Page 2 of 3

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:15 pm
by Carleas
WendyDarling wrote:In other words, they are pulling facts and figures from all over the place and making these regressions (which I don't understand) to try to come up with even sample sizes. If white people are not committing as much criminal activity or as severe criminal activity, why is that being fabricated to equal the sample sizes between blacks and whites? And how can a fabrication speak to real content and context?

Forgive me for the following hand-wavey explanation, I sort of understand statistical regression in the abstract, but I couldn't do one myself.

Regressions are a mathematical tools that help match like to like. They're the method by which the authors are controlling for things like criminal history and severity of the crime. The basic idea is that there's some function that produces the measured outcome, in this case the length of a prison sentence. The function is something like,

(number if prior offenses)*x+(severity of offense)*y+(type of crime)*z+(some remaining unexplained factor)=(length of sentence)

That remaining unexplained factor is the error in the function. If we know the other things, we can guess the length of the sentence plus-or-minus that remaining bit. We can add other factors to try to reduce that remaining unexplained factor. Maybe length of sentence is affected by where in the country the case took place, or how good a lawyer the defendant had, or when the judge last ate. Adding those things to the function would reduce the error, i.e. if we know them for a case we can guess the prison sentence better. Other things we could add probably wouldn't: defendant's blood type, closing price of the S&P that day, whether the Red Sox won their last game.

Regressions are how we find this function. We take a bunch of cases and pull out all the information and see how much things contribute to removing the unexplained part, i.e. if we know some piece of information about a case, how well can we guess the outcome. Here, we're trying to see how much of the difference is explained by race of the defendant.

We could do as you suggest, and limit the study to "first time offenders with similar backgrounds who have clean records". We could do a thousand separate studies: first time offenders with background x, second time offenders with background x, first time offenders with background y, second time offenders with background y, etc. But regressions let us look at all those cases at the same time. Assuming that race is a factor that operates similarly in all those cases, we can get an idea of the general impact of race.

It should be acknowledged that this method isn't perfect. We could be missing variables and it's always possible that even where race helps reduce the error, it's doing so by acting as a proxy for something else that we haven't included. For example, if this study didn't control for the geographical area (it does), race might be a acting a proxy for geographic area, e.g. if most black defendants come from certain areas, and those areas also have tougher sentencing in general. But it's still a reliable method, and when we have hypotheses about other things that could be resulting in what looks like racial bias, we can plug them into the regression and see if they remove the effect of race. In this case, we controlled for geographic area, and we still see race as playing a role in determining sentence length.

WendyDarling wrote:If race is the consistent issue, it would be evident in a majority of cases for both genders where race differences are found

Again, we're trying to compare like to like. Where we know that the criminal justice system produces vastly different outcomes for men and women, we need to control for that variable, and compare male back defendants to male white defendants, and female black defendants to female white defendants. You're assuming that "they had no case to unfold regarding racial disparities in treatments of women", but that's unfounded, the study doesn't say that, it says it focused on men because the two populations are different men are 80% of prisoners.

As for why defendant sex wasn't just plugged into the regression, it could be that sex is such a major factor in sentencing that it's effectively not the same process. It could also be that the number of cases for women for which the relevant data was available was just insufficient to include in any meaningful way (for example, data from some states was excluded). It could be that intersectionality matters, and race really does do something different from women than it does for men. I don't think we can assume that, and in any case it isn't necessary to speculate in order to interpret this study: this study provides strong evidence that black men are given longer prison sentences because they are black.

WendyDarling wrote:When they make claims like this I don't understand why they are making the assumption that the same crimes were being committed when the charges are actually lumped into only two categories: misdemeanors and felonies.

They aren't. After noting that a specific data set only indicates severity directly as a distinction between misdemeanors and felonies, the report notes that "charges are simply recorded as the detailed section of the criminal code a defendant is charged with violating", i.e. the law that the defendant broke. The authors use those code sections to assess severity. This doesn't resolve all ambiguity, but it gives a much finer-grained severity assessment than the misdemeanor/felony distinction.

As you note, this requires making "realistic assumptions" about how those code sections are applied. They are assuming, for example, that most convictions under a specific code section is not being sentenced based on some obscure aggravating factor mentioned in the code section. The assumptions are realistic in that they reflect how the code section is most likely to be applied.

I get the way you are upset with assumptions, but you can't not make assumptions (I made this same mistake in my post above, but I caught it a few days ago!), and they state what their assumptions are. The right criticism can't be "bullshit, they're making assumptions!", it needs to be "this specific assumption is unreasonable for these reasons, and if it's false it undermines the findings in these ways." There's just no way to "have all the blanks filled in by factual data", there are always blanks in any causal story.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:11 pm
by WendyDarling
What about all the Hispanics? In 2015, that was 17.6% of the US population which is a larger percent than the black population at 13%. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/09/18/f ... s-latinos/

How did the study filter out the Hispanics from the get-go? From what I read it did not, but did (and I don't understand how) include one aspect of information about Hispanics they did have? How do you conclude a study about blacks and whites when Hispanics are mixed into both racial samples in unknown numbers?

We could do as you suggest, and limit the study to "first time offenders with similar backgrounds who have clean records".

Why wouldn't they simplify the study so that criminal histories which are the most significant aspect would not be relevant? There would be no assumptions or ambiguities then.

(number if prior offenses)*x+(severity of offense)*y+(type of crime)*z+(some remaining unexplained factor)=(length of sentence)

Is this off their actual regression or is what's above your made up version?

Checking if I understand...
Type of prior offenses(A,B,C) X severity(X,Y,Z) X current offense type (1) X (Unexplained factor/how did they calculate such a thing? a.b.c.)=actual length of sentence
It should be acknowledged that this method isn't perfect. We could be missing variables and it's always possible that even where race helps reduce the error, it's doing so by acting as a proxy for something else that we haven't included. For example, if this study didn't control for the geographical area (it does), race might be a acting a proxy for geographic area, e.g. if most black defendants come from certain areas, and those areas also have tougher sentencing in general. But it's still a reliable method, and when we have hypotheses about other things that could be resulting in what looks like racial bias, we can plug them into the regression and see if they remove the effect of race. In this case, we controlled for geographic area, and we still see race as playing a role in determining sentence length.

Where was the amount of time already served for previous offenses included? This seems like an important factor for amounts of time served would influence how much harsher a sentence would be the next time around and might explain why a prosecutor would ask for the minimum sentence to be fulfilled.

this study provides strong evidence that black men are given longer prison sentences because they are black.

If they are actually Hispanics lumped in with blacks, how do you figure a strong case against a tainted black sample? The unknown degree of Hispanic inclusion negates the entire study.

This doesn't resolve all ambiguity, but it gives a much finer-grained severity assessment than the misdemeanor/felony distinction.

They divided it into what 6 sections of severity? Was that done for each previous offense? Then those numbers were added together? And what subsumed back into the six sections of overall severity? Somethings missing there. Then what about gang offenses when several people were involved? I didn't understand how they measured and weighted those past offenses or if that past information was even known which would have also impacted previous sentencing which is another imperative part of their equation that seems missing.

The study wasn't done correctly. Hispanics cannot be contaminating the samples. Their criminal history and past sentencing figures are missing, both very important aspects that needed to be calculated properly. Also, how did they come up with equal sample sizes when blacks and whites do not commit the same number of like crimes. Did they pick and choose certain cases to include and exclude?

Where was time served figured into the equation? If both the prosecutor and judge see that so and so served a good amount of time but didn't learn from it, they may be punishing stupidity rather than blackness by asking for and giving the minimum sentence or worse.

Also the length of a criminal history may weigh against an offender before even taking the types of offenses into account, so how was that included? If the history for the study only took five offenses into account, but the prosecutor and judge saw many more offenses, that would have definitely given those with the longest records, the longest sentences.

But the fact that they didn't use first time offenders for this study, which would erase the ambiguities and assumptions, doesn't make sense unless it would have made a different case that racial disparity in sentence lengths between blacks and whites (and hispanics LOL)was no different.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:21 pm
by Carleas
First, let me take a step back so we don't lose sight of the broader discussion: you seem willing to commit fully to hypotheses with no evidence (like that every unarmed black person that's shot to death must have had their hands in their pockets and refused to cooperate), while for a study that does present evidence, and that attempts to control for a reasonable set of variables (including the one that you'd original suggested to explain sentencing disparity), you won't accept it unless it eliminates every possible assumption. You're holding competing hypotheses to wildly different standards of proof.

My impression is that that's a running theme, and pretty flagrant in this case. You suggested that sentencing disparities could be explained by failure to control for criminal history. You provided no evidence, no data set, no methodology, nothing to support that conjecture. I provided a study that took the data we have, applied a reasonable methodology to do exactly what you were saying wasn't done, and found that the sentencing disparity still exists. There may be other things we want to know from the data, more studies using the same data sets and looking at different questions could tease out different information. But "this study isn't perfect and doesn't tell us absolutely everything we might be curious about" is not the same as "my baseless conjecture is supported".

WendyDarling wrote:What about all the Hispanics?

Hispanic isn't a race, so whatever the influence on sentencing of being Hispanic, it is separate from the role of race in sentencing.

WendyDarling wrote:Why wouldn't they simplify the study so that criminal histories which are the most significant aspect would not be relevant? There would be no assumptions or ambiguities then.

First, there would absolutely still be assumptions or ambiguities. If we limited it to just first time offenders, we still need to control for the type of crime, i.e. compare murderers to murders. We need to control for the nature of the crime, e.g. murder with a knife is different from murder with poison. We need to control for the victim, e.g. child or adult, white or black, rich or poor. No two crimes are exactly identical, they all all differ in the details, and it's impossible to create a data set that captures every detail that might be relevant. So we take the data we have, we make reasonable assumptions about how these differences average out, and we compare based on the data we have. That's true even if we remove everyone from the data set except first time offenders.

Further, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that race acts differently on first time offenders than it does on third time offenders. We could look at different racial disparities for different types of crime (and this study does a little of that, noting that disparities are much greater at the high end). But that's just a different question. By combining all the data, we can see that there's a racial disparity across all types of criminals, whether first-timers or repeat offenders.

But the disparity-in-disparities, even if it exists, would just mean that the overall disparity that this study finds is masking a much greater disparity in some specific subset of crimes. While that may be the case, it's still sufficient to show that across all crimes, there is a disparity.

WendyDarling wrote:They divided it into what 6 sections of severity? Was that done for each previous offense? Then those numbers were added together? And what subsumed back into the six sections of overall severity? Somethings missing there.

I think we've been conflating "criminal history" and "charge severity". "Criminal history" appears to be a term of art used by the sentencing guidelines, that uses a point system to categorize defendants into 6 categories. I think the charge severity calculated in this paper was only applied to the charge for which the defendant is sentenced, and then they relied on the criminal history categorization that was used at the sentencing.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:15 pm
by WendyDarling
you seem willing to commit fully to hypotheses with no evidence (like that every unarmed black person that's shot to death must have had their hands in their pockets and refused to cooperate), while for a study that does present evidence, and that attempts to control for a reasonable set of variables (including the one that you'd original suggested to explain sentencing disparity), you won't accept it unless it eliminates every possible assumption.

Why would assumptions make a study valid?

That hypothesis doesn't need a bunch of evidence for it is based on common police procedure which is to verbalize orders to a suspect and either the suspect complies with the officers orders or he doesn't. When a suspect does not comply with an officers orders, the situation escalates, often into areas of violent confrontation between the officer and the suspect and the suspect is arrested for failure to comply, resisting arrest, etc. If you want to make correlations between behaviors between blacks and whites when stopped by the police, lets look at the number of arrests made for each type of defiant behavior for blacks and for whites and see where we stand. That shouldn't be too difficult to find. Show me that study. :evilfun:

I provided a study that took the data we have, applied a reasonable methodology to do exactly what you were saying wasn't done, and found that the sentencing disparity still exists.


I do not believe that a reasonable methodology was applied for it is still not clear exactly what was represented by criminal history, if it included the entire history which it doesn't, nor does it include the time served or even sentenced for each prior offense.

If Hispanics are not a race then why are they considered a minority called Hispanics or Latinos? Why are American born Hispanic children classified as Hispanic and not white? I understand that the government is playing games with the differences between ethnicity, race, and minority status. On college applications, drivers license, medical forms, census forms, etc. when asked for race/ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino is a category, but I can't explain why the government plays games with race.
Image

Ethnicity and Race:
Are you Hispanic or Latino? (a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race)

Yes No


Please select the racial category or categories with which you most closely identify. Check as many as apply.
American Indian or Alaska Native
(A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.)

Asian
(A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.)

Black or African American
(A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.)

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
(A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific islands.)

White
(A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.)

https://www.applytexas.org/adappc/html/ ... frs_1.html

From reading the choices above, what race is a shorter than caucasian, brown skinned, brown haired, brown eyed Mexican? Like I said, I see the games the government is playing with race, but I'll let what Wiki deems race to be true ( :lol: ). You know it's not true, don't you? :evilfun:

First, there would absolutely still be assumptions or ambiguities. If we limited it to just first time offenders, we still need to control for the type of crime, i.e. compare murderers to murders. We need to control for the nature of the crime, e.g. murder with a knife is different from murder with poison. We need to control for the victim, e.g. child or adult, white or black, rich or poor. No two crimes are exactly identical, they all all differ in the details, and it's impossible to create a data set that captures every detail that might be relevant. So we take the data we have, we make reasonable assumptions about how these differences average out, and we compare based on the data we have. That's true even if we remove everyone from the data set except first time offenders.

Did this study compare for all these differences? I did not read where they say they do.

Where does the study say that they include the entire criminal history of each person sampled? From what I read it was only up to 5 previous offenses, wouldn't 6, or 15 previous offenses matter greatly?

Also, why wasn't time previously sentenced and time previously served included? Those are huge aspects of someone's criminal history which both prosecutors and judges see and both would greatly affect a new sentence suggestion and ultimately its length. Sentence length discrepancies happened here and were not due to blackness, but rather due to the stupidity of being a repeat offender!

Why would a complete study looking at disproportionate sentence lengths not look at sentence lengths already served or assigned for repeat offenders? There would be a significant correlation between them. Instead, that is incorporated somehow into the study based on severity, not incorporated accurately but rather an assumptive approximation? LOL

By combining all the data, we can see that there's a racial disparity across all types of criminals, whether first-timers or repeat offenders.

Where is this evidenced? I didn't see any distinction made.

There are six criminal history categories. Each category is associated with a range of criminal history points. Thus, for example, a defendant with 0 or 1 criminal history points would be in Criminal History Category I, while a defendant with 13 or more criminal history points would be in Criminal History Category VI. The criminal history points are calculated by adding 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month; adding 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days but not more than 13 months; adding 1 point for each prior sentence of less than sixty days; adding 2 points if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status; adding 2 points if the defendant committed the instant offense less than two years after release from imprisonment on a sentence of sixty days or more or while in imprisonment or escape status on such a sentence, except that if 2 points are added committing the offense while under a criminal justice sentence, adding only 1 point for this item; and adding 1 point for each prior sentence resulting from a conviction of a crime of violence that did not receive any points because such sentence was counted as a single sentence, up to a total of 3 points for this item.

A subject simply tops out at 13 points at level 6. Their criminal history can be a mile long and real ugly, but it stops at 13/level 6 or were the actual points tallied rather than just the level? Only 5 prior offenses...not very specific to get the true gist of how much prison time an offender has already served.

Carleas, I understand that this is an official study, but it could have been done differently and with more accuracy taking all the important aspects of criminal history into account rather than glossing over them or it could have been about first time offenders so there would be less assumptions and ambiguities regarding the criminal history. The study does point to racial disparity which is what it set out to do and they came up with a way in this study to depict the disparity, nevermind that it is an incomplete assessment of the offenders criminal history which discredits its accuracy from the get go. If you are happy with faulty studies because they show how white police officers set out to break the law and jeopardize their livelihood not to mention take the risk of themselves going to jail, I am happy for your happiness. Find a better study or we remain in disagreement. I've been unable to find any studies that set out with the intent to prove that whites do not mistreat blacks. Why do social scientists only wish to prove that white people are racist?

While I found articles by the police who are commenting on the ever growing epidemic of non compliance of offenders with the police, the comments were not race specific for whites only condemn themselves, rather than defend themselves so it's doubtful that the behavior of the black community's conduct will ever be called into the light and have a research study done to measure it.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:28 pm
by Carleas
WendyDarling wrote:Why would assumptions make a study valid?

It would be valid given those assumptions. If the assumptions are reasonable, then the outcome is reliable.

WendyDarling wrote:That hypothesis doesn't need a bunch of evidence

Ah, so your position is that there is no racial bias in policing, and that claim does not need to be backed up by evidence...

While I don't take your position as a reasonable prior, given what we know about the history of racial discrimination in the US (including and especially official discrimination by the police), even if we were to take it as a prior, evidence like the study presented, where behavior is controlled for, should make you question your priors. We have evidence that race, when isolated as a causal factor, is playing a role in peoples treatment by the justice system. In light of that, it's not reasonable to accept, without evidence, that race does not play a role. Everywhere that people are making judgement calls (including when police decide that someone is being aggressive, or resisting, or not cooperating, etc.), race can enter as a factor.

WendyDarling wrote:If Hispanics are not a race then why are they considered a minority...?

Lefties are minority, are they a race?

Technically, Hispanic is not the same as Latino. While that technical meaning may not always track colloquial use, for the purpose of interpreting this survey and the data on which it relied, I think it's safe to assume (!) that a study looking at demographic statistics is using the technical and not the colloquial meaning.

WendyDarling wrote:I understand that this is an official study, but it could have been done differently and with more accuracy...

I think you're making unreasonable demands. Studies into these questions are limited by the data we have. We can't get an infinite amount of data on each case, and we can't control for an infinite number of variables. But "could have been done differently and with more accuracy" is not the same as "is no good and inaccurate".

And let me say, I may be coming off as too dismissive of your deep dive into methodology and demand for rigor. I don't mean to be, it's a good instinct and I applaud it. But it's only valuable where it places realistic demands on researchers, where it is applied evenly to reject any study no matter the conclusion, and where the methodological problems you find can reasonably be expected to affect the answer to the question presented.

This study is limited by the data, it makes some assumptions about the nature of crimes based on the statute under which they are prosecuted, and it does not answer any questions about the independent role that Hispanic ethnicity plays in sentencing. But you don't have a study that goes farther and finds a different answer. You asked for a study that looked at sentencing disparities controlling for criminal history. This study does.

WendyDarling wrote:I've been unable to find any studies that set out with the intent to prove that whites do not mistreat blacks.

That shouldn't be the goal. Though I'm not so naive to think that researchers don't set out with an end in mind, that doesn't mean that we have to do the same. Look for studies that solve the methodological problems you have with this study, and then see what they find.


Let's keep going. I think we'll find that there's a pattern where you reject reasonable studies for not meeting your impossible standards, present no competing studies -- studies that 1) meet your standards, and 2) show that meeting your standards was sufficient to change the finding-- and then claim that you need no evidence for your position. Which is what you've done for this study. Let's see if the pattern holds.

Let's look at the study listed under "Findings of the Use of Handcuffs". The link in that article is to a WaPo summary, but the study is here, and the ~300 page technical deep dive into Oakland PD data is here. It has different methodology from the report we were discussing previously, addresses some of your concerns about behavioral differences, and presents similar findings (racial bias in policing) from different evidence. I think we should stick with the shorter report, but I include the latter because I know you appreciate rigor. I'll refer to the two documents as SfC ('Strategies for Change', the summary report) and DfC ('Data for Change', the technical report). Page references are to pdf pages, rather than the number written on the page.

A few things that stand out to me:
  • Related to your earlier claim, this study found race-bias in the rate of stops, even controlling for the fact that they are more active in areas with a higher black population: "we found no evidence that the OPD was specifically targeting African American neighborhoods. Instead, the OPD does target neighborhoods with higher crime rates. As the first analysis revealed, however, once in a neighborhood, OPD officers tend to stop more African Americans than is proportional to their representation in the neighborhood." (SfC 11)
  • On a related note, the disparity was greater when the officers knew the race of the suspect prior to making the stop, suggesting that race played a role in the interpretation of behavior: "We also found that when officers were able to identify the race of the person before stopping him or her, they were much more likely to be stopping an African American (62%), as compared to when they couldn’t tell the race of the person (48%)." (SfC 11)
  • Handcuffing was much more common of black people than white people, even when they weren't arrested: "We found that African American men were handcuffed in one out of every four stops, as compared to one in every 15 stops for White men. Even after controlling for neighborhood crime rates, demographics, and many other factors, our analyses showed that OPD officers handcuffed significantly more African Americans than Whites. This African American-White handcuffing gap was especially pronounced for vehicle stops and stops made because of traffic violations." (SfC 11)
  • Searches were also more common for black people than white people: "Excluding low-discretion searches, we found that officers searched African American men in one out of every five stops, as compared to one out of every 20 stops for White men. Even after controlling for neighborhood crime rate, racial demographics, and many other factors, our analyses showed that OPD officers were more likely to search African Americans than Whites." (SfC 12)
  • The police body camera language analysis is pretty interesting, showing that police used less formal language when speaking to black people, and used more severe legal language. That's true even controlling for whether there was a parole-justified stop, and for the severity of the justification for the stop. (SfC 18-19)

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:43 pm
by WendyDarling
Regarding our last study debate, I will continue to stress that the criminal history used did not paint the whole picture of the offenders previous prison sentences nor did it compare that to their current sentence which is a biggie to see the why blacks were sentenced for the 10% longer sentences. I say that blacks were assigned the longer sentences that they deserved based on their criminal histories.

Image
Jennifer Eberhardt, a co-author of the studies you cited.

Does Jennifer's being black have anything to do with why she has interests in racial discrimination and racial profiling against blacks during incidents with the police? My reasonable assumption is yes. Would her racial bias as a black person be the deciding factor in her choice of study and the methodology used to prove that blacks are mistreated in many ways by the criminal justice system? My reasonable assumption is yes.

What is also interesting is the fact that the Oakland Police Department had a racially diverse force of nearly 60% non-white officers around the time of her study, so it would be safe to say that all races and ethnicities which make up the OPD practice racial bias against blacks, even the 18% black police officers who were serving on the force at the time of the study.

Her study does not try to explain why blacks are targeted by the racially diverse Oakland police for worse treatments by the police, only that they are targeted by white, black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American police officers in the city of Oakland, California, correct Carleas? So it's not a white versus black thing, it's all races/ethnicities in the police force versus blacks.

Why are black Oakland community members mistreated by the police in general? And why are Asians treated so well by the same police? Do Asians obey the laws and the police more and more often than whites, Hispanics, and blacks? Is the conduct of Asians cooperative with the police? Are blacks not as cooperative with the police as Asians? Do Asians maintain their vehicles better than blacks who are mostly pulled over for problems with their vehicles rather than moving violations?

Figure 3. Demographics of Sworn OPD Members V , Race


US 2010 OPD OPD
Race Census 2013 2014
White 34.5% 43.0% 42.0%
Black 28.0% 20.0% 18.8%
Asian 16.8% 20.9% 12.7%
Hispanic 25.4% 19.0% 21.2%
Other * 5.3%
Female 14.3%** 12.0% 12.0%
Male 85.7%** 88.0% 88.0%
* Other includes Undeclared and Unknown, Data as of 7/1/2014
** 2007 data U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/group ... 053167.pdf


The chart above breaks down the racial demographics for the Oakland area, and the racial/ethnic diversity of the Oakland police department in 2013 and 2014 when the study was conducted. As you can see, the OPD was racially diverse in 2013 and 2014 to reflect the demographics in the greater Oakland area, not perfectly, but close enough to be reasonable.

There's a lot to pick through in the 300 page version so this may take awhile.

Related to your earlier claim, this study found race-bias in the rate of stops, even controlling for the fact that they are more active in areas with a higher black population: "we found no evidence that the OPD was specifically targeting African American neighborhoods. Instead, the OPD does target neighborhoods with higher crime rates. As the first analysis revealed, however, once in a neighborhood, OPD officers tend to stop more African Americans than is proportional to their representation in the neighborhood." (SfC 11)


This study counters your Ferguson study where you played dumb to the idea that the police were only doing their jobs in high crime areas that happened to be black. So, the OPD doesn't target black areas, it'd be reasonable for me to say that the Ferguson police did not target black areas either, they were simply doing their jobs responding to high 911 areas in mass to keep the peace. It's time to kiss my high heels for my being right! :evilfun: I like when you bring up studies that prove my earlier points in other studies. Keep it up.

Back to reading. :techie-studyingbrown:

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:46 pm
by Carleas
I'm glad you're still considering this, I thought maybe I was a little too fresh in my last post and you lost interest!
WendyDarling wrote:Regarding our last study debate, I will continue to stress that the criminal history used did not paint the whole picture of the offenders previous prison sentences nor did it compare that to their current sentence which is a biggie to see the why blacks were sentenced for the 10% longer sentences. I say that blacks were assigned the longer sentences that they deserved based on their criminal histories.

This is not a proper logical inference. I think it's a fair to point out that criminal history could have been more precisely specified. There could have been 60 categories, or 6000. But you can't just conclude anything you want from a lack of precision. The most precise data you've ever seen contradicts your hypothesis that differences in criminal history are what accounts for differences in sentencing. Either acknowledge that that's true, or present more precise data.

WendyDarling wrote:Does Jennifer's being black have anything to do with [anything].

No. Her methodology is fully disclosed, if you find something wrong with it, by all means point it out.

WendyDarling wrote:Her study does not try to explain why blacks are targeted by the racially diverse Oakland police for worse treatments by the police, only that they are targeted by white, black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American police officers in the city of Oakland, California, correct Carleas?

It doesn't have to. The point is to show that there is a racial bias in policing. And I don't think framing it as anyone "versus" anyone is productive. As I've said, I think most officers are acting in good faith.

WendyDarling wrote:I like when you bring up studies that prove my earlier points in other studies.

As I pointed out here, you offered three unsupported hypotheses to explain the disparities in policing, all of which have to be true for your explanation to work.
I wrote:You're offering a few hypotheses to explain the observation that more blacks are arrested then we would expect based on demographics:
1) 911 calls are more frequent in majority black areas
2) Police patrol areas where the most 911 calls are made
3) The rate at which blacks vs. whites are arrested is what we should expect given the demographics of the areas the police patrol most often.

This study shows that the third is false in Oakland: black people are stopped at a rate greater than what we should expect given the demographics. So even if this study supports 1 and 2, it still undermines your position.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:11 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
Carleas wrote:This study shows that the third is false in Oakland: black people are stopped at a rate greater than what we should expect given the demographics.


Are all those stops supposed to be random in the egalitarian fantasy land or would police officers in that land also stop cars and people with suspicious behaviour more often?

In other words, if the police are doing a good job and try to catch the criminals and not just be blind random stopping tools, I'd expect the racial stop rate to somehow reflect the crime rate of different racial groups.

I guess it's after all not about catching criminals but about social engineering to try and make all those different racial groups equal, at least when it comes to (perceived) beneficial qualities among Whites.



Image

For the coalition of against Whitey sometimes a Mexican is White, sometimes he isn't.
To understand why and how, you simply need to ask yourself whether or not it is good for Whites.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:29 am
by WendyDarling
In other words, if the police are doing a good job and try to catch the criminals and not just be blind random stopping tools, I'd expect the racial stop rate to somehow reflect the crime rate of different racial groups.

Wrong. Carleas' studies show that blacks are singled out for no reasonable reason. In his studies, blacks are targeted by the white gestapo who rough them up at every chance they get, in fact, the whites go out of their ways to mistreat law abiding blacks while they pat the criminal whites on the backs for good behavior. It's the white man keepin' the blacks down law enforcement and legal system conspiracies, haven't ya heard?

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:49 am
by WendyDarling
This is not a proper logical inference. I think it's a fair to point out that criminal history could have been more precisely specified. There could have been 60 categories, or 6000. But you can't just conclude anything you want from a lack of precision. The most precise data you've ever seen contradicts your hypothesis that differences in criminal history are what accounts for differences in sentencing. Either acknowledge that that's true, or present more precise data.

If only five offenses are counted out of 50 that an offender previously served time for, then sure his next sentence based on only 5 crimes in his criminal history being accounted for will make his latest sentence look like overkill to study observers, but to prosecutors and judges who have seen the other 45 unaccounted for crimes (the total 50 crimes committed and sentenced for) and those previous 50 sentence lengths, their most recent sentence recommendations and decisions will reflect the criminals past criminal history and sentences in full, the full 50, not just 5.

So your study is not inaccurate for what little evidence of offender's criminal histories it presented, it just wasn't the full picture and the full picture, the full criminal history, is what both the prosecutor and judge were going off of when they assessed the criminal's latest offense and the length of his latest sentence. Nice try with that study and also the suggestion that I find better evidence to make my hypothesis more accurate and true than the study you presented. I suppose that you have to be offensive to goad me to become some kind of unheard of white social scientist out to prove the racial bias of blacks against whites in other social science studies by pointing out the flaws in the racist methodologies they are purposely incorporating to slant biases in their favor like the frequent use of whites in their comparisons rather than Asians or Hispanics. I can't find any studies that show racial disparities between blacks and Asians even though Asians are treated the best by the police and the justice system.

Your studies, Carleas, have black racist researchers and liberal retards trying to point to white racists which just isn't the case when using the police and their procedures as evidence. The real evidence lies in the why the black person was considered law breaking or suspicious in the first place and I argue that it is based on their past in the criminal justice system among other reasonable reasons.

Never fear, I'll point out all the flaws in their methodologies.
Black people are not shooting each other at these alarming rates in Chicago and other urban areas because of our gun laws or our drug laws or a criminal justice system that has it in for them. The problem is primarily cultural — self-destructive behaviors and attitudes all too common among the black underclass. The problem is black criminal behavior, which is one manifestation of a black pathology that ultimately stems from the breakdown of the black family. Liberals want to talk about what others should do for blacks instead of what blacks should do for themselves. But if we don’t acknowledge the cultural barriers to black progress, how can we address them? How can you even begin to fix something that almost no one wants to talk about honestly?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -about-bl/


One of the most consistent findings in the criminological literature is that African American males are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at rates that far exceed those of any other racial or ethnic group. This racial disparity is frequently interpreted as evidence that the criminal justice system is racist and biased against African American males. Much of the existing literature purportedly supporting this inter-pretation, however, fails to estimate properly specified statistical models that control for a range of indi-vidual-level factors. The current study was designed to address this shortcoming by analyzing a sample of African American and White males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Analysis of these data revealed that African American males are significantly more likely to be arrested and incarcerated when compared to White males. This racial disparity, however, was com-pletely accounted for after including covariates for self-reported lifetime violence and IQ. Implications of this study are discussed and avenues for future research are offered.

No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ent_Health [accessed Oct 08 2017].

Requested a copy of this study from the authors...wait-n-see.

In fact, the chances of a criminal being caught and sent to prison are very low. Even the JFA Institute, an anti-incarceration advocacy group, estimates that in only 3 percent of violent or property crimes do offenders end up in prison. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2004 only 1.6 percent of burglars were in prison.

Recidivism rates are strong evidence that incarceration prevents crime. The BJS tracked 404,638 state prisoners released in 2005. Within one year, 43.4 percent had been rearrested. This percentage grew with every succeeding year, rising to 76.7 percent at the end of five years. At that point, the released prisoners had been arrested a total of 1,173,000 times, or an average of 2.9 times each. These figures do not include the estimated 12 to 15 crimes a felon commits every year when he is not imprisoned and that do not result in an arrest.7

Many people believe that prisons are filled with non-violent drug offenders. It is true that half of federal prisoners are guilty of drug crimes — almost always trafficking — but they account for only 13 percent of the nation’s prison population, with the rest in state prison. Casual drug use almost never results in a prison term. In 2013, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (page 15 of report), only 3.7 percent of state prisoners were convicted only of drug possession, and this was generally the result of a plea bargain to avoid charges of trafficking. Most had long prior records. Only 12.2 percent of state prisoners were convicted even of trafficking. Fully 53.8 percent of state prisoners were guilty of violent crimes, and 18.8 percent had committed property crimes.
https://www.amren.com/archives/reports/ ... d-edition/

Only 3% end up in prison. 53.8% of state prisoners were guilty of violent crimes. Blacks commit more crimes of all stripes even though they only make up 13% of the population and this is known due to witness and surveillance evidence identifying the perpetrator.

Don't mind me as I gather evidence to support my hypothesis. :evilfun:

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:15 pm
by Carleas
Is_Yde_opN wrote:Are all those stops supposed to be random in the egalitarian fantasy land or would police officers in that land also stop cars and people with suspicious behaviour more often?

That same study shows that the disparities in traffic stops of black people are significantly higher in cases where the officer knew the race of the suspect before the stop. In other words, in those cases where it was possible for race to affect police behavior, we see an effect of race on police behavior. So the hypothesis that the disparity is based on differences in suspect behavior is undermined: where suspects are judged on their behavior and not their race, we see less racial disparity.

WendyDarling wrote:... blacks are targeted by the white gestapo...

This is an argument in bad faith. I've repeatedly acknowledged that this doesn't depend on the race of the officer, and it doesn't depend on officers being evil. The only argument I've made is that black people are unfairly targeted by the police. The studies I've provided back that point up.

WendyDarling wrote:If only five offenses are counted out of 50 that an offender previously served time for...

You know that's not what the study is doing, because the study tells you what it is doing. The criminal history that was used in the study is the same criminal history that's used in federal sentencing guidelines that judges use during sentencing.

The fact that you're attacking strawmen should give you pause.

WendyDarling wrote:Nice try with that study and also the suggestion that I find better evidence to make my hypothesis more accurate and true than the study you presented.

My point is that the best effort you've ever seen to actually control for the thing that you're asking to control for undermines your position. It's not that your position has been made impossible, but if you're looking at the evidence in good faith, you need to acknowledge that the Bayesian inference from this study is that it's less likely that your hypothesis is true.

To your "studies"
1) This isn't a study, it's an opinion piece.
2) When you get the full text, I hope that you apply to this study the same skeptical eye you apply to the other studies we've discussed. There are apparently significant methodological flaws that surely wouldn't pass your high standards:
In the first citation, the authors wrote:...Beaver et al. (2013) only focused on acts of serious physical violence...

3) In what way does this contradict any position I'm supporting in this thread?

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:04 pm
by WendyDarling
That same study shows that the disparities in traffic stops of black people are significantly higher in cases where the officer knew the race of the suspect before the stop. In other words, in those cases where it was possible for race to affect police behavior, we see an effect of race on police behavior.

I haven't read this yet. I'd be interested in knowing how they acquired the officer's visual knowledge of the suspect pre-stop through a questionnaire or on a stop report.
Most officers are moving in traffic so it would be more difficult for them "to see" from behind a car seats headrest in the rear and if it was in oncoming traffic, the car would be noticed in a moving violation before the driver. If they are parked to stop speeders, then they would have a better view of the driver, but in town cops don't set up speed traps as much as they used to, that's left more for state troopers now and days. However, they would "see" if they first ran the plates and the plates were owned by a black driver, particularly a driver on probation or parole. Isn't it part of police procedure to run plates first thing?

So the hypothesis that the disparity is based on differences in suspect behavior is undermined: where suspects are judged on their behavior and not their race, we see less racial disparity.

That is not true when taking a studies intent and methodology into consideration, its not difficult to omit important deciding factors as to the nature of what appears to be a disparity when it is less evidenced or completely omitted.

This is an argument in bad faith. I've repeatedly acknowledged that this doesn't depend on the race of the officer, and it doesn't depend on officers being evil. The only argument I've made is that black people are unfairly targeted by the police. The studies I've provided back that point up.

You have brought up racism perpetrated by whites in our nation's past and also used it as a means by which to imply that due to our history of prejudice, it continues today across the spectrum of the criminal justice system from prejudiced police intent through prejudiced sentencing.

The only argument I've made is that black people are unfairly targeted by the police. The studies I've provided back that point up.

You so badly want them to be targeted unduly and treated unfairly, but they are not and just because several different studies decrying racial prejudice against blacks exists does not validate them automatically. We are discussing why they are not valid.

You know that's not what the study is doing, because the study tells you what it is doing. The criminal history that was used in the study is the same criminal history that's used in federal sentencing guidelines that judges use during sentencing.

From what I read they had only one specific about the past crimes and that was their codes.

Quote where they used all past codes for each subject. They used 5.

Quote where they incorporated past sentence lengths into the study...not what the guidelines recommend but the actual sentence as assigned.

Don't you think that if violent criminals keep behaving violently after serving each sentence, the prosecutor is going to recommend the maximum minimum. Where was that taken into account in the study?

In the first citation, the authors wrote:
...Beaver et al. (2013) only focused on acts of serious physical violence...

3) In what way does this contradict any position I'm supporting in this thread?

I don't understand what citation you are talking about...is it about the study I haven't received access to yet?

I can't find any studies that show racial disparities between blacks and Asians even though Asians are treated the best by the police and the justice system.

Can you refer me to those studies?

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:58 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
Carleas wrote:That same study shows that the disparities in traffic stops of black people are significantly higher in cases where the officer knew the race of the suspect before the stop. In other words, in those cases where it was possible for race to affect police behavior, we see an effect of race on police behavior. So the hypothesis that the disparity is based on differences in suspect behavior is undermined: where suspects are judged on their behavior and not their race, we see less racial disparity.



Or actually seeing the suspect is what made it easier to discern suspicious behaviour which if such a thing as suspicious behaviour exists, would prompt police officers to stop more Blacks because being more criminal.

But just to be clear, I don’t expect police officers to proportionally stop as many Whites as Blacks. Just as I would not be surprised to see them stop even less Asians, (Chinese and Japanese mostly, not the Britcuck definition including Pakistanis and such), proportionally. And all that after having discerned their race before stopping them.
I see nothing wrong with that per se.
Racial differences are real and they will remain real until the day the races have disappeared, because that’s what different races are about, actual differences.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:30 pm
by Carleas
WendyDarling wrote:That is not true when taking a studies intent and methodology into consideration

So is it OK to discount your arguments because you're white and therefore your intent is dubious? And my arguments count for double because I'm white and arguing that black people are discriminated against! Looks like you have to present like 4x as much evidence to make your case...

I am, of course, being facetious.

You're making an ad hominem argument, a literal, fallacious, ad hominem argument. Where the author is telling you 1) what data they looked at and 2) how they analysed that data, and that person's data and analysis have been reviewed by her peers to confirm their validity, it's absolutely fallacious to reject the study because the author is black.

WendyDarling wrote:You have brought up racism perpetrated by whites in our nation's past...

My argument in this thread is only that black people on average are discriminated against by the criminal justice system.

WendyDarling wrote:From what I read they had only one specific about the past crimes and that was their codes.

I agree with this. But the codes are used by the federal sentencing guidelines, and they capture past crimes as well as behavior during incarceration.

WendyDarling wrote:I don't understand what citation you are talking about...is it about the study I haven't received access to yet?

Yes. The link you provided, which points to the abstract of the study, also has excerpts from other studies that cite that paper (keep scrolling down to the section labelled "citations"). The first citation listed criticizes the methodology of the paper, and does so in a way that it seems you would need to take issue with to maintain a consistent standard. Of course, we'll see when we have the full study before us, but so far it looks flawed.

Is_Yde_opN wrote:Or actually seeing the suspect is what made it easier to discern suspicious behaviour[...]


If you're going to argue that doing X while being black is just more suspicious than doing X while not being black, it seems like you're conceding the point.

Is_Yde_opN wrote:But just to be clear, I don’t expect police officers to proportionally stop as many Whites as Blacks.


Nor do I. As we've established, there are racial differences in e.g. the rate of 911 calls across neighborhoods. Races also differ greatly across many other demographic factors that are correlated with criminality, including wealth, education, family status, nutrition, etc. All of those should be expected to produce differences in the rate of police stops independent of race. But here we're looking at studies that are trying to control for those differences and find an independent effect of race itself. If police interpret behavior as more or less suspicious solely based on race, that would strongly support that claim.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:19 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
Carleas wrote:If you're going to argue that doing X while being black is just more suspicious than doing X while not being black, it seems like you're conceding the point.


I’d expect and hope that being of a particular race is part of what informs the judgement of police officers.
Is it just a pretentious Whigga or is it the real deal, the usually more impulsive variation, which will prompt more caution.

Let’s hope their judgement is informed through experiences with different races and not through Hollywood and media propaganda which is trying to create a pseudo egalitarian, actually anti-White perception.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:23 pm
by WendyDarling
You're making an ad hominem argument, a literal, fallacious, ad hominem argument. Where the author is telling you 1) what data they looked at and 2) how they analysed that data, and that person's data and analysis have been reviewed by her peers to confirm their validity, it's absolutely fallacious to reject the study because the author is black.

I'm not rejecting it due to her blackness, but her prejudiceness. :evilfun:

She chose her methodology to prove racial discrimination against blacks because she was black, she chose what evidence to use in her methodology and chose to omit important aspects in regards to determining and comparing past and present sentence lengths and I have no problem pointing out that her intent was to show that blacks are treated disproportionately worse than whites (all of her efforts reek of her own prejudices since she didn't choose Asians, Hispanics, or any other racial group who are all treated differently, better, than blacks. Admit it, it's a black vs. white thing like all those studies are and that's why you have no studies of racial discrimination between blacks vs. Asians because it's whitey's that are the unstated problem.) If her peers are SJW blacks and all SJW, then of course it was given a passing grade. I'm not saying that it doesn't prove what she wants to prove, but I am saying that she left out important evidence, specific important evidence, that would have told a different story, a more truthful story.

My argument in this thread is only that black people on average are discriminated against by the criminal justice system.

Blacks commit more crimes which is justly represented by the criminal justice system.

they capture past crimes as well as behavior during incarceration.

Only 5 past crimes were used, why can't you concede that point which is stated in the study?

I can't find any studies that show racial disparities between blacks and Asians even though Asians are treated the best by the police and the justice system.

Can you refer me to those studies?

:confusion-waiting:

All-in-all blacks are treated differently due to their different behaviors, their defiant and criminal behaviors.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:12 pm
by Carleas
Is_Yde_opN wrote:I’d expect and hope that being of a particular race is part of what informs the judgement of police officers.

This claim is undermined by multiple studies discussed above that show that blacks are the majority of searches, but whites are the majority of contraband found incident to search. That says that the police judgement that leads them to view race as evidence of suspicious conduct is prejudiced, not informed.

WendyDarling wrote:Blacks commit more crimes

This isn't any part of the chain of reasoning though. Blacks face more stops, searches, and arrests, and more severe punishments, even given differences in the rate of commission. That's what these studies show.

WendyDarling wrote:Only 5 past crimes were used, why can't you concede that point which is stated in the study?

You seem to have specific methodological problems with this specific study. Fortunately, this question has been examined repeatedly, with different methodologies, and with the same result.
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf
http://ncids.org/systems%20evaluation%2 ... smeier.pdf
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/fagan/cour ... otypes.pdf
https://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu ... on2003.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ro ... c8c0c8.pdf
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... aphics.pdf

This is like two seconds of looking, turning up a half dozen studies that support the conclusion that blacks face harsher sentences when for controlling for whatever you want (and zero undermining it).

You're picking and choosing, and coming up with ad hoc reasons to reject what the best evidence tells us: black defendants face harsher sentences because they are black.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:58 pm
by Inconvenient Reality
https://www.amren.com/archives/reports/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/

The above link is to a summary of the study only.

Long story short, this study takes all the sensationalism out of the ones you listed. I saw someone mention this one earlier but nobody addressed it. Can you tell me why we should believe the studies you listed and not this one? As far as I can tell anyone writing this sort of study has an agenda. So one study , 50 studies, if they are all products of the same agenda then what's the significance?

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:20 pm
by WendyDarling
Hmmm? What's the agenda, Carleas?

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:10 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
Carleas wrote:This claim is undermined by multiple studies discussed above that show that blacks are the majority of searches, but whites are the majority of contraband found incident to search. That says that the police judgement that leads them to view race as evidence of suspicious conduct is prejudiced, not informed.


In one study they compare those who were searched without consent which doesn’t factor in the different rates of compliance among the races which would change the real meaning of those ‘success’ rates.
Furthermore I’m not sure how carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle factors into all of this talk of ‘contraband’ which might be a common reason why they search vehicles.

All these ‘studies’ look more like reports where they pick some seemingly favourable stats out of a whole catalogue on their quest for moral outrage.
When they mix Whites with Hispanics when convenient for the desired narrative then all this study pretentiousness has already lost my good will.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:17 pm
by Carleas
Ironically enough, I can't look at amren.com at work because it's flagged as racist and blocked by the webfliter.

If you're going to object to any article written by a black person because they might be biased, consistency demands that you object to articles written by avowed racists because they might be biased.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:51 pm
by Inconvenient Reality
That was my point Carleas. The thing of it is though, I understand and recognize the bias. The idea that you can list a bunch of "studies" and overload the topic with "information" so the opposition is lost in the quagmire of sifting through it all, is transparent, and typical. Of course, this is also convenient because it is used to shift the onus, and because no matter how carefully someone sifts through the "material", there is so much there that all one has to do is make a one-liner retort, kind of like this whole thread, and to the lay person it may appear that you have a stronger argument. The problem is that this whole discussion is controlled by you. You've framed everything right from the start, and when the conversation started shifting in a direction away from your ideal, you felt it necessary to post just to "re-frame" the discussion. This is how for me personally, I know when someone is trying to sell me something against my best interest. The conversation always has to start and stay within the frame that the left sets. When it goes outside the lines, the left always has to rein it in. Interesting how you want everybody to acknowledge your studies and "truth", but all you do is say "racist" and BOOM, no more opposing study.

Very disingenuous debate, no?

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:02 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
Carleas wrote:Ironically enough, I can't look at amren.com at work because it's flagged as racist and blocked by the webfliter.


Lucky you.
Better to block you than to surveillance you in silence and later accuse you of thought-crime if and when it's convenient for somebody.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:46 pm
by WendyDarling
Carleas wrote:Ironically enough, I can't look at amren.com at work because it's flagged as racist and blocked by the webfliter.

If you're going to object to any article written by a black person because they might be biased, consistency demands that you object to articles written by avowed racists because they might be biased.

Are you referring to "The Color Of Crime, 2016" by Edwin S. Rubenstein? Most of his pieces explain why he's not happy with illegal immigration, but I can't find anything where he admits to being a racist. He hasn't done any studies which feature whites vs. blacks or whites vs. any specific race. His comparisons include all the major races.

Re: Race-Biased Police Violence

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:33 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
On race and drug arrests, viewer discretion is advised, do not let your employer log your access to this content.