Institutional racism in policing and how to rectify it.

[Bootstoots]

Too bad America is so well off as a country generally speaking. Otherwise there would probably be people in the streets in all your large cities, causing Arab spring type mayhem. As it is though, people are comfy enough to not generally come out in large numbers and risk what they do have. That's the way I see it anyway.

Although most of the mainstream wouldn't be able to conceive of this, I suspect an uprising is actually a strong possibility if we go through another round or two of serious economic contraction, especially if it's (accurately) perceived to be the fault of the financial and political elite. I get the sense that cynicism and disbelief in the legitimacy of American institutions is at a level not seen since Reconstruction. The recent behavior of our justice system as a whole (e.g. striking down nearly all rules on campaign finance, ruthless policing [with near-total impunity] and imprisonment tactics for the poor coupled with no prosecution of the most severe white-collar crimes for the ultra-rich, allowing wholesale violations of civil liberties, and so on) is really not helping.

As it currently is, we have a highly unequal society with highly unequal rules for different social classes, extremely polarized political discourse, an astronomical gun ownership rate, and very large numbers of people ranging from inner-city blacks and Hispanics to the mostly-white rural poor to military veterans who have legitimate reasons to be really angry. It doesn't seem like most of the establishment realizes just how important it is to stop this slide towards further injustice and restore popular belief in the US government and institutions.

...or maybe some of the military establishment actually does understand this, and that's an unstated part of why police departments nationwide have been given large amounts of advanced military equipment.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think that economic contraction will do it. As Warpus says, we are too well off...even the poor. There is very little concern that the US government is just going to let people starve, or not be able to prevent it.

However, there is a tipping point to be had in the failures of the justice system. The fact that the handing over of military equipment to police is happening isn't the issue. The fact that as far as I can tell there is hardly anyone buying the 'anti-terrorism' line over a perceived 'getting ready to put us down and out' explanation seems more like a sentiment that can get out of hand.

The government is still pretty much trusted to keep people fed, but there is no confidence that it won't start shooting them.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Here's another police shooting, but I'd say it seems like a tragic accident.
Tamir Rice:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-watched-lie-agony-died-just-hours-later.html

Eric Garner's choking death seems like it ought to have went to trial somehow.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-man-dies-puts-choke-hold-article-1.1871486
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/justice/new-york-choke-hold-death/

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Now why would people expect cops to render first aid after they shoot somebody?

 

[Borachio]

Because the primary duty of a police officer is to protect the public, which must surely include people they've just shot?

Presumably the main intention of shooting someone is to incapacitate them rather than simply kill them. Otherwise they'd be expected to administer the coup de grace instead of first aid.

It's possible I'm simply too naive, though.

 

[classical_hero]

That's pretty horrible. Fairly conclusive as well, I would say.

If I was American I would be upset. That's not justice.

I would have to say in this case it should have gone to trial. Would the cop been found guilty is another thing, but this case in NYC is a bad look.

 

[Flying Pig]

Because the primary duty of a police officer is to protect the public, which must surely include people they've just shot?

Presumably the main intention of shooting someone is to incapacitate them rather than simply kill them. Otherwise they'd be expected to administer the coup de grace instead of first aid.

It's possible I'm simply too naive, though.

You do endeavour to save the life of somebody who has been shot by police, but SFOs (I don't know about other routinely-armed officers like those who guard important buildings or NI policemen) are trained not to try and 'shoot to incapacitate', because aiming shots at 'non-lethal areas' (which don't really exist) makes you much more likely to miss altogether and potentially hit someone else. I suppose it is somewhat paradoxical but it does make sense.

 

[Samson]

I am sure such articles are 10 a penny over there, but I thought this one from the BBC was interesting, and seems to indicate that there really is some form of unjustified racial profiling going on:

Last year black drivers represented 86% of all traffic stops, despite making up 67% of the city's [Ferguson] population.

White drivers by contrast accounted for only 13% of stops, despite making up 29% of the population.

Black drivers accounted for 93% of arrests and whites 7%.

Now you might say: "Well, the police must have had good reason for all this?"

But when the police in Ferguson searched suspects' cars, they found drugs et cetera in more than a third of their white targets but only a fifth of black ones.

So, a higher proportion of white people were criminals, yet more black people were being stopped and arrested.

Another bit really peaked my interest, but was not explained at all:

Imagine you're a police officer and two men are walking towards you late at night.

One is white, and the other is black, but both men are carrying bottles.

In many parts of America, you can legitimately decide not to treat these men equally.

You can ignore the white man and approach the black man and assume he wants to attack you or somebody else with the bottle.

How can this really be true? Or is the bbc being intentionally misleading?

 

[warpus]

Although most of the mainstream wouldn't be able to conceive of this, I suspect an uprising is actually a strong possibility if we go through another round or two of serious economic contraction, especially if it's (accurately) perceived to be the fault of the financial and political elite. I get the sense that cynicism and disbelief in the legitimacy of American institutions is at a level not seen since Reconstruction.

I am convinced that the U.S. intelligence services are ready for such a thing - they have things and plans in place to ensure that it does not spin out of control, if and/or when it happens. They probably have ways to shut down the internet if things get especially bad, to shut off cellphone access, so that people can't communicate and organize, and so on. They're not idiots - they saw what happened in the middle east and other places, and they are probably ready. They have contingency plans for everything, so..

What I doubt is that anything will actually happen.. It's the U.S. after all - one of the richest places on the planet. There is a ton of inequality and injustice, but compared to what set things off in North Africa, it's not really that significant. I don't think, anyway. The occupy movements didn't go anywhere. I think you'd need an extreme catalyst to set anything off - and even then I don't think the conditions are all there for nation-wide unrest.

 

[Flying Pig]

You have to justify approaching someone, but you don't have to justify not approaching someone. Since you can justly say that the black man with the bottle was possibly going to attack someone, you can justify approaching him to check - you don't have to justify not approaching the white one, because he's not so obviously going to attack someone that it would be negligent not to do so. Of course, that's how it holds up in court, not in front of your boss, who would probably call you out if he found out. I assume that's the logic at work here.

 

[luiz]

I posted this on the Riots in St. Louis thread but I guess it belongs here...

So after reviewing what was released after the GJ decision I've changed my mind and now thing that Brown was most likely responsible for the whole situation, and Wilson (while probably incompetent) shouldn't really have been indicted. The witnesses blaming Wilson lied to their teeth and admitted it, and the forensic evidence overwhelmingly confirms Wilson's version.

Now, why did an unarmed Brown charge against a police officer? That's what caused my belief that he was indeed murdered by Wilson early on. But the evidence says he did charge at Wilson, and footage of his robbery shows that his state of mind was not normal that day.

Now there's another GJ who decided not indict another white police officer who killed a black guy, this time in NY. In this case I really don't see how to defend the policeman, or the GJ decision. You have an unarmed man who didn't attack anyone, was brutally subdued, said that he couldn't breath about 10 times, and yet the police carried on choking him. Clear case murder IMO (even if attenuated by the fact that he only died because of his severe asthma).

Another striking thing in both cases is the whole "Bonfire of the Vanities" angle. If anyone hasn't read this book, read it today. It says everything you need to know about racial politics in the US. It's a fiction novel written in the 1980's but the same BS happens in real life today. Black Michael Brown was killed by a white guy, so he is sanctified. He is the "gentle giant", the bright kid who had a brighter future ahead. Nevermind the fact that on the same day he had committed robbery and behaved violently. Eric Garner was killed by a white guy, so he was a "neighborhood peacemaker and a generous, congenial person". Nevermind the fact that he had 30 arrests, on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, grand larceny. And now you have Eric Holder, Attorney General of the US, asking people to dignify his memory and protest peacefully lest they sully his name with violence and vandalism. It seems to me he did a fine job of not dignifying his memory himself with a lifetime of crime.

So why can't we stick to facts when a white person kills a black one? If there was a crime, and in Eric Garner's case I think there was a clear one, then punish the criminal. If he's not punished, then by all means protest. But why pretend the victims were saints? Why make up false biographies to make them look like model citizens? It's so stupid, and such transparent manipulation, and yet happens every single time. Bonfire of the Vanities all over again.

 

[Borachio]

You do endeavour to save the life of somebody who has been shot by police, but SFOs (I don't know about other routinely-armed officers like those who guard important buildings or NI policemen) are trained not to try and 'shoot to incapacitate', because aiming shots at 'non-lethal areas' (which don't really exist) makes you much more likely to miss altogether and potentially hit someone else. I suppose it is somewhat paradoxical but it does make sense.

Yes I can understand that. If you're going to shoot someone it's just as well to try and kill them.

But having shot them, and failed to kill them for one reason or another, your first next move isn't to go up and shoot them in the head. Ergo, you'd be more likely to administer first aid, provided the shootee no longer posed a threat to you or bystanders, rather than a coup de grace. Which you would be administering if your intention really was to make sure they were dead, no matter how many times you had to shoot them.

Is that any more accurate?

 

[Flying Pig]

That's all correct. As it happens, the police usually have more immediate concerns in the aftermath of shooting someone, but an ambulance is called - hence the men who killed Lee Rigby are now both alive, having been taken to hospital after being shot by police.

 

[Borachio]

And those two got really lengthy sentences. One a full life and the other a minimum of 45 years! Their appeals against which have failed.

Brevik, in comparison, got 21 years.

 

[Flying Pig]

In Norway. Are you trying to make a comparison here?

 

[Borachio]

Not really, no. I just find it interesting that someone can get 21 years for killing ~70 teenagers, and two other people get 45 years and full life for killing 1 adult.

As you say, it's a different country. And maybe they don't have the option in Norway for a full life term. Who knows what will be the case in the UK in 45 years time. The show's not over till the fat lady sings, as they say.

And a full life term, for all I know, may contravene some EU human rights legislation. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

 

[luiz]

Not really, no. I just find it interesting that someone can get 21 years for killing ~70 teenagers, and two other people get 45 years and full life for killing 1 adult.

As you say, it's a different country. And maybe they don't have the option in Norway for a full life term. Who knows what will be the case in the UK in 45 years time.

And a full life term, for all I know, may contravene some EU human rights legislation. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Breivik got the maximum penalty allowed by Norwegian law, and even after the 21 years are over they'll rule that he still poses a threat and so effectively lock him up for life. For all intents and purposes Breivik got a life sentence.

 

[Farm Boy]

21 years with indefinite extension can quite easily be a harsher term than 45 and out despite the language seeming more forgiving. Depends on the application.

 

[Borachio]

Oh, perhaps I should point out, the 45 years was a "minimum of 45 years".

In UK terms that's really as harsh as they go, apart from a full-life tarif. Unless you're criminally insane of course. In which case they just mumble something about public safety issues.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am sure such articles are 10 a penny over there, but I thought this one from the BBC was interesting, and seems to indicate that there really is some form of unjustified racial profiling going on:

The NYPD's 'stop and frisk' program (probably unconstitutional in the first place) when accusations started flying about racial profiling being used in its application (statistics similar to those in your article, the proportions of stop and frisk candidates of color being far greater than their representation in the general public) and that it was totally unsupportable (again similar to your article as the stop and frisks of whites had a significantly higher probability of producing contraband) the NYPD defended the practice by saying (paraphrase) "The program is working; the colored people are being taught not to carry contraband."