurring).
5. Right to remain silent.
8. Protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In the U.S often times police officers will get away with infringing upon these because of their position. It is very rare that an officer will actually be prosecuted and convicted of their crimes (usually it is because they are being filmed, but this is rare).

I guess my question is, do we need stricter legislation on officers to prevent them from infringing on our rights and getting away with it?

In regards with the cases you listed, I think only two of them (Freddie Grey and Eric Garner) have any legal ground to stand on. Michael Brown's shooting, while tragic, was not police brutality in any way. Looking at the evidence in the Brown case, such as the autopsy report, convenience store footage, and witness testimony, it was a justified killing for self defense. Now, on to your question...

The thing with legislation is that it only goes so far. Yeah, you can have all the things you want written into law with the best intentions, but it requires us all to rely on each other to make sure that those laws are being followed. A lot of the time, the people who should be watching out for abuses of power aren't doing that. There's no doubt in my mind that, in nearly every police department in this country, there is some sort of collusion going on behind closed doors.

Money exchanging hands, promotions given without proper accreditation, warrants and licenses being pushed through their respective departments that don't give reviewers enough time to look over...there's a lot going on that we will most likely never see. The public likes to think that police are all law abiding, and they aren't; they're human like everyone else and will succumb to temptation.

I think, as a whole, Americans are too reactionary. We've always been a reactionary country in some way, especially in the last 14 or 15 years. Events like the Boston Bombing and the 9/11 terror attacks do, in a way, justify why we are very quick to action in some cases. But we've been too used to having the ability to react quickly that we seem to have forgotten to try to look at the bigger picture and not point any one cause out as the culprit.

If America had a police brutality problem, then the problem would be for every citizen of every race, creed, color, and background, not just blacks. Police are involved with every single type of person you can imagine in this country. I, personally, think one would be very hard pressed to find a cop today that could be considered prejudiced, but many on the left will have you think otherwise. There's no way that a racist cop would EVER work in the ghettos and run down parts of ANY city in this country; they just wouldn't. A racist going to work every day to protect people that he hates? That makes no sense.

You also talked in your last post about the stop and frisk policies that came under the limelight in recent years. If you look at the 2000 Census of New York City - specifically in the boroughs of Brooklyn and the Bronx - you will see that populations that are considered minorities in the larger picture are majorities when you zoom in. In the Bronx, according to the 2000 census, blacks made up 35.6% of the population, Hispanic/Latinos made up 48.4%, and whites made up just 29.9%. In Brooklyn, whites had more of the population at 41.2%, but blacks held 36.4% and Hispanic/Latinos 19.8%.

Looking back at data from the Bronx in 2013, just 2 years ago, blacks had 43.3% of the demographic while whites had 45.8%. From the data I can gather about Brooklyn, coming from the 2009 American Community Survey, if you combine the separate neighborhoods in Brooklyn that are all majority African American, the neighborhoods bring up a total tally of 940,000 people with 82% of them being black. While most of it is condensed through roads that connect all the neighborhoods, blacks also make up a considerable amount of public housing occupants.

Now, considering that a lot of these stop and frisk policies focused on the boroughs of the Bronx and Brooklyn, can one really say that they were targeted at minorities? If an officer in Brooklyn is doing stop and frisk there, chances are, he's going to stop more blacks than he is whites, and that's because of the demographics there. If he were to do that in the borough of Staten Island, which is made up of 77.6% whites according to the 2000 census data, he would be stopping mostly whites. Unless there is verifiable proof that these officers are going out of their way to stop people that are considering minorities, then the issue becomes demographics of a given area. Does that make stop and frisk right? No, most certainly not. It clearly violates a citizen's right of protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.

The other thing you have to look at is culture. While we may all be American, the cultures we have highly vary. In black culture, you have much different music, humor, attitudes, a whole variety of things. Black culture, from the perspective of a suburban white dude like me, often portrays thugs and criminals as saints and heroes that young black men and women should idolize. When the black community has leaders like Al Sharpton - a man who owes over 4 millions dollars in back taxes to the IRS - call for justice for criminals like Mike Brown and spread his own version of racism against whites, there's a problem.

White culture, on the other hand, is exactly that: it's white. Do we have our own batshit crazy public figures? Of course. But, as far as I've seen, there have been no white public figures that come out and call for whites to riot, protest, or make racist remarks about other races. Because if they did, it would be a media wildfire that no one would be able to put out. Which goes into a bigger issue about why it's OK when person A does something, but it's not OK when person B does the same.

tl;dr Police brutality affects everybody, not just one subset of the population. Legislation will not bring about effective change, only enforcement will.

[ClaraWho]

In regards with the cases you listed, I think only two of them (Freddie Grey and Eric Garner) have any legal ground to stand on. Michael Brown's shooting, while tragic, was not police brutality in any way. Looking at the evidence in the Brown case, such as the autopsy report, convenience store footage, and witness testimony, it was a justified killing for self defense. Now, on to your question...

The thing with legislation is that it only goes so far. Yeah, you can have all the things you want written into law with the best intentions, but it requires us all to rely on each other to make sure that those laws are being followed. A lot of the time, the people who should be watching out for abuses of power aren't doing that. There's no doubt in my mind that, in nearly every police department in this country, there is some sort of collusion going on behind closed doors.

Money exchanging hands, promotions given without proper accreditation, warrants and licenses being pushed through their respective departments that don't give reviewers enough time to look over...there's a lot going on that we will most likely never see. The public likes to think that police are all law abiding, and they aren't; they're human like everyone else and will succumb to temptation.

I think, as a whole, Americans are too reactionary. We've always been a reactionary country in some way, especially in the last 14 or 15 years. Events like the Boston Bombing and the 9/11 terror attacks do, in a way, justify why we are very quick to action in some cases. But we've been too used to having the ability to react quickly that we seem to have forgotten to try to look at the bigger picture and not point any one cause out as the culprit.

If America had a police brutality problem, then the problem would be for every citizen of every race, creed, color, and background, not just blacks. Police are involved with every single type of person you can imagine in this country. I, personally, think one would be very hard pressed to find a cop today that could be considered prejudiced, but many on the left will have you think otherwise. There's no way that a racist cop would EVER work in the ghettos and run down parts of ANY city in this country; they just wouldn't. A racist going to work every day to protect people that he hates? That makes no sense.

You also talked in your last post about the stop and frisk policies that came under the limelight in recent years. If you look at the 2000 Census of New York City - specifically in the boroughs of Brooklyn and the Bronx - you will see that populations that are considered minorities in the larger picture are majorities when you zoom in. In the Bronx, according to the 2000 census, blacks made up 35.6% of the population, Hispanic/Latinos made up 48.4%, and whites made up just 29.9%. In Brooklyn, whites had more of the population at 41.2%, but blacks held 36.4% and Hispanic/Latinos 19.8%.

Looking back at data from the Bronx in 2013, just 2 years ago, blacks had 43.3% of the demographic while whites had 45.8%. From the data I can gather about Brooklyn, coming from the 2009 American Community Survey, if you combine the separate neighborhoods in Brooklyn that are all majority African American, the neighborhoods bring up a total tally of 940,000 people with 82% of them being black. While most of it is condensed through roads that connect all the neighborhoods, blacks also make up a considerable amount of public housing occupants.

Now, considering that a lot of these stop and frisk policies focused on the boroughs of the Bronx and Brooklyn, can one really say that they were targeted at minorities? If an officer in Brooklyn is doing stop and frisk there, chances are, he's going to stop more blacks than he is whites, and that's because of the demographics there. If he were to do that in the borough of Staten Island, which is made up of 77.6% whites according to the 2000 census data, he would be stopping mostly whites. Unless there is verifiable proof that these officers are going out of their way to stop people that are considering minorities, then the issue becomes demographics of a given area. Does that make stop and frisk right? No, most certainly not. It clearly violates a citizen's right of protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.

The other thing you have to look at is culture. While we may all be American, the cultures we have highly vary. In black culture, you have much different music, humor, attitudes, a whole variety of things. Black culture, from the perspective of a suburban white dude like me, often portrays thugs and criminals as saints and heroes that young black men and women should idolize. When the black community has leaders like Al Sharpton - a man who owes over 4 millions dollars in back taxes to the IRS - call for justice for criminals like Mike Brown and spread his own version of racism against whites, there's a problem.

White culture, on the other hand, is exactly that: it's white. Do we have our own batshit crazy public figures? Of course. But, as far as I've seen, there have been no white public figures that come out and call for whites to riot, protest, or make racist remarks about other races. Because if they did, it would be a media wildfire that no one would be able to put out. Which goes into a bigger issue about why it's OK when person A does something, but it's not OK when person B does the same.

tl;dr Police brutality affects everybody, not just one subset of the population. Legislation will not bring about effective change, only enforcement will.

Your claim that you have no doubt collusion occurs in every police department is unsubstantiated conjecture. If it is behind closed doors, you have no possible way of knowing that one way or another.

You also display a lack of understanding and knowledge of police procedures, no police department has the ability to grant warrants or legal documents of that nature. That is done entirely by the Justice system, who couldn't care less for police impatience and will get around to it whenever they deem fit. In fact, pushing usually is met with even more delays.

I concur with your logic regarding protecting the people they are claimed to hate, but would repeat the caution that scum exist in every walk of life. For the most part I am in agreeance with that paragraph though.

Thank you for your use of evidence to back-up your point, I appreciate at least somebody on here substantiating their viewpoint with statistical evidence! Very refreshing.

There is no doubt however that stop and frisk takes illegal weapons and those who carry them, drug dealers and thieves of the streets. My brother has been stopped and searched twice (he is white), he was going to a train station in London at 10pm and police were searching everybody due to 'an incident' elsewhere. He thanked them for keeping me safe, it took only 60 seconds and he was offered a written summary in case he wished to complain against them. He was not touched anywhere inappropriate and logic dictates it made the area safer in the short-term.

It's important to clarify that the demographic you refer to are lower socioeconomically deprived, disillusioned black teens. There is a trend for the idolisation of gangsters, and a promoted hatred of police for stopping their crime. The live rich of die trying, the poverty they are desperate to escape from through illicit means. Of course this doesn't refer to all or indeed all in this situation, just like white teenagers in the same scenario don't all aspire to be like Eminem or Yelawolf (I'm sure there are better references but I'm a good girl xD).

Please see my reply to GoatzBrah below, let me know your take on the poverty angle!

I agree with your point on the fact that we can not generalize these 3 specific cases. However, I cherry-picked a few of the most damning. What I am mostly referring to is the harassment or "Stop and Frisk" tactics of police officers conducted against minorities or anyone whom an officer has an agenda against.

Essentially, it is all too often that citizens (often minorities) are assumed guilty and must prove their innocence, when in reality our rights say that it is the other way around.

I'm just tired of policemen going around assuming that everyone is out looking to commit crimes, when that kind of mentality in fact increases crime. It creates a nationalism among ethnic groups/ street communities and creates gangs, who are responsible for a lot of the violence and crime. It's a vicious cycle and the police are liable. They need to be the end of the nationalism and stop promoting the perpetual circuit of poverty, crime, and jail.

Would it not be less misleading and more pertinent to title this 'stop and search abuse of minorities' than the wrong title 'police brutality'?

In fact, in that case there is no need to mention the killings as that is a completely separate issue.

I think you'll find you inadvertently hit the nail on the head. Poverty is the causation of gang crime. And ethnic minorities tend to comprise a majority of the lesser socioeconomic sub-devision.

Police therefore perform more stop and searches, as these individuals are more likely to commit crime. Unfortunately the easiest way to prevent murder amongst black young men/teenagers, is to racially profile.

As a black woman in London (which has the same issue) said, 'they all complain they are the ones getting searched, but it's black men carrying the guns and knives'.

In fact in the region of 90% surveyed stated they agreed with the use of stop and search as it keeps them safe from other black gang members, but were against it being used on them individually. You cannot have it both ways.

This will always be an issue, even when the police force is comprised of 50% ethnic minorities, because poverty is the true cause. We have endless evidence that wealth creation reduces crime.

Let's also not forget that America is now a Hispanic country (over 51% majority with Hispanic direct disent), no longer Caucasian. With a black President and black police chiefs.

~ Clara

[Goatzbro]

I will reply to both of you here. Aisle of Plenty, I think that you are completely justified in saying that police brutality is an issue that transcends race and culture. I would also like to agree with your claims about Mike Brown's case. I also agree that after further evidence had been collected, its fairly clear that Darren Wilson was within his rights to defend himself like that. However, I merely used that example because it is very well known.

I suppose that the reason why I brought race into it is not because of the de facto state of affairs between police and minority groups, but rather the fact that minority groups do suffer at the hands of mistrust between police and communities. Psychological studies such as Bertrand (2003) show that there is a fundamental lapse in trust with those who are unlike us. Whether or not they are the cause of that lapse in trust is not relevant. What I think is more important is that it exists at all. Why do we go to the other side of the street when a lower middle class black man walks in the opposite direction to us?

Well, when we put a police officer in that position (i.e a person with lethal force and an obligation to protect society) then they make split second decisions based on prejudice. Here is an article that substantiates my claim http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-reality-of-racial.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Clarawho, I would like to respond to one of your statements Police therefore perform more stop and searches, as these individuals are more likely to commit crime. Unfortunately the easiest way to prevent murder amongst black young men/teenagers, is to racially profile.

Well, this link: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/legitimacy/pages/racial-profiling.aspx

Coming from a pro-police source, states the opposite. In fact, even the TSA has found that racial profiling in airports is unlikely to actually stop terrorist attacks. The only thing that it does is create a lack of trust between the minority communities and authorities. While it is not directly related to police brutality, it hits the same vein in terms of the mistrust of certain ethnic groups, which in my view leads to the violence.

Overall, there is a deep divide between minority communities and police forces. It doesn't matter whether or not there is a 50% ethnic minority population in the force (which I would dispute, as this article states that only 20% are ethnic minorities. This refers to U.S police forces http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/03/us/the-race-gap-in-americas-police-departments.html?_r=0). Those ethnic minorities in the force still don't have roots with those on the street and are unable to identify with those who struggle from poverty and institutional disenfranchisement.

[ClaraWho]

I will reply to both of you here. Aisle of Plenty, I think that you are completely justified in saying that police brutality is an issue that transcends race and culture. I would also like to agree with your claims about Mike Brown's case. I also agree that after further evidence had been collected, its fairly clear that Darren Wilson was within his rights to defend himself like that. However, I merely used that example because it is very well known.

I suppose that the reason why I brought race into it is not because of the de facto state of affairs between police and minority groups, but rather the fact that minority groups do suffer at the hands of mistrust between police and communities. Psychological studies such as Bertrand (2003) show that there is a fundamental lapse in trust with those who are unlike us. Whether or not they are the cause of that lapse in trust is not relevant. What I think is more important is that it exists at all. Why do we go to the other side of the street when a lower middle class black man walks in the opposite direction to us?

Well, when we put a police officer in that position (i.e a person with lethal force and an obligation to protect society) then they make split second decisions based on prejudice. Here is an article that substantiates my claim http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-reality-of-racial.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Clarawho, I would like to respond to one of your statements

Well, this link: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/legitimacy/pages/racial-profiling.aspx

Coming from a pro-police source, states the opposite. In fact, even the TSA has found that racial profiling in airports is unlikely to actually stop terrorist attacks. The only thing that it does is create a lack of trust between the minority communities and authorities. While it is not directly related to police brutality, it hits the same vein in terms of the mistrust of certain ethnic groups, which in my view leads to the violence.

Overall, there is a deep divide between minority communities and police forces. It doesn't matter whether or not there is a 50% ethnic minority population in the force (which I would dispute, as this article states that only 20% are ethnic minorities. This refers to U.S police forces http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/03/us/the-race-gap-in-americas-police-departments.html?_r=0). Those ethnic minorities in the force still don't have roots with those on the street and are unable to identify with those who struggle from poverty and institutional disenfranchisement.

I will let Aisle of Plenty clarify his position, however I believe he was stating that if there WAS police brutality, it would be experienced by all. Not that he himself was suggesting there is an epidemic of police brutality. Two entirely differentiated points.

Speak for yourself regarding crossing the street. When a lower middle class man walks towards me down the street, I pass him by as I would any other person. What a weird distinction to make... Do you avoid lower middle class black men? As a Brit this sounds alien and rather disturbing...

Also the psychological research of 'fear of other' and 'prejudice against the other' refers to anyone different. These prejudices are removed as you consider the individual part of your group. This is the distinction between racists and those whom aren't. For example, if you are in the mindset that the black man is a fellow New Yorker (for example) you wouldn't consider him to be in the out group. If you considered him to be a different skin colour, you would. But then he is also human, so you wouldn't. And he owns a mobile phone, so do you. This all depends on perspective, and most people replace these prejudices of out groups early in childhood as they see the obvious shared humanity.

----

That source seems rather biased and methodologically unsound, regardless my point still stands (which you haven't addressed).

Obviously nobody is disputing that if there is a racial bias in the police that it isn't acceptable or wanted. That doesn't mean it isn't effective in certain circumstances, unfortunately, but it doesn't tackle the underlying problems. Your second source is just conjecture though.

It is unrelated to police brutality (use of excessive force in upholding the law/performing an arrest), as Aisle of Plenty stated that would be experienced by all groups not just black's.

Interestingly the demographics highlight how highly understaffed the police actually are! This probably adds to the prejudice, but I would counter that instead of a prejudice based on racism, it is a prejudice based on experience.

To reitterate, I said there is over of a 50% majority of the American population as a whole who are now Hispanic (including 1/2 Hispanic in the figure).

Actually that 80% white figure is simply for one district of Charleston, which has had a large black populous swing in recent decades. It is given as an extreme example, with nearly all the others being much more closely proportionate (except the likes of Riverview and Dellwood). Clearly there is still work to be done, but that's a different issue of then encouraging positive discrimination.

Please when presented research don't try to bury data or take one piece of statistical evidence and generalise, it's very misleading. :what:

Also, aren't all the head honchos in one of those Cities you cited black? Seems they'd be remiss to allow a prejudiced, racist police force. But then one cannot be everywhere and know everything.

You did not address the proposed causal factors of Poverty and Black culture, which we believe are paramount to the problem. :what:

~ Clara

[Goatzbro]

Do you avoid lower middle class black men? As a Brit this sounds alien and rather disturbing...
By "we" I was simply referring to most people in white, suburban America. Personally, I try to steer clear of this behavior and I attempt to embrace all communities, regardless of race, socioeconomic status etc.

Please when presented research don't try to bury data or take one piece of statistical evidence and generalise, it's very misleading.
I don't think that I did that at all, I took a statistic from a source and used it so support my argument. Statistics are meant to be generalized. Anyway, here is another source that I think supports my claim even outside of the case study of Charleston.

"More than three quarters of cities on which the Census Bureau has collected data have a police presence that's disproportionately white relative to the local population."

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/where-minority-communities-still-have-overwhelmingly-white-police/

You did not address the proposed causal factors of Poverty and Black culture, which we believe are paramount to the problem.
I addressed the poverty issue, but maybe not clearly enough. Here is my general point. tldr; crime and poverty are intimately linked, where they cause each other to happen. Police brutality increases the likelihood of future crime, thus increasing poverty and more crime, rinse and repeat.

In terms of black culture. It is 100% erroneous to state that black culture is defined or even represented by violence towards the establishment. A few groups and artists in the 1980s and 90s were sympathetic towards cop-killers. That is valid, but none of them are idolized today. In fact, whites and blacks are generally into the same kinds of music/art etc., mostly due to young white culture becoming more integrated with young black culture. Therefore, because the two are similar in culture, the dominant factor in their difference is race.

Also, I don't know how qualified we are to be talking about black culture at all, because none of us are actually black...

[Sugaree]

Aisle of Plenty, I think that you are completely justified in saying that police brutality is an issue that transcends race and culture. I would also like to agree with your claims about Mike Brown's case. I also agree that after further evidence had been collected, its fairly clear that Darren Wilson was within his rights to defend himself like that. However, I merely used that example because it is very well known.

I suppose that the reason why I brought race into it is not because of the de facto state of affairs between police and minority groups, but rather the fact that minority groups do suffer at the hands of mistrust between police and communities. Psychological studies such as Bertrand (2003) show that there is a fundamental lapse in trust with those who are unlike us. Whether or not they are the cause of that lapse in trust is not relevant. What I think is more important is that it exists at all. Why do we go to the other side of the street when a lower middle class black man walks in the opposite direction to us?

Well, when we put a police officer in that position (i.e a person with lethal force and an obligation to protect society) then they make split second decisions based on prejudice. Here is an article that substantiates my claim http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-reality-of-racial.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Well, you seem to have answered your own question. At the end of the day, decisions are made based on prejudice. But can't that prejudice, in many cases, be justified? If I were an officer on patrol, and I saw a person acting strangely in public, I would go out of my way to stop them and find out what's going on. Many people will claim that that is singling people out based on appearance, but appearance CAN tell a lot about a person. If that person just so happened to be black, and be acting strangely in a majority black area, would that still be prejudice? No.

I like the link you shared, and after reading through it, I can't help but think that the data is being construed as some sort of undeniable proof of racism in police departments. While the Supreme Court has ruled that racial profiling violates the constitutional right of equal protection under the law, profiling of any type could then be considered a violation of equal protection rights. You can profile a person based on their clothes, their hair, the way they talk, the people they hang around frequently...and if that's the case, profiling in general would have been ruled a violation of a person's equal protection rights. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where profiling is our go-to action when we see unknown or strange people. And if you're a police officer, you have no clue who you'll be dealing with during your work. You can work with compliant citizens, but you'll also have to deal with people who run, lie, and try to kill you. In which case, you can't blame a police officer for profiling. Racial profiling, however, shows a deeper seated prejudice, which can be hard to prove.

let me know your take on the poverty angle!

I definitely think that poverty has a very great influence on people who commit crimes or turn to drugs. You're right when you state that there's been multiple studies and articles published showing that wealth creation actually reduces crime rates in areas where crime was once a major problem. However, we have a government run by people that think wealth creation can only come from them, not private and/or publicly traded businesses. They think that, by giving low income families food stamps, welfare checks, and health insurance, they are helping combat the problem. While it may put a band-aid on the wound, it can only be temporary. Poverty is like a broken bone. You can heal a broken bone by rubbing anti-septic gel over it and putting a band-aid on. You have to put a cast around it, stabilize it, and let it go through the natural course of healing.

Private businesses could easily invest millions of dollars into impoverished areas and turn the situation around 180 degrees. They can open places for people to work and earn enough money to sustain themselves. A major problem for this, however, is that the jobs being offered are minimum wage jobs. The people taking those jobs aren't people just looking for experience, but people looking to support an actual family. Minimum wage jobs aren't for keeping yourself afloat for a sustained period, much less keeping an entire family from going hungry and being left without shelter. It's also becoming harder for companies that offer above minimum wage earnings to find people who have qualifications to work those types of jobs. So unless people start recognizing the problem, try their best to become educated or go to technical/trade school, they'll be stuck at the bottom rung of the ladder. And that's a shame because government taxes and regulations could be lifted and make the process easier.

[ClaraWho]

By "we" I was simply referring to most people in white, suburban America. Personally, I try to steer clear of this behavior and I attempt to embrace all communities, regardless of race, socioeconomic status etc.


I don't think that I did that at all, I took a statistic from a source and used it so support my argument. Statistics are meant to be generalized. Anyway, here is another source that I think supports my claim even outside of the case study of Charleston.

"More than three quarters of cities on which the Census Bureau has collected data have a police presence that's disproportionately white relative to the local population."

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/where-minority-communities-still-have-overwhelmingly-white-police/


I addressed the poverty issue, but maybe not clearly enough. Here is my general point. tldr; crime and poverty are intimately linked, where they cause each other to happen. Police brutality increases the likelihood of future crime, thus increasing poverty and more crime, rinse and repeat.

In terms of black culture. It is 100% erroneous to state that black culture is defined or even represented by violence towards the establishment. A few groups and artists in the 1980s and 90s were sympathetic towards cop-killers. That is valid, but none of them are idolized today. In fact, whites and blacks are generally into the same kinds of music/art etc., mostly due to young white culture becoming more integrated with young black culture. Therefore, because the two are similar in culture, the dominant factor in their difference is race.

Also, I don't know how qualified we are to be talking about black culture at all, because none of us are actually black...

How could you possibly know, or elect yourself the spokesperson, for middle class white Americans? I'm sorry, but that is utter conjecture. If you witness this anecdotally in your neighbourhood then that is disturbing, but one cannot extrapolate from that an entire races actions. I would find it horribly disturbing if this is the case however, and whilst I find it difficult to believe, I have no evidence either way. Most of America did vote in a black President though, but obviously there are confounding variables for that.

You took part of the statistics presented, in this case one borough having 80% more white cops than ethnic minorities, and extrapolated that figure for the entirety of the U.S. Police force. Extremely misleading and unlikely to happen by mistake, I apologise for calling you dishonest if it was a genuine accidental error.

Statistics are not meant to be generalised beyond the scope of their parameters. Generalisation occurs in the process of finding statistics through he methodological tests run on the data (Man Whitney U, Wilcoxon tests for example).

Your first source was much more useful and credible. Referencing a tabloid blog isn't a credible source, but it states the exact same information as your previous link. No, it does not back up your point.

As I mentioned in my previous reply, the level of disproportion is not worryingly dramatic accross the board. If you refer to your first link, you'll see there are only a handful of extremely disproportionate boroughs. It is unreasonable to expect an exact match in each City, especially as black and ethnic minority males typically don't apply to join the police. I'm repeating myself, but the figures are not shockingly one-sided or prejudiced, although certainly more could be done to balance them.

Please stop using 'police brutality' - the excessive use of force - and stop and frisk powers. Two completely different issues, with one being illegal.

So as you stated, poverty is the initial cause. So wouldn't it be much more productive and sensible to start a new thread debating ways to tackle poverty in minority groups?

I'm not particularly interested therefore in discussing the pros and cons of the black culture argument, but you went to the effort of typing it so I shall reply briefly. Just look at any impoverished black neighbourhood (we've accepted silently that there are more poor black communities than white in these U.S. cities. The dress sense, slang, hobbies, jewellery, life ambitions, personalities of those who commit crime are all imitations of gangster rappers and that 'lifestyle'. 50 cent, lil Wayne, 2 Pac, BIG, Kanye, the list goes on and on, provide the role models. So it's not necessarily that this is 'black culture' (which includes a longer history of blues music which is awesome!), because whites and Hispanics are in the same boat. But the predominance of this subset of the populous are black, as Aisle of Plenty has statistically illustrated.

Haha that thought did cross my mind xD I'm about as far from black as possible (except maybe albinos :cool:). However, this is an intellectual discussion based on observed and scientifically backed up evidence. It's like us discussing how people should raise their children. Whilst not having children ourselves, how they are raised affects us, we have empathy and evidence that allows us to have our say (respectfully). Of course it would be very helpful if a young black socioeconomically deprived male would join us, but we are all human.

I do agree we should move the discussion back to poverty, as the root cause.


Well, you seem to have answered your own question. At the end of the day, decisions are made based on prejudice. But can't that prejudice, in many cases, be justified? If I were an officer on patrol, and I saw a person acting strangely in public, I would go out of my way to stop them and find out what's going on. Many people will claim that that is singling people out based on appearance, but appearance CAN tell a lot about a person. If that person just so happened to be black, and be acting strangely in a majority black area, would that still be prejudice? No.

I like the link you shared, and after reading through it, I can't help but think that the data is being construed as some sort of undeniable proof of racism in police departments. While the Supreme Court has ruled that racial profiling violates the constitutional right of equal protection under the law, profiling of any type could then be considered a violation of equal protection rights. You can profile a person based on their clothes, their hair, the way they talk, the people they hang around frequently...and if that's the case, profiling in general would have been ruled a violation of a person's equal protection rights. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where profiling is our go-to action when we see unknown or strange people. And if you're a police officer, you have no clue who you'll be dealing with during your work. You can work with compliant citizens, but you'll also have to deal with people who run, lie, and try to kill you. In which case, you can't blame a police officer for profiling. Racial profiling, however, shows a deeper seated prejudice, which can be hard to prove.



I definitely think that poverty has a very great influence on people who commit crimes or turn to drugs. You're right when you state that there's been multiple studies and articles published showing that wealth creation actually reduces crime rates in areas where crime was once a major problem. However, we have a government run by people that think wealth creation can only come from them, not private and/or publicly traded businesses. They think that, by giving low income families food stamps, welfare checks, and health insurance, they are helping combat the problem. While it may put a band-aid on the wound, it can only be temporary. Poverty is like a broken bone. You can heal a broken bone by rubbing anti-septic gel over it and putting a band-aid on. You have to put a cast around it, stabilize it, and let it go through the natural course of healing.

Private businesses could easily invest millions of dollars into impoverished areas and turn the situation around 180 degrees. They can open places for people to work and earn enough money to sustain themselves. A major problem for this, however, is that the jobs being offered are minimum wage jobs. The people taking those jobs aren't people just looking for experience, but people looking to support an actual family. Minimum wage jobs aren't for keeping yourself afloat for a sustained period, much less keeping an entire family from going hungry and being left without shelter. It's also becoming harder for companies that offer above minimum wage earnings to find people who have qualifications to work those types of jobs. So unless people start recognizing the problem, try their best to become educated or go to technical/trade school, they'll be stuck at the bottom rung of the ladder. And that's a shame because government taxes and regulations could be lifted and make the process easier.

I agree up until the last two paragraphs, which I found a little contradictory but also found myself in disagreement with. However I don't wish to derail the OP's thread until he gives the green light to move the subject off police, and on to the root cause of how to tackle poverty. I have requested he maybe start a new thread, as I believe this topic has run its course!

~ Clara

[Goatzbro]

I was mostly interested in starting the debate and getting the ball rolling. If you guys want to talk about the issues of why police misconduct (yes, I mean unlawful violence while making arrests and stop/frisk) has a root cause of poverty, then please do so. I did not initially want this debate to focus on race as I feel that it is an issue that can not be argued through statistics.

You are very keen on mentioning "methodological errors" in and nitpicking at source quality, so I will acquiesce that perhaps this is an issue far too removed from statistical analysis. We can't rely on statistics as much as you think we can in this debate. We couldn't for example say:

"X police forces out of N police forces are racist, while X' police forces out of N are in poor communities, where using my chi square test I can see that my chi square value is greater than the critical value for d degrees of freedom. Hence we reject the null hypothesis and say that X has correlation with X' "

We can't really do that with something as subjective as racism. I apologize for bringing it so heavily into this argument, as it wasn't effective and I want to veer away from that topic.


From this point on, I would like to focus more on the issue of whether or not it is justified for police officers to be able to do this to us without significant punishment. Maybe consider things such as utilitarian ethics, poverty (as you guys wanted to talk about), the POV of the police officer, etc.

Poverty is an issue that can easily be debated using statistics, and if you guys want to bring that into this then by all means do so. Have fun :)

[Stronk Serb]

Here if a cop get's enough complaints filed against him, he will get fired. Our cops can smell out the scum and usually beat the shit out of them. You were caught mugging people? The cops will give you a facial remodelling and an all-inclusive room in our state-funded hotels, free of charge, also you can find a partner in said hotel and bond with him for life. It's not that I approve of the beating felons up behaviour, but I don't condone it either, most mugging or burglary victims are middle-class people who struggle with the problems we have.

[ClaraWho]

I was mostly interested in starting the debate and getting the ball rolling. If you guys want to talk about the issues of why police misconduct (yes, I mean unlawful violence while making arrests and stop/frisk) has a root cause of poverty, then please do so. I did not initially want this debate to focus on race as I feel that it is an issue that can not be argued through statistics.

You are very keen on mentioning "methodological errors" in and nitpicking at source quality, so I will acquiesce that perhaps this is an issue far too removed from statistical analysis. We can't rely on statistics as much as you think we can in this debate. We couldn't for example say:

"X police forces out of N police forces are racist, while X' police forces out of N are in poor communities, where using my chi square test I can see that my chi square value is greater than the critical value for d degrees of freedom. Hence we reject the null hypothesis and say that X has correlation with X' "

We can't really do that with something as subjective as racism. I apologize for bringing it so heavily into this argument, as it wasn't effective and I want to veer away from that topic.


From this point on, I would like to focus more on the issue of whether or not it is justified for police officers to be able to do this to us without significant punishment. Maybe consider things such as utilitarian ethics, poverty (as you guys wanted to talk about), the POV of the police officer, etc.

Poverty is an issue that can easily be debated using statistics, and if you guys want to bring that into this then by all means do so. Have fun :)

1) Cannot group police misconduct of excessive use of violence (illegal) and stop and frisk (a legal legislated power). Both separate issues.

2) You gave three examples of white police officers killing black males in your opening statement. Of course race was going to be brought into it.

3) Interestingly you were one of the people to bring statistics on race into the debate, up until I pointed out the sources disagreed with you. Now you deem them ineffectual.

4) This issue and any other issue will have source quality questioned, as any intellectual debater will when presented with material, supportive or against. Statistics map out the realms of reality in which one has knowledge to conduct a debate. We could transition to a philosophical approach, but that is something you need to request initially. Very different styles.

5) We could look at race imbalance, reported racial incidents and how they are handled. Which departments have the most complaints, the political make-up of the white communities voting patterns, etc. This is certainly a subject were statistics are very readily available.

6) MOST IMPORTANTLY. You appear steadfast in your conviction that police are;

A) Significantly guilty of misconduct and violence against the general public, abusive of citizens rights and;
B) Are never held accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately you cannot start a debate on such biased premises that aren't generally agreed upon. You have presented no evidence for either premise, nobody has agreed with you, and yet you want us to accept them as factual basis for a debate?! :what:

A hypothetical discussion of 'what if America's police force are all brutal and persecuting us innocent citizens', isn't with merit.

~ Clara

P.S. Please stop making me have to repeat myself, at least show some respect that we've taken time to reply! :confused:

[thatcountrykid]

I was planning on posting until I realised you assumed every officer was a racist and like your uncle

[Goatzbro]

1) Cannot group police misconduct of excessive use of violence (illegal) and stop and frisk (a legal legislated power). Both separate issues.

2) You gave three examples of white police officers killing black males in your opening statement. Of course race was going to be brought into it.

3) Interestingly you were one of the people to bring statistics on race into the debate, up until I pointed out the sources disagreed with you. Now you deem them ineffectual.

4) This issue and any other issue will have source quality questioned, as any intellectual debater will when presented with material, supportive or against. Statistics map out the realms of reality in which one has knowledge to conduct a debate. We could transition to a philosophical approach, but that is something you need to request initially. Very different styles.

5) We could look at race imbalance, reported racial incidents and how they are handled. Which departments have the most complaints, the political make-up of the white communities voting patterns, etc. This is certainly a subject were statistics are very readily available.

6) MOST IMPORTANTLY. You appear steadfast in your conviction that police are;

A) Significantly guilty of misconduct and violence against the general public, abusive of citizens rights and;
B) Are never held accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately you cannot start a debate on such biased premises that aren't generally agreed upon. You have presented no evidence for either premise, nobody has agreed with you, and yet you want us to accept them as factual basis for a debate?!

A hypothetical discussion of 'what if America's police force are all brutal and persecuting us innocent citizens', isn't with merit.

~ Clara

P.S. Please stop making me have to repeat myself, at least show some respect that we've taken time to reply!

1) Maybe I can't group them together in terms of severity, but STOP AND FRISK IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. A police officer can not stop you unless you are being detained or they suspect you of committing a crime.

2)I used those examples because they are the most known in the media and I said that the media hyped the issue. I never agreed or disagreed with the hype. Stop putting words in my mouth.

3)I didn't bring statistics into the debate, it was aisle of plenty. He is not wrong for doing so and neither are you. They are a good tool for analyzing situations, but they are not the end all and be all of analysis. I personally believe that this debate is more grounded in normative ethical principles and duty theory, both of which are abstract concepts. You may not believe so and that is fine.

4)Yes, but you have not proven your point either. All you have done is "shoot down" my points. Provide some analysis of your own using sources and I will gladly point out errors in methodology and researcher bias.

5)We very well could, but those statistics do not determine who is a corrupt police officer and who is not. The problem with deciding whether a department is corrupt is because we don't know how many of the incidents aren't reported and how many of them get off without punishment. If you would like to find those statistics and analyze their significance then be my guest.

6)I have never said that ALL police officers are guilty of this. Let me be clear. The American Police Force fosters a system that often does not punish this kind of behavior (Police Misconduct). Yes there are systems in place to stop this but the process of indictment is actually rather challenging. (Not even going to provide a source here, google it. It's not worth my time as I already know your response).

I have consistently presented evidence, citing examples, studies and principles of law. Your statement is invalid. Maybe you don't agree with my analysis or you doubt my source quality but that doesn't mean that I'm not presenting evidence, yet you present none...

You clearly don't understand that this is not a research paper or a formal debate. This is a forum. When I started this discussion I was expecting a casual and INCLUSIVE dialogue about state-subject relations/ police conduct or maybe even some anecdotes about interaction with authority. However, this has been made into a circle-jerk of conflicting global views. The kind of thread that this is becoming is not conducive to diverse views.

[Goatzbro]

I was planning on posting until I realised you assumed every officer was a racist and like your uncle
I never assumed this. You are extrapolating this from my analysis. They are not all racist, in fact most are upstanding citizens and effective at interacting peacefully with citizens. However, the actions of a few officers have consequences for many, so I want to look at the institution as a whole.

[ClaraWho]

1) Maybe I can't group them together in terms of severity, but STOP AND FRISK IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. A police officer can not stop you unless you are being detained or they suspect you of committing a crime.

2)I used those examples because they are the most known in the media and I said that the media hyped the issue. I never agreed or disagreed with the hype. Stop putting words in my mouth.

3)I didn't bring statistics into the debate, it was aisle of plenty. He is not wrong for doing so and neither are you. They are a good tool for analyzing situations, but they are not the end all and be all of analysis. I personally believe that this debate is more grounded in normative ethical principles and duty theory, both of which are abstract concepts. You may not believe so and that is fine.

4)Yes, but you have not proven your point either. All you have done is "shoot down" my points. Provide some analysis of your own using sources and I will gladly point out errors in methodology and researcher bias.

5)We very well could, but those statistics do not determine who is a corrupt police officer and who is not. The problem with deciding whether a department is corrupt is because we don't know how many of the incidents aren't reported and how many of them get off without punishment. If you would like to find those statistics and analyze their significance then be my guest.

6)I have never said that ALL police officers are guilty of this. Let me be clear. The American Police Force fosters a system that often does not punish this kind of behavior (Police Misconduct). Yes there are systems in place to stop this but the process of indictment is actually rather challenging. (Not even going to provide a source here, google it. It's not worth my time as I already know your response).

I have consistently presented evidence, citing examples, studies and principles of law. Your statement is invalid. Maybe you don't agree with my analysis or you doubt my source quality but that doesn't mean that I'm not presenting evidence, yet you present none...

You clearly don't understand that this is not a research paper or a formal debate. This is a forum. When I started this discussion I was expecting a casual and INCLUSIVE dialogue about state-subject relations/ police conduct or maybe even some anecdotes about interaction with authority. However, this has been made into a circle-jerk of conflicting global views. The kind of thread that this is becoming is not conducive to diverse views.

1) As far as I am aware stop and frisk is legal if permission is granted due to a suspected terror threat or when officers have due cause for suspicion of an individual. If your inappropriate behaviour hadn't dissuaded the only trooper on this forum from posting, we could all have insider knowledge on the subject. I will not discuss my connections with the police online.

2) I never put words into your mouth, you mentioned 3 racial cases. Ergo we discussed racial cases as examples of the main subject. Obviously.

3) They aren't abstract concepts in this, or many, contexts. We are all expressing ethical viewpoints, but like any debate we need to have evidence that what we are saying has any validity. This gives credibility and meaning to our points. It's what happens in debates in the adult world.

That 20% you mislead people over is known as a statistic.

4) Disproving your points on their merit, in turn adds credence to the evidence provided by Aisle of Plenty, who did the work for me. Go read it.

5) It would be far closer than just taking your unsubstantiated word for it, wouldn't it.

6) Reread what you have said. 'Not worth my time as I already know your response'. Try having some respect for those who intellectually disagree with you in a civilised debate.

Like everything else in this thread, everyone else's dissenting statement isn't 'invalid' simply because you say so. Stop trying to bully people into submission to your world view. Both Aisle of Plenty (I'm sure) and I would change our evidenced based opinions if presented with solid evidence and argument to the contrary. Not just some kid throwing a tantrum.

Presenting 'mock' evidence or deliberately falsified stats does not constitute the criteria for 'presenting evidence'. Even with your sources, you do not have evidence to back up your two premises.

'A circle-jerk of conflicting world views' - this is not appropriate or an adult way to address those opposed to your viewpoint. This juvenile sexual comparison is the last straw, I'm done humouring you.

Here's an idea, instead of complaining when people debate in a debate thread :confused: Post this in your diary, a place more conducive to conformity to your predisposed prejudices based on your uncle.


I was planning on posting until I realised you assumed every officer was a racist and like your uncle

Lol this ^.

~ Clara

[Goatzbro]

This juvenile sexual comparison is the last straw, I'm done humouring you
You must be fun at parties.

Not just some kid throwing a tantrum.
It's what happens in debates in the adult world.
I think that you are actually the most condescending person whom I have ever had the displeasure to discuss something with.

Last thing I'm saying. I misread the one 20% statistic. That is my fault, but that doesn't mean that I am manipulating information or using invalid sources. I never said that others were explicitly wrong. I gave my opinions substantiated by evidence and valid generalization. Nothing more. I'm done with this debate. Oh and Clarawho, take the stick out of your ass. You might make more friends. *Drops the mic*

[fairmaiden]

I do think that at this point in time there is a current issue with police brutality in America, yes.

[ClaraWho]

I do think that at this point in time there is a current issue with police brutality in America, yes.

Based on?

~ Clara

[fairmaiden]

Based on?

~ Clara
Based on recent events such as Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, etc. I don't even think those cases pertain to police brutality; they're seen as more of a race issue.

[Sugaree]

Based on recent events such as Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, etc. I don't even think those cases pertain to police brutality; they're seen as more of a race issue.

Ok, so let me get this right: you think there is an issue with police brutality with cases such as Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and Walter Scott, but you also think they aren't cases of police brutality as much as they are about issues of race.

What are you on?

[Airrd]

I am just mad that Darren Wilson said that he would do it again (Shoot Michael Brown) on National TV

[Sugaree]

I am just mad that Darren Wilson said that he would do it again (Shoot Michael Brown) on National TV

Is it really a cause for offense and anger when you hear someone say they would protect themselves if they were carrying a weapon and some brute was charging at them?

[DriveAlive]

Is it really a cause for offense and anger when you hear someone say they would protect themselves if they were carrying a weapon and some brute was charging at them?

I have to agree. I don't think he was saying tha he would willingly murder a black guy if he had the opportunity. He was saying that whie the situation was unfortunate, he stands by his decision to defend his life with lethal force and would do so again.

[fairmaiden]

Ok, so let me get this right: you think there is an issue with police brutality with cases such as Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and Walter Scott, but you also think they aren't cases of police brutality as much as they are about issues of race.

What are you on?

To use such a response(that infers that I must be on drugs or some other hallucinogen in order to come up with something so absurd) to mock what you think is a wrong analysis of the whole ''police brutality'' situation is quite immature for someone who seems to think of themselves as a debate god. Saying ''what are you on?'' doesn't make your point any stronger.

The OP used Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, etc. as prime examples of ''police brutality'' in his post. Therefore, by his definition, yes, there is a problem with ''police brutality''.

But then I realised; from the media's perspective, those cases of black civilians vs the police force are seen as a ''race issue'', it goes both ways. That is why I later said what I said.

[Uniquemind]

We have a problem with transparency, consistency in declared ideals and execution of actions that are supposed to reflect those ideals, and favoritism within police departments who won't report each other's wrong doings probably due to a sense of communal bonding and bias.

There's also a sense that some cops are taking the easy way out to subdue suspects via projectiles (stun or lethal guns). When perhaps hand to hand combat or disabling techniques might've been safer or more appropriate for the public or given situation.

In the case of Eric Garner the choke hold used on him wasn't even an approved tactic or hold for that police department to use in the first place.

If you have to let a suspect go because of dangerous logistics, especially for minor non-violent crimes, let em go.

[Sugaree]

To use such a response(that infers that I must be on drugs or some other hallucinogen in order to come up with something so absurd) to mock what you think is a wrong analysis of the whole ''police brutality'' situation is quite immature for someone who seems to think of themselves as a debate god. Saying ''what are you on?'' doesn't make your point any stronger.

The OP used Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, etc. as prime examples of ''police brutality'' in his post. Therefore, by his definition, yes, there is a problem with ''police brutality''.

But then I realised; from the media's perspective, those cases of black civilians vs the police force are seen as a ''race issue'', it goes both ways. That is why I later said what I said.

Clarity does wonders, if you haven't figured that out yet. Also be aware that I posted at a rather ungodly hour of the night (for me, at least) so I'm not very much into going beyond the pale, so to speak.

[fairmaiden]

Clarity does wonders, if you haven't figured that out yet. Also be aware that I posted at a rather ungodly hour of the night (for me, at least) so I'm not very much into going beyond the pale, so to speak.
Seeing as you're the only one so far who has tried to challenge the way I formulated my opinion; I'll assume that what I wrote was fairly understandable.

[Sir Suomi]

Maybe if people simply did as an officer instructed them to, and didn't act like an idiot, maybe we'd see a drop in fatal incidents. Just a though.

[Uniquemind]

Maybe if people simply did as an officer instructed them to, and didn't act like an idiot, maybe we'd see a drop in fatal incidents. Just a though.

You get people who question authority and cause a scene when they have no faith in the system or have past experience where the system failed them.


You also influence rebellion and on-scene "fight-back" when in class you learn that all the Jews did through most of history was bend over and get enslaved and abused.

If anything American culture is all about taking your pitchfork and wacking someone who is overstepping authority figuratively speaking in-court or even literally.


Obedience was more Old Great Britains thing with manners and properness.

[Danny_boi 16]

Just want to mention that the Republican controlled House just passed H.R 295 A bill encouraging officers the wear body cameras. The vote was 421-6. In my opinion filming the the police on smart phones and police wearing body cameras are a great and necessary way to promote transparency. But on the smart phone use, it can't interfere directly with the work of the police officer.

[Uniquemind]

Just want to mention that the Republican controlled House just passed H.R 295 A bill encouraging officers the ware body cameras. The vote was 421-6. In my opinion filming the the police on smart phones and police wearing body cameras are a great and necessary way to promote transparency. But on the smart phone use, it can't interfere directly with the work of the police officer.

More evidence the better. Sometimes it's worked in the cops favor too.

[Stronk Serb]

I'm just gonna say this: white cops are brutal to white people and vice versa, yet you don't see it on the news. I don't think it's a race issue, but it's still not right. Not by any means.

[phuckphace]

white people don't stick up for each other as often or vocally as other groups do, because we're pussies suffering from a bad case of the guilties. we spend most of our time trying to solve our problems by blaming ourselves for everything bad that has ever happened ever, and tend to snap out of it and go fascist (System Restore) only after it's too late and the hard drive has already crashed.

cops know this (because cops are white too lol) and they know how far they can go with whom. they know who they can manhandle and who will meekly take it like a bitch and that they are in no danger of a white mob showing up and burning the city down (the last white mob (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Protester_demographics) we had was scared of guns lmao)

[Stronk Serb]

white people don't stick up for each other as often or vocally as other groups do, because we're pussies suffering from a bad case of the guilties. we spend most of our time trying to solve our problems by blaming ourselves for everything bad that has ever happened ever, and tend to snap out of it and go fascist (System Restore) only after it's too late and the hard drive has already crashed.

cops know this (because cops are white too lol) and they know how far they can go with whom. they know who they can manhandle and who will meekly take it like a bitch and that they are in no danger of a white mob showing up and burning the city down (the last white mob (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Protester_demographics) we had was scared of guns lmao)

Ayy lmao. Here we at least have anti-immigrant protests, and loonies crazy enough to lob brivks at the cops and attact them.