Race-Biased Police Violence

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Can you refer me to those studies?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

:confusion-waiting:

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

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.

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.

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.
people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf
ncids.org/systems%20evaluation%2 … smeier.pdf
www2.law.columbia.edu/fagan/cour … otypes.pdf
ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu … on2003.pdf
researchgate.net/profile/Ro … c8c0c8.pdf
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.

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?

Hmmm? What’s the agenda, Carleas?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

On race and drug arrests, viewer discretion is advised, do not let your employer log your access to this content.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fkZUrT7t4o[/youtube]

No. I literally can’t go to your source because it’s blocked for being racist, based on standards I didn’t set and can’t control. I can look at the Wikipedia page for the magazine, and there I can see both how they’ve been characterized by mainstream media sources, and what I take to be an accurately quoted self-description. I take from all of this that “biased” is an accurate description.

But I’m not trying to reject the source for that reason. What I’m trying to do is point out that WendyDarling isn’t applying a fair standard to the evidence before her. When she looks at studies that undermine her position, the mere race of the author is enough to completely reject all of the study’s findings. But when presented with a study that supports her position, the fact that it’s a magazine article produced by an organization with an explicit agenda of finding consistent race-based differences in all measurable human attributes isn’t seen as at all disqualifying. That lack of neutrality is a problem.

When I dump a bunch of studies, it’s because WendyDarling is using ad hoc justifications for rejecting conclusions she doesn’t like. She’s using standards she didn’t have until she was confronted with a study that met her expressed standards. I dumped studies because they reach the same conclusions using different methods, and they undermine her focus on the minutiae of one study. I don’t doubt that she could find some detail in each of those studies that she could claim as a reason to reject its findings, but I expect those details to be ad hoc and to be things in study design she’s never been concerned about until she had a study she needed a reason to reject. Again, there’s a lack of neutrality, and study dumping is just a way of making clearer that her real problem with the study is that she doesn’t like the conclusion.

This isn’t reframing anything. WendyDarling asked me to create this thread to discuss studies showing that black people face bias from the police, and that’s what we’re still doing. The only time I brought up “racist” is when WendyDarling suddenly introduced the standard that no study from a black person would count, and I only brought it up for the limited purpose of saying that an article promulgated by a clearly motivated organization should be rejected too if she were applying a fair standard. It’s “BOOM, no more opposing study” under WendyDarling’s own standard of what counts as a valid study.

I appreciate your participation in this thread, but if you’re going to participate, then participate in this thread, not every strawman of a conversation with a liberal you’ve seen described on Stormfront. I’m not calling WendyDarling a racist, I’m not calling white people racist, I’m not even calling the police racist. I’m saying, black people face an undue burden from police, and studies that look at real world data and apply reasonable analytical methods back up that claim.

/rant

I think it’s funny how race is important when it comes to anything positive, but as soon as negative race differences come up suddenly race doesn’t matter and it is “racist” to point to those differences.

Different races commit violent crimes at different proportions as an average of each race. But apparently it’s racist to even point that out. See, race is irrelevant when the differences are negative ones, but when it comes to positive aspects then it’s just fine to bring up real differences between races.

Also, if liberals really cared about black communities they would be talking about black on black violence, and not about “white cops on black” violence. But hey. I don’t think helping anyone (but themselves) was ever actually the goal.

No, it isn’t. If there is racial bias in sentencing, it would also be reflected in prior sentences.

The piece that’s missing is always taking responsibility for oneself. You want to be a “black community” when it works to your benefit but not when it reveals negatives. That’s just moralism. Not interesting.

Reality doesn’t care for uninteresting things.

UrGod, there is something you may be forgetting. In all black schools, there is an invisible, mystical force called “whitey” which prevents black students from being functional students.