Police brutality in America

[Sailor Mars]

Obviously, there has always been police brutality and unfair arrests and what not, but due to the Freddie Gray cases and Michael Brown etc. the news is paying a lot more attention to it. So basically, do you think police brutality is a vastly rising problem or is it just the news that makes it seem that way? Do you think there should be cutbacks on funding for police? Should there be more government action taken?

Imo I think due to smartphones being able to capture and upload police arrests and police action, people are starting to realize what assholes they are. Not only that, but they're getting military surplus, which is a huge fucking ego boost. Sure there are "good" cops that actually care about "protecting the peace" but no one stays like that forever, especially with such a fucked up job like being a cop.

[Microcosm]

I'd say that most alleged cases of "police brutality" aren't actually police brutality at all. People seem to underestimate the power and especially the responsibility that the police have to bear. There are some unfair arrests, but I think most of the times police have to use force. Some people are either a threat to the officer or they are just not cooperative. I don't think people look into it enough when they make judgements on these things. They'd rather just immediately bash the officer on how shitty he was rather than considering the decision that he had to make in the moment. It's a hard decision sometimes and we have to factor that in when we decide whether this is an abuse of power or not.

[Sailor Mars]

I'd say that most alleged cases of "police brutality" aren't actually police brutality at all. People seem to underestimate the power and especially the responsibility that the police have to bear. There are some unfair arrests, but I think most of the times police have to use force. Some people are either a threat to the officer or they are just not cooperative. I don't think people look into it enough when they make judgements on these things. They'd rather just immediately bash the officer on how shitty he was rather than considering the decision that he had to make in the moment. It's a hard decision sometimes and we have to factor that in when we decide whether this is an abuse of power or not.

Yeah I see what your saying but I bet a lot of times these people 1. Aren't doing anything wrong in the first place, or nothing that deserves to be arrested for, or 2. Fucking scared and nervous. I've been picked up and questioned by police before and it's nerve wracking. But I can see how people's perspectives and media views can change a persons opinion on how the officer handles the situation. More often than not though shit happens that shouldn't have.

[Sir Suomi]

Michael Brown's death was his own fault. He charged the fucking cop.
Freddie Gray's death really wasn't directly the officer's fault, they still don't know what the hell happened.

Seriously, while yes, there are cases of police abusing the power, the vast majority of these "police brutality" incidents stem from the criminals/suspects either not complying with directions, fleeing, or even full on assault of the officer. I mean what the hell do you people think, that officers want to kill people? No sane minded person in the force would ever dream of doing that.

Police killings aren't that common. Including deaths all killings committed by officers, which means cases where suspects/criminals are trying to kill the officers, you have the same chance of getting killed by a police officer than you do being struck by lighting in the U.S. You have a .000122% of being killed by a police officer in America.

In all reality, it's the minority groups in America and all their white cucks who are trying to make it seem like we're still treating minorities like we did pre-MLK Jr., which is not the case. Far from it.

[Sailor Mars]

Michael Brown's death was his own fault. He charged the fucking cop.
Freddie Gray's death really wasn't directly the officer's fault, they still don't know what the hell happened.

Seriously, while yes, there are cases of police abusing the power, the vast majority of these "police brutality" incidents stem from the criminals/suspects either not complying with directions, fleeing, or even full on assault of the officer. I mean what the hell do you people think, that officers want to kill people? No sane minded person in the force would ever dream of doing that
I'm not saying their deaths weren't justified or anything, or explained, but due to these incidents the media is shining light on police killings, shootings, etc. more. It just seems like more people are disliking police or police arrests are taken into a different perspective due to the attention they're getting. Just wanna know if y'all think it's becoming more of an issue than it has been in the past or compared to other countries and if so what should be done about it :D

[thatcountrykid]

The news is making it seem like more of a problem than it is. In fact, most cases of "brutality" are totally justifiable acts

[pjones]

there are probably a few dozen events you can easy find by searching the internet that fit "brutality".

how many cops are there in the USA? guessing the percentage of brutality stories is minuscule. remember, "man bites dog" sells more newspapers than "dog bites man".

[Stronk Serb]

You call the cops assholes, but they are the line between cowering for your life everyday and having a reasonably safe existence.

[Jean Poutine]

How to prevent 99% of cases of police brutality :

If accosted by police, ask if you are being arrested. If you aren't, you can leave and inform the officer(s) that you will do so. You don't have to talk to them. If you are, ask why, but obey. If you are detained, you still don't have to answer any questions they ask you but you have to submit to a pat down search for weapons if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe he is at risk (generally if you are being belligerent). You also cannot leave for the time of the detention, which is legally required to be brief.

Resisting arrest, even a bad one, will just make things harder on yourself. Simply ask for a lawyer once at the station and don't say another word. You will have all the time in the world to seek redress if it was truly an unlawful arrest once you are let go. Also, while you don't have to talk to police officers if accosted or detained, it pays to be polite. Don't tell them "I'm not going to tell you anything you shithead pig!" Just tell them "sir, I don't believe I'm legally required to answer your questions."

Most cases where rights were indeed infringed are based on details of procedure so minute that you likely don't even know about them. Canadian example : a police officer pats you down for weapons, and feels a soft object in your pocket. He takes it from your pocket and it turns out the object is a dime of weed. You are arrested for possession. This is an unlawful search because such pat downs are just for security purposes, and there was no reason to believe the dime was a weapon, nor was it in plain sight during the pat down.

Even though it is an unlawful search, bitching and fighting isn't going to get you anywhere. The correct course of action in this case is to tell the officer that you believe that was an unlawful search, then ask for a lawyer right away at the station and answer no question.

If you try and resist the arrest, the police will use force. They might use more than is necessary. The police aren't demons out for the sole purpose of violating your rights or beating you up. They aren't out looking for fights. They do a hard and thankless job and every time they go on patrol they might not live to see their loved ones again. Understandably, they are twitchy. You would be too. Don't give them any indication that you might be a danger to them. Be respectful, be predictable (for example, if you need to reach in your coat to get something, tell them you will be doing so then do it slowly), obey even if you think you shouldn't have to but calmly verbally object if you feel it is warranted and never physically resist.

The courts are there to give you redress if your rights were actually violated, so let them do their job. You certainly aren't going to do so by physically resisting arrest or calling police officers names or threatening them, even if it is the most blatant unlawful arrest in the history of police work.

source : I have a law degree

[Legoboy]

How to prevent 99% of cases of police brutality :
The police aren't demons out for the sole purpose of violating your rights or beating you up. They aren't out looking for fights. They do a hard and thankless job and every time they go on patrol they might not live to see their loved ones again. Understandably, they are twitchy.
source : I have a law degree

We had a class thing on this recently and I wish I read your post before because I thought your post was really really clear and helpful.

I disagree with this one part because there are many cases where police have been punished for exactly this and many more where they should have been. My class view was yes sometimes you have guys under pressure who crack up and sometimes you have people who go looking for it. We decided that because (I'm in the UK) we had several cases we talked about where things like a blind and disabled guy minding his own business was jumped and tazered and some other guy walking away from trouble was floored and then died (there was video of that one).

So your advice is good advice, but even if it is as low as 1% of cases where you have a bad police then on that 1% of times you could get hurt or even die.

So I think anything we can do to reduce that (maybe 1%) to nothing has to be important (eg like all police having video recorders that they can't tamper with, allowing people to record etc.).

[DoodleSnap]

I'd say that most alleged cases of "police brutality" aren't actually police brutality at all. People seem to underestimate the power and especially the responsibility that the police have to bear. There are some unfair arrests, but I think most of the times police have to use force. Some people are either a threat to the officer or they are just not cooperative. I don't think people look into it enough when they make judgements on these things. They'd rather just immediately bash the officer on how shitty he was rather than considering the decision that he had to make in the moment. It's a hard decision sometimes and we have to factor that in when we decide whether this is an abuse of power or not.
Although I appreciate the duress that many police officers come under, here in the UK, we have very very few cases of people being killed at the hands of police officers. We have even fewer dying in police custody.

The job of a police officer is to arrest the person, alive, and to bring them into custody so that they can be charged, or whatnot. And killing someone on a whim is simply not acceptable, no matter the crime. If the court finds that they should be given a life or even death sentence, so be it, that is the law, but the person must have access to that fair trial.
In conclusion, I don't think arming so many police officers is a great idea.
But then, when everyone else is armed, what is one to do? There are no easy answers.
s
I mean, one could put forward the counter argument that the US has a larger population, so by a rule of averages, then more counts are going to take place. But going by percentage of population, the proportions are still far too high for a first world, developed country.

In conclusion, the right thing to do in any situation, is to attempt, as far as possible, to take the suspect into custody, safely.

Edit: And no, tasering someone at a routine traffic stop is most certainly not acceptable. We need checks and balances to make sure that the many people serving their country do not think that they are above the law, which they are not.

[Miserabilia]

I think a conclusion can NOT be made either way; there's good cops and there are less good cops. But the moment you constantly hear news about people being shot while they were defenseles/not harming anyone, (always from the USA...) you really start to think there's something wrong with either the way these police officers are trained or whatever is causing their trigger happiness.

[Microcosm]

Although I appreciate the duress that many police officers come under, here in the UK, we have very very few cases of people being killed at the hands of police officers. We have even fewer dying in police custody.

The job of a police officer is to arrest the person, alive, and to bring them into custody so that they can be charged, or whatnot. And killing someone on a whim is simply not acceptable, no matter the crime. If the court finds that they should be given a life or even death sentence, so be it, that is the law, but the person must have access to that fair trial.
In conclusion, I don't think arming so many police officers is a great idea.
But then, when everyone else is armed, what is one to do? There are no easy answers.
s
I mean, one could put forward the counter argument that the US has a larger population, so by a rule of averages, then more counts are going to take place. But going by percentage of population, the proportions are still far too high for a first world, developed country.

In conclusion, the right thing to do in any situation, is to attempt, as far as possible, to take the suspect into custody, safely.

Edit: And no, tasering someone at a routine traffic stop is most certainly not acceptable. We need checks and balances to make sure that the many people serving their country do not think that they are above the law, which they are not.

I see your logic, but you are coming from a country that has a much lower population than the US and a less violent culture(mainly because there aren't guns). You can't disarm police officers at this point. The country would no longer be safe at all. We must be able to trust that our police officers are able to protect us under any circumstances and, unfortunately, their disarmament would take a huge toll on our feeling of safety. This is because guns are everywhere in the United States and the only way to really stop someone that threatens your life in such a way is to fight fire with fire.

Also, I think it is absolutely okay to shoot someone who acts like they are reaching for a gun under most circumstances. I know it sounds presumptuous, but you really can't take any chances any more.

This is an example of what I'm talking about(below). Under the regulations you're talking about, this officer could've been killed had he not been armed to retaliate.

pxykcRjNqZ4

I agree that there should be less violent ways to intercept criminals and also that anyone deserves the right to a fair trial, but when the life of an officer is in danger, there aren't a lot of options, especially when it is a life or death decision that the officer has to make on the fly.

[BeachKid00]

My opinion with the above video is 50/50.

Obviously, the man being arrested has seen this coming. He knew that if he was confronted with this situation, he would draw his weapon and shoot to kill.
Obviously, neither of the police officers knew that he was packing, and when you're staring down the barrel of a gun, there's nothing you wouldn't do to save yourself or your fellow man (or in this case, woman). In this aspect, the shooting was completely justifiable.

However, there are a few things the officer could've done differently. First of all, the officers could've been less pushy and rude when apprehending the suspect. This might have been what pushed the suspect over the breaking point. Secondly, the taser would've been just as effective at disarming the suspect. And third, the officer could've taken a few shots at the hand, or even shot both legs to prevent the suspect from running, and stunning the suspect for long enough to restrain and disarm him. There was absolutely no reason for this officer to unload his entire clip into the man.

If I were a judge, I wouldn't seek any murder or manslaughter charges. However, I would certainly discipline him for excessive use of force, and keep close tabs on him in the event of future incidents.

[phuckphace]

jpziJTlv7Cw

Schutzstaffel keeping the Ordnung, no gorillion-dollar trial needed

[kenoloor]

i don't even have the time/energy to address the steaming pile of crap that this thread quickly descended into. suffice to say that i disagree with every single person who has posted in this thread so far besides the op.

to address what the original issue in this thread was, police brutality issues have not gotten more common (at least not notably more so) in a very long time. if you go back to MLK's day, this kind of shit was still happening at a similar frequency. the variable here is the proliferation of individual media (i.e: social media, where people can post--more or less--what they want, when they want). before the age of prevalent social media, murders like those of trayvon martin's, mike brown's, eric garner's, sandra bland's, etc. would not have gained nearly as much publicity as they did.

tl;dr: no. easier access to individual media has merely made information on these crimes more accessible.

[Jean Poutine]

My opinion with the above video is 50/50.

Obviously, the man being arrested has seen this coming. He knew that if he was confronted with this situation, he would draw his weapon and shoot to kill.
Obviously, neither of the police officers knew that he was packing, and when you're staring down the barrel of a gun, there's nothing you wouldn't do to save yourself or your fellow man (or in this case, woman). In this aspect, the shooting was completely justifiable.

However, there are a few things the officer could've done differently. First of all, the officers could've been less pushy and rude when apprehending the suspect. This might have been what pushed the suspect over the breaking point. Secondly, the taser would've been just as effective at disarming the suspect. And third, the officer could've taken a few shots at the hand, or even shot both legs to prevent the suspect from running, and stunning the suspect for long enough to restrain and disarm him. There was absolutely no reason for this officer to unload his entire clip into the man.

If I were a judge, I wouldn't seek any murder or manslaughter charges. However, I would certainly discipline him for excessive use of force, and keep close tabs on him in the event of future incidents.

First, to me it looks like the assailant is completely in control and knows what he's doing. I doubt he was goaded into getting his gun out, else his reaction would have been more instantaneous. The way he moved, he knew what he wanted to do. I think the officers might have been the most polite and respectful police on the planet and he still would have tried his luck. He was trying to get away from the police, not kill them simply because they were disrespectful. Then again, I wasn't there and I'm not him so who knows. I'm just going with what's on the vid.

About the taser, taser are one shot weapons and they have limited range, and on top of that they do not always work. Tasers require both probes to hit to work. If one misses or even falls off because of movement or anything else, it won't work. Depending on the clothing, whether it's loose or too thick, it won't work as well. If the probes land in fatty tissue, it won't work as well. Also, if the assailant is in a special state of mind, on drugs or enraged, he can almost walk right through. A gun does not share most of these drawbacks. Again, Tasers only have a chance to work once. If you miss your Taser shot against an armed opponent, you're dead. You won't have time to get the gun out of its holster before you get shot. With a gun, even if you miss there is very little delay in shooting another round.

Next, you try shooting at someone's hands or legs when he's brandishing a gun in your face and moving about. That's only ever seen in movies. At least you didn't claim he should have aimed for the gun to blow it out of his hand like in a Jackie Chan movie.

I believe that people regularly using firearms in their line of work (eg. soldiers, policemen) are trained to shoot in the chest both because it is the biggest target and because there is sufficient stopping power this way, so it's less likely that they'll miss and get shot themselves and it incapacitates the assailant. Hands are extremely small targets and they move around very quickly. Legs are also small, constantly moving targets. Shooting these, especially in such immediate danger, makes no sense whatsoever.

Finally, about unloading his entire clip, again, the guy had a gun and just as he was shot he was getting into position to shoot himself. In that kind of situation you don't take any chances. You want him to stay down. I don't have experience with gunfights but I do have 7 years of experience in unarmed combat.

It actually has happened that while I putting a strangle on some people, they'd gradually stop moving as if they passed out. As I was releasing the strangle because obviously I didn't want to cause brain damage to my opponent, they'd suddenly turn "live" and escape while I was wondering what the Hell happened, bringing the fight to me once more. In other words, they'd just fake it. You might put a round or two in someone's gut and he might drop down and look incapacitated or even stop moving altogether and as you're approaching to disarm him, he raises from the dead like fucking Lazarus and shoots you. Is that a chance you're willing to take?

Of course I released the choke as this was just training (I also don't shatter joints because my partner is too stubborn to tap) but if I were assaulted and my life depended on it I would not release the strangle unless I was absolutely 100% certain the assailant was out cold, brain damage or death risk or not. If it's between some punk who attacked me and myself I would do everything possible to make sure I'm the one going home. If he didn't want a lengthy stay in the hospital relearning everything he's ever been capable of doing, he should have been a honest citizen like 98% of us, not some asshole looking for trouble or marks that look easy to assault.

Plus we have the adrenaline factor kicking in, "do or die", "fight or flight", etc. It's really easy to sit back, watch a video and nitpick on everything officers do wrong from a distance, comfortably sat in a chair where no one brandishes a gun from nowhere and threatens to shoot you. This is also a major weakness of the legal system as far as I am concerned. Most judges, save ex-cops or maybe ex-soldiers, have never been in these situations and the only knowledge they have of them is reviewing evidence and watching videos in a place where their life isn't in danger, often without even understanding what humans go through when their lives are threatened.

So when they adjudicate cases, they do exactly as you do here, nitpick details and what-ifs scenarios and in so doing sometimes impose constraints on police officers, especially when it comes to the use of force, lethal or otherwise, that are really impossible to fulfill. People can't even begin to comprehend this. Pages and pages of criteria and step by step tests on when the use of force is justified or not. Nobody can go through a legal-style step by step test, pondering if they can shoot or not, when someone has a gun to their faces. You shoot first and suffer the consequences later. You might lose your job or be reprimanded but fuck, you're alive.

I'm not saying there should be no rules on the use of force here but I do think that rules should take into account the reality of the people who have to follow them. I think the same of the latest consent craze. In criminal procedure, the teacher (who was a Crown attorney, not a defence lawyer) constantly told us that some rules around police work are incredibly difficult for policemen to follow to the letter precisely because they are written in a sort of void completely disconnected from reality by people who sit in armchairs and compose badly written verbiage for a living. It looks to me like people who criticize how police officers do their work do so from an ivory tower. I don't think that kind of experience is absolutely necessary to criticize, and obviously some cases are so clear cut that you cannot help but object, but I think that experience and empathy puts a lot of things under perspective.

The adrenaline dump I go through during Judo competitions or sparring must look like some kind of joke next to the kind of rush you feel when your life is in danger, but even then I understand how your brain kinds of shuts off and how you have absolutely no time to think about anything when someone's looking to do unpleasant things to you. I don't have the luxury of being able to think "okay, he's done this, so I'll do this and if he reacts this way I'll do this, otherwise I'll do this". I just do it, and if the opponent resists then I'll adjust on the fly and try something else, I won't even think about it, my body takes over. Likewise, police officers don't have the time to think "he's done this, this and this, if he does this I use the Taser, if he does that I use the gun and shoot at his legs, and if he does this I shoot him in the chest, otherwise I'll do that instead, and if he doesn't do this I can't use force at all" when the suspect gets a gun out from nowhere, gets some distance and is about to line up a shot. You just take out the fucking gun and unload the fucking clip and hope he stays down.

Police brutality is undeniably a thing. Yes, it happens, and in some cases it is totally unjustifiable. But I think the most vehement critics don't have any sort of touch with that world and it shows. I don't either, I don't pretend to, but I try to understand based on my limited experience in controlled settings, legal knowledge and basic human empathy. If an officer is obviously way out of line I'll be the first to ask for his termination. I'm not an apologist and I don't try to explain away every case. But "police uses excessive force" sells a lot of copies, especially when it's white on black. I think most cases are spun out of proportion by people who have transparent agendas. In nearly all of these cases, the reality is far less clear cut than some would like us to believe.

You say that was excessive use of force and that you would discipline him. I think that it was totally justified under the circumstances. I repeat, the guy had a gun, not a pop can, he was obviously creating distance between himself and the police so he wouldn't be immediately restrained and disarmed, and he was about to line up his shots. You don't want that guy to have any chance to shoot you or your mate because he would have taken it without hesitation. In this case, you shoot to kill, and there is absolutely nothing improper about this.

I reiterate what I said in my first post. In the end, your own safety is primarily your business, no matter the idealistic slogans, no matter what's officially on the books. Always protect yourself. Ever watched "Million Dollar Baby"? In boxing the ref protects you as much as he can, if you aren't fighting back he'll stop the fight and interpose himself between you and the other fighter, if the other person fights dirty he'll penalize or disqualify him/her. But all it took was a misplaced stool, letting her guard down one moment and a cheap shot after the bell and Maggie's life was over. In the end it's up to yourself to protect yourself.

If you act respectfully, politely, predictably and calmly, and if you do what the police tell you to do while calmly making verbal complaints if necessary, the chances that policemen are going to shoot you, Taser you or bash you in the face with a baton are almost nil. If you do all that and still get clocked or hurt in any way then the fault lies solely with the individual police officer and not on you, which makes it much, much easier to obtain restitution in court and have the police fire the officer as it'll be obvious you did absolutely nothing warranting the use of force. If you don't want to do that to protect yourself, see it as a way to heavily strengthen your case if something happens.

You have to create conditions that allow police officers to think calmly, and not react on primal instinct. Always remember that humans are predators, in fact we are the most successful predators that ever walked on the Earth. Dinosaurs are fruit flies compared to us. We hunted huge game armed with flint axes, rocks, possibly slings and bows and wooden spears. No matter how deeply buried and constrained by our society, the killer instinct is there, and it can take over if given the chance to do so.

What purpose is there in physically resisting? If you try and fight your way out you're going to get ganged by 5 cops anyway, or worse. Yes, it really sucks if your rights are infringed or if you get beat up, not all police officers are good at their job, but that's why courts exist. We are lucky enough to live in countries with (mostly) functional judicial systems and the whole purpose of the damn judicial branch is to provide checks on legislative and executive power, the latter of which police are an agent. You're better off helping it to do its job than resisting and giving the police an pretext with which they can fight you in court.

[Dalton_Holt]

Yeah the news has just been covering it more. Though they've kind of backed off on it lately. But the dumbest thing to do is to trust in the government to "fix" it. The police are the enforcers of the government. What you need to do instead is take power from the government. End the drug war, get rid of all the victimless "crimes" and unjust laws. Demilitarize the police. Hell, take the guns away from street cops. Like in Britain (only the rest of us keep our guns.)

[Vermilion]

I personal think like 1/10 cases of police brutality is the police being heavy handed and it's uncalled for. However the police wouldn't have to act to things using force is the people did what they were told to do. We want the police to protect us from things like shooting and terrorist attacks so that means using force does it not. So showing that they will use force for small things is a deterrent plus crime is at a high

[Judean Zealot]

Yeah the news has just been covering it more. Though they've kind of backed off on it lately. But the dumbest thing to do is to trust in the government to "fix" it. The police are the enforcers of the government. What you need to do instead is take power from the government. End the drug war, get rid of all the victimless "crimes" and unjust laws. Demilitarize the police. Hell, take the guns away from street cops. Like in Britain (only the rest of us keep our guns.)

http://i.imgur.com/Ak1zlHP.jpg

[Stronk Serb]

Well, the cops here and in the US do not differ a lot, hell I might say that the cops here are worse than the ones in the US since they are the law. I could get ran over or beaten to a pulp by a cop and nobody will care. Now the run-ins that I had with our cops weren't violent since I did not attempt to piss them of or make them feel I pose a threat. I just answered questions and did what I was told. If you fail to comply, you will get treated suspiciously and you might get beaten up and taken in. If you carry weapons or drugs, you get a free facial remodeling on site and the finishing touches in the station.

[phuckphace]

If you carry weapons or drugs, you get a free facial remodeling on site and the finishing touches in the station.

noice (the drugs I mean).

when I'm feeling down I like to look up YouTube videos of cops killing thugs and tweakers, puts a smile on the phace pretty quick. I've met plenty of cops at my job and most seem like pretty cool younger guys who probably have a wife and little kid at home. in this area, if you get beaten and/or shot by the cops you were probably asking for it (by which I mean fucking with them and running your mouth while doing so).

[Stronk Serb]

noice (the drugs I mean).

when I'm feeling down I like to look up YouTube videos of cops killing thugs and tweakers, puts a smile on the phace pretty quick. I've met plenty of cops at my job and most seem like pretty cool younger guys who probably have a wife and little kid at home. in this area, if you get beaten and/or shot by the cops you were probably asking for it (by which I mean fucking with them and running your mouth while doing so).

Pretty much the same is here. In some cases, some cops cracked jokes while searching me, like for my cigarettes or the fact that we have to carry a metric ton of books to school. It breaks the stereotype that they are cold, heartless killing machines roaming the streets looking for a fresh victim like the media spins them out to be.

[phuckphace]

Pretty much the same is here. In some cases, some cops cracked jokes while searching me, like for my cigarettes or the fact that we have to carry a metric ton of books to school. It breaks the stereotype that they are cold, heartless killing machines roaming the streets looking for a fresh victim like the media spins them out to be.

#WhitePrivilege

[Stronk Serb]

#WhitePrivilege

#WhitePrivilege
We are privileged to have higher chances of being searched than minorities even though by percent some minorities commit more crime.

[phuckphace]

#WhitePrivilege
We are privileged to have higher chances of being searched than minorities even though by percent some minorities commit more crime.

because they know white people will grin and bear it instead of spazzing out and becoming violent