Institutional racism in policing and how to rectify it.

[Timsup2nothin]

A cursory look yields the following results:

Nationwide: 64 percent white / 12 percent black
New York City: 33 percent / 26 percent
Los Angeles: 29 percent / 10 percent
Chicago: 32 percent / 33 percent
Houston: 51 percent / 24 percent
Philadelphia: 37 percent / 43 percent
Phoenix: 47 percent / 7 percent
San Antonio: 27 percent / 7 percent
San Diego: 45 percent / 7 percent
Dallas: 29 percent / 25 percent
San Jose: 29 percent / 3 percent


So, as you can see, in the top ten largest cities by population, blacks are generally over-represented, particularly in the eastern half of the country and whites are universally under-represented. This is where the bulk of the crime takes place in this country. The whites who live there are predominately wealthier. The blacks are predominately poorer. They don't get arrested more often because they're black. They get arrested more often because they're living in poor neighborhoods where the bulk of the crimes take place.

Do rich people commit crimes? Absolutely, but they won't get caught because a patrol car is driving down the street in Georgetown. They're gonna get caught by the SEC or FBI. You want institutional racism, look up the arrest statistics for the SEC. I bet it's better than 90 percent white. Do I cry about it? No, because whites commit the vast majority of "white collar" crimes and then they go to white collar resort prisons for a vacation or house arrest.

There are reasons for this that mimic racism. Some of it is real racism, but the bulk of the effect is a matter of where you live and the distant effects of slavery.

Do white teen agers hang out on suburban street corners smoking pot. Yes. Do they get caught the way black teen agers hanging out smoking pot on urban street corners do, because a patrol car just happens to roll by? Not nearly as much, because we send a lot more of the cops to where the criminals are, not to where the criminals are.

Is that out of racism, or just mimicking it?

 

[JohnRM]

Do white teen agers hang out on suburban street corners smoking pot. Yes.

I don't live on every street corner, but around here, they most certainly do not. I am more than willing to admit the possibility that the results could vary in other areas.

Do they get caught the way black teen agers hanging out smoking pot on urban street corners do, because a patrol car just happens to roll by? Not nearly as much, because we send a lot more of the cops to where the criminals are, not to where the criminals are.

Is that out of racism, or just mimicking it?

I cannot speak to things that cannot and have not been quantified. If you could find some statistics from a reputable source on this matter, I would be more than happy to comment further. It is my experience that kids (white, brown, black, or otherwise) caught smoking pot in public are punished to the fullest extent of the law, though it is quite rare for kids in my area to be so careless (white, brown, black, or otherwise).

Again, I am willing to admit that the situation could be different in other areas.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, you will contend that there are police commissioners, mayors, and other city officials in courthouses across this country plotting against blacks? Is that what you believe?

You will have more credibility when you try to put words in my mouth if they at least vaguely resemble something I said. For what it's worth you have been saying a lot of stuff in this thread that I consider worth exploring, and I'd rather do that than just go back to sniping at each other.

If we can't even agree that crime rates are higher in poor, high-density urban areas, we really should not attempt to debate the issue. That is a fundamental fact that is easily discernible and without dispute by any reputable authority or expert on the matter.

Rate, or rate per capita? Obviously, if you have a lot of people you will get a lot more crimes committed overall. Crimes per hundred thousand residents, not so much. A lot of crime in a closer packed area is easier for law enforcement to manage, and that to some extent accounts for differences in arrest rates...but does that make it right? A hundred thousand people spread over a much larger area in the suburbs might be committing very close to the same number of crimes as a hundred thousand people packed into a small patch of urban core...but being more difficult to police shouldn't really entitle them to a pass.

This, in and of itself is not racism. It is, generally, an unintended consequence. The best solution to the problem is to decriminalize marijuana and to treat drug use as a health problem, not a legal problem.

Agreed on both counts. Now, the question about these unintended consequences is how much of it is allowed to persist because it might be hard to fix, and how much of it is allowed to persist because as long as the people bearing the brunt of the consequences are black there is little public pressure to mitigate the unintended consequence?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't live on every street corner, but around here, they most certainly do not. I am more than willing to admit the possibility that the results could vary in other areas.

I cannot speak to things that cannot and have not been quantified. If you could find some statistics from a reputable source on this matter, I would be more than happy to comment further. It is my experience that kids (white, brown, black, or otherwise) caught smoking pot in public are punished to the fullest extent of the law, though it is quite rare for kids in my area to be so careless (white, brown, black, or otherwise).

Again, I am willing to admit that the situation could be different in other areas.

Understood. I was sort of driving at the difference in enforcement presence, for one thing. Kids are kids, whatever color they might be they usually have a strong dose of imaginary bulletproofing feeding their carelessness. In my neighborhood that carelessness leads to arrests, because a couple kids sharing a joint couldn't finish it in the time between cops rolling by without some luck. In the 'nice neighborhoods on the west side' I could cut lines of coke on the hood of a car for a party of ten and there wouldn't be likely to be an interruption from a cop just patrolling by, so less likelihood of arrest for the equally careless over there. Even for the grossly more careless.

A second aspect that I accept as true...when I was a young and foolish man, my friends and I would take our controlled substance and stand on a storm drain. We brought no more than we were going to consume, and if bad luck brought law enforcement upon us we counted on our very honest lily white faces to be able to talk us out of trouble since the evidence was dropped down the drain before the officer got particularly close. I also accept reports from my black friends that in their estimation to even contemplate such a thing would be frankly insane, and would have been when they were kids as well.

 

[JohnRM]

You will have more credibility when you try to put words in my mouth if they at least vaguely resemble something I said. For what it's worth you have been saying a lot of stuff in this thread that I consider worth exploring, and I'd rather do that than just go back to sniping at each other.

I am not putting words into your mouth. I asked you a few questions. Feel free to emphatically state that you do not subscribe to them. The problem is that unless you agree that there is a conspiracy, that there is organized, intentional racism on the part of these organizations...it simply is NOT institutional, by definition.

Rate, or rate per capita? Obviously, if you have a lot of people you will get a lot more crimes committed overall. Crimes per hundred thousand residents, not so much. A lot of crime in a closer packed area is easier for law enforcement to manage, and that to some extent accounts for differences in arrest rates...but does that make it right? A hundred thousand people spread over a much larger area in the suburbs might be committing very close to the same number of crimes as a hundred thousand people packed into a small patch of urban core...but being more difficult to police shouldn't really entitle them to a pass.

I am going to choose to focus on what we agree on. I think this particular line of argument is not going to yield much in the way of results for either of us. We disagree. Let us call it a day on the matter.

Agreed on both counts. Now, the question about these unintended consequences is how much of it is allowed to persist because it might be hard to fix, and how much of it is allowed to persist because as long as the people bearing the brunt of the consequences are black there is little public pressure to mitigate the unintended consequence?

This where real racism comes into play. It is a case of, "Oh well, better them than me" and too many people feeling unequal to the task of redressing the problem. If a particular law or policy disproportionately affects a subsection of the population more so than others, then that needs to be addressed. Additionally, the laws against personal use aren't working to deter the use of drugs. All it does is put people in a situation where they can network with other criminals and tend to come out hooked on worse drugs than they went in for.

At the end of the day, blacks are not a significant enough of a voter block to warrant the kind of attention it would take to address the matter. Democrats take the black vote for granted and Republicans feel as though they could never take the black vote, regardless of what they do. Unfortunately, this situation is only reinforced by black voting patterns. But, none of it is truly planned and organized racism. It is individual racism on a minor scale, but across a whole mass of people in powerful places with a lot of influence in society. It is Adam Smith's invisible hand, but one that works on social matters rather than economic ones.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A brief word on calls for statistics...

Google.

If I want statistics, I go to Google. I come here specifically for experience. Farm Boy provides experience from an environment that is definitely not mine. So does everyone else. Some I take with an internal nod that it is anecdotal, some I take with a giant grain of salt because it is anecdotal and from someone who on the particular issue I think is driven more heavily by agenda than might lead to accuracy, some I pretty much ignore.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am not putting words into your mouth. I asked you a few questions. Feel free to emphatically state that you do not subscribe to them. The problem is that unless you agree that there is a conspiracy, that there is organized, intentional racism on the part of these organizations...it simply is NOT institutional, by definition.

Fair enough. Strict definition use wasn't the objective I was going for, but okay.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This where real racism comes into play. It is a case of, "Oh well, better them than me" and too many people feeling unequal to the task of redressing the problem. If a particular law or policy disproportionately affects a subsection of the population more so than others, then that needs to be addressed. Additionally, the laws against personal use aren't working to deter the use of drugs. All it does is put people in a situation where they can network with other criminals and tend to come out hooked on worse drugs than they went in for.

At the end of the day, blacks are not a significant enough of a voter block to warrant the kind of attention it would take to address the matter. Democrats take the black vote for granted and Republicans feel as though they could never take the black vote, regardless of what they do. Unfortunately, this situation is only reinforced by black voting patterns. But, none of it is truly planned and organized racism. It is individual racism on a minor scale, but across a whole mass of people in powerful places with a lot of influence in society. It is Adam Smith's invisible hand, but one that works on social matters rather than economic ones.

If you look back to the first page I'd be interested in what you have to say about my comment on the difference between racism in the policing and policing in the racism.

In my town the possibility of 'redress through electoral process' is non existent. Our police have been undergoing investigation by the feds for years, case after case after case. Many cases have reached conclusions that support 'our police violate civil rights based on race' as a legally demonstrated fact. But the truth is that the elected officials who not only allowed this condition to arise also decry the investigations and try to minimize what is clearly shown by the results...and that gains them far more votes in this town than it loses them.

It isn't the fault of racist individuals in uniform, per se, it just is the way things work and they work within it. Would that meet the definition of 'institutional racism'? Specifically? Loosely?

By the way, Adam Smith would be the first to say that ultimately, all issues are economic issues.

 

[JohnRM]

But, that is a huge bar to achieving your objective. If you claim institutional racism, you turn people like me off, because I know a lot of those in these positions. I know just how heartsick they are to see what goes on in black, white, brown, red (in my area), yellow, or any color community that struggles with crime. I've heard their stories of letting these guys off easy time after time to see them repeat the same crimes over and over. There are lot of cops and others trying to do the right thing and they don't deserve to be labeled as part of some institutionally racist conspiracy, but even if you don't believe it, that is what a lot of people on your side of the ball are saying, and when you repeat it, you identify with it, whether intentionally or not.

Neither side is fully right and neither side is fully wrong. This isn't us versus them or you guys versus us. At least it shouldn't be, but again, there are a lot of people on your side of the ball that are positioning themselves that way. This is an American problem that ALL Americans have to solve. For that matter, it won't be solved in any other way. If either side attempts to vilify the other (and perhaps I myself am even guilty of this), we are all going to lose.

 

[Bootstoots]

The rates of use are infamously hard to calculate due to the fact that you are relying on typically paranoid individuals to come forward and admit it. For all you or I know, whites could account for even more of the users. We just can't be sure. What we do know is that the bulk of the police presence is in poor black inner city neighborhoods.

Yeah, I would put large error bars on any attempt to calculate use rates based on surveys. I'm not certain, for instance, that white use of marijuana is higher than that of blacks, as the difference is usually fairly small in studies that return that result. I'd say the rates are roughly even, to within our ability to determine them. The combination of more policing in inner cities and high uncertainty in use rates may be enough that we won't be able to pin down how large the excess of black arrests over white arrests is after adjusting for those factors, and in some cases whether a discrepancy exists at all. I'm not really familiar enough with the data to know what the most careful studies on this subject have found here.

And of course, we go straight to a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc. More blacks are arrested for this crime, therefore it must be racism. You have to look beyond that for the answers. Is racism a part of it? Without a doubt, but it is by far not the primary factor.

I'm not arguing that simple, personal racism must be behind all or most of any discrepancy between black vs. white arrest rates and black vs. white offense rates. Other factors like differences in policing rates, the bias of the legal system towards richer people, and so forth are also quite likely to explain much or even most of the difference.

Of course, part of the problem is that differences in police attention, income, education, sentencing, and so forth are themselves part of institutional racism, which differs from the regular variety in that public institutions perpetuate racial disparities even if most people within the institutions aren't personally racist. That's largely what people mean by "institutional racism" as a term. Overt racism by individuals within a system only comprises a portion (and probably a small one in most cases) of the sum total of built-in, systemic racism.

I don't think we really disagree about much there, though, other than maybe about what to call it. What you suggest includes a number of measures that would help lessen the impact of institutional racism. A substantial part of your disagreement with Tim is about whether or not to call the variety of factors that stack the deck disproportionately against urban minorities "institutional racism" or not to call it a form of racism.

It depends upon your point of view. If I am correct and the arrest rates of blacks has more to do with location, income levels, and other non-racial factors, then those who disagree are indeed imagining and/or making things up as they go along. I don't mean this as a sly "you're dumb" kind of argument. I just hate to see people jump to conclusions because they sound good. You will never solve the problem that way.

I agree that anyone thinking that all or most of the differences in arrest rates among racial groups must be because simple racism on the part of the police doesn't really understand what's going on. It's probably a significant factor, but all the other institutional or structural factors including the ones you mention are contributing as well.

 

[JohnRM]

I'm going to make a clear statement of an opinion (that of course I will state as if it is a fact).

The problem isn't as much 'racism in policing' as it is policing in racism.

A cop gets caught on video beating a guy. The guy happens to be black. The county Sheriff runs for reelection and his challenger says "your leadership, and your training, and the environment you create in your department, leads to officers that think it is okay to beat suspects"....and to a large chunk of the potential voters that is an endorsement for the reelection of the current sheriff, because they think the cops beating a black guy is 'probably necessary' to some degree. Because they are racist to some degree.

Now, if that same cop gets caught on video beating a white guy the sheriff is going to get bounced in the next election...and the cop knows it so he is going to be more cautious about beating a white guy. Not because the cop is a racist.

For most people, a criminal/bad guy looks like who we are not. Most Americans are white. That is why most heroes in movies are white and most villains or criminals are non-white. It isn't a problem so much as a biological fact. We are a tribal people. If most people in this country were black, the reverse would be true. This clearly is as much a matter of economics as biology. That being said, you are NEVER going to change it short of better education, which is why I seek better public education and free or cheap higher education for all. The best way to deter racism and prejudice is travel and exposure to other cultures.

 

[JohnRM]

Yeah, I would put large error bars on any attempt to calculate use rates based on surveys. I'm not certain, for instance, that white use of marijuana is higher than that of blacks, as the difference is usually fairly small in studies that return that result. I'd say the rates are roughly even, to within our ability to determine them. The combination of more policing in inner cities and high uncertainty in use rates may be enough that we won't be able to pin down how large the excess of black arrests over white arrests is after adjusting for those factors, and in some cases whether a discrepancy exists at all. I'm not really familiar enough with the data to know what the most careful studies on this subject have found here.


I'm not arguing that simple, personal racism must be behind all or most of any discrepancy between black vs. white arrest rates and black vs. white offense rates. Other factors like differences in policing rates, the bias of the legal system towards richer people, and so forth are also quite likely to explain much or even most of the difference.

Of course, part of the problem is that differences in police attention, income, education, sentencing, and so forth are themselves part of institutional racism, which differs from the regular variety in that public institutions perpetuate racial disparities even if most people within the institutions aren't personally racist. That's largely what people mean by "institutional racism" as a term. Overt racism by individuals within a system only comprises a portion (and probably a small one in most cases) of the sum total of built-in, systemic racism.

I don't think we really disagree about much there, though, other than maybe about what to call it. What you suggest includes a number of measures that would help lessen the impact of institutional racism. A substantial part of your disagreement with Tim is about whether or not to call the variety of factors that stack the deck disproportionately against urban minorities "institutional racism" or not to call it a form of racism.


I agree that anyone thinking that all or most of the differences in arrest rates among racial groups must be because simple racism on the part of the police doesn't really understand what's going on. It's probably a significant factor, but all the other institutional or structural factors including the ones you mention are contributing as well.

That truly is the real sticking point.

"expressed or organized in the form of institutions"

When one says 'institutional racism' I think of the institution of slavery. It is something intentional, as a matter of policy. A lot of other people hear the same things I do, on both sides, and repeated often enough, they believe it. It encourages people to resist arrest and fight police officers, because now they feel justified. The cops are the bad guys and they're fighting the "injustice system." Suddenly, the cops are the enemy and that makes the streets dangerous to police. It puts cops on edge and more bad things are bound to happen in that environment.

 

[JohnRM]

If you look back to the first page I'd be interested in what you have to say about my comment on the difference between racism in the policing and policing in the racism.

Done.

In my town the possibility of 'redress through electoral process' is non existent. Our police have been undergoing investigation by the feds for years, case after case after case. Many cases have reached conclusions that support 'our police violate civil rights based on race' as a legally demonstrated fact. But the truth is that the elected officials who not only allowed this condition to arise also decry the investigations and try to minimize what is clearly shown by the results...and that gains them far more votes in this town than it loses them.

I can do no other thing than to take your word for it, which is not to say that I doubt it.

It isn't the fault of racist individuals in uniform, per se, it just is the way things work and they work within it. Would that meet the definition of 'institutional racism'? Specifically? Loosely?

By the way, Adam Smith would be the first to say that ultimately, all issues are economic issues.

Agreed. As I have stated to Boots, institutional racism, if the words are taken literally, would (to me) mean that it is intentional, planned, organized, and committed as a matter of policy with the goal of repressing a given race. This is also how others think of it when they take your side of things. They hear it repeated over and over and believe it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But, that is a huge bar to achieving your objective. If you claim institutional racism, you turn people like me off, because I know a lot of those in these positions. I know just how heartsick they are to see what goes on in black, white, brown, red (in my area), yellow, or any color community that struggles with crime. I've heard their stories of letting these guys off easy time after time to see them repeat the same crimes over and over. There are lot of cops and others trying to do the right thing and they don't deserve to be labeled as part of some institutionally racist conspiracy, but even if you don't believe it, that is what a lot of people on your side of the ball are saying, and when you repeat it, you identify with it, whether intentionally or not.

Neither side is fully right and neither side is fully wrong. This isn't us versus them or you guys versus us. At least it shouldn't be, but again, there are a lot of people on your side of the ball that are positioning themselves that way. This is an American problem that ALL Americans have to solve. For that matter, it won't be solved in any other way. If either side attempts to vilify the other (and perhaps I myself am even guilty of this), we are all going to lose.

We have clearly opposed ways of expressing some similar ideas.

We also see the whole crime picture from different perspectives. I see the corner drug dealer in the good neighborhood. He's just a guy. Him and his neighborhood exist in reasonable peace and quiet. The corner drug dealer in my neighborhood is nothing really different. He too is just a guy, except that on a fairly regular basis he is the cause of an infestation of light flashing, siren blasting vehicles tearing around at high speeds and people hopping fences and running through back yards. There's no real difference in the level of 'crime infestation', there is just a gross disparity in consequence to the neighborhood.

 

[JohnRM]

We have clearly opposed ways of expressing some similar ideas.

Another notable difference is that I have absolutely zero tolerance for disorder, the blocking of commerce, transportation routes, and most of all for property destruction, which seems to be rampant among demonstrators. If I were in charge, before there is any possibility of discussing solutions to the problem, all of that has to stop.

Demonstrate, by all means, but if you destroy property, I would intend to take people to task for it. I would not hesitate to get out on the street and suppress rioters with force to bring the situation under control, as much as I would regret having to do so.

We also see the whole crime picture from different perspectives. I see the corner drug dealer in the good neighborhood. He's just a guy. Him and his neighborhood exist in reasonable peace and quiet. The corner drug dealer in my neighborhood is nothing really different. He too is just a guy, except that on a fairly regular basis he is the cause of an infestation of light flashing, siren blasting vehicles tearing around at high speeds and people hopping fences and running through back yards. There's no real difference in the level of 'crime infestation', there is just a gross disparity in consequence to the neighborhood.

Drug dealers in good neighborhoods do business in a polo and khakis. Those in poorer neighborhoods do so in baggy pants and a hoody. They look the part and that draws more attention.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That truly is the real sticking point.

"expressed or organized in the form of institutions"

When one says 'institutional racism' I think of the institution of slavery. It is something intentional, as a matter of policy. A lot of other people hear the same things I do, on both sides, and repeated often enough, they believe it. It encourages people to resist arrest and fight police officers, because now they feel justified. The cops are the bad guys and they're fighting the "injustice system." Suddenly, the cops are the enemy and that makes the streets dangerous to police. It puts cops on edge and more bad things are bound to happen in that environment.

I think the 'intentional' is the hard part that makes this strictly defined institutional racism non existent. The mayor isn't sitting with the top guy in our local branch of the LASD saying "how can we screw the black people?" As JRM said there are unintended consequences of actions, and as he didn't necessarily agree but seemed to go with there are factors that make mitigating the unintended consequences that fall more heavily on black people less important politically. That doesn't make it intentional, but it also provides results as if it were.

And yeah, it perpetuates. It isn't sudden. Cops are the enemy. They have been for quite a while. Yes that puts them on edge and bad things happen (unintended consequence) and again, politically mitigating that unintended consequence is far less of a priority when a significant block of voters respond with 'well ya gotta beat a black guy every now and then to keep that neighborhood in line' to varying degree.

I prefer to think of it as institutional racism because it gives me some narrow ground to think that the cop on the street is just as unhappy with the situation as I am, or at least as unhappy as the significantly reduced probability of consequences allows.

 

[JohnRM]

I think the 'intentional' is the hard part that makes this strictly defined institutional racism non existent. The mayor isn't sitting with the top guy in our local branch of the LASD saying "how can we screw the black people?" As JRM said there are unintended consequences of actions, and as he didn't necessarily agree but seemed to go with there are factors that make mitigating the unintended consequences that fall more heavily on black people less important politically. That doesn't make it intentional, but it also provides results as if it were.

And yeah, it perpetuates. It isn't sudden. Cops are the enemy. They have been for quite a while. Yes that puts them on edge and bad things happen (unintended consequence) and again, politically mitigating that unintended consequence is far less of a priority when a significant block of voters respond with 'well ya gotta beat a black guy every now and then to keep that neighborhood in line' to varying degree.

I prefer to think of it as institutional racism because it gives me some narrow ground to think that the cop on the street is just as unhappy with the situation as I am, or at least as unhappy as the significantly reduced probability of consequences allows.

And thus, the sum of what I am saying is that I disagree with your side of things, but I am still convince-able. There are certain concessions that I would require as a condition for changing my mind. Otherwise, I sympathize greatly with both sides, but ultimately, if the choice is between two imperfect sides, I am going to side with the one that preserves order.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Drug dealers in good neighborhoods do business in a polo and khakis. Those in poorer neighborhoods do so in baggy pants and a hoody. They look the part and that draws more attention.

Lots of people in the good neighborhood wear a polo and khakis. Lots of people in my neighborhood where baggies and hoodies. Both drug dealers 'look the part' of an ordinary citizen in their neighborhood. But a guy in a hoody and baggies is going to get rousted far more than a guy in a polo and khakis, because the consequences of rousting them and finding out they aren't a drug dealer after all are so much greater among the polo and khaki wearers.

On the west side a cop that rousts a potential drug dealer and finds that he missed is apologizing and hoping against a complaint or lawsuit. On my side of town he administers some intimidation and leaves with a 'you probably did something anyway'. Institutional racism? Just economics? Ultimately, is this fair?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And thus, the sum of what I am saying is that I disagree with your side of things, but I am still convince-able. There are certain concessions that I would require as a condition for changing my mind. Otherwise, I sympathize greatly with both sides, but ultimately, if the choice is between two imperfect sides, I am going to side with the one that preserves order.

Such as?

And by the way, how is chasing the drug dealer through my neighborhood with chaos in their wake preserving order? The west side neighborhood with its drug dealer appears far more orderly for the absence of 'police protection'.

 

[JohnRM]

Such as?

Among others, but most importantly, an immediate end to disorder. No more property destruction. No more burnings of businesses or churches. No more looting. No more threats against police or other officials.

This would necessarily tie into an abandonment of the notion that cops and the justice system are bad guys--the enemy.

An acceptance responsibility for the crimes that blacks do commit. Stop pretending that every black man/child that gets shot or beaten is an angel and never did anything wrong.

This would tie into a commitment by blacks to do something meaningful to better their own communities.

Severing of their relationship with communists, anarchists, and other such groups. I do not subscribe to the idea that we have to respect communists and treat them like everyone else. There should be no distinction between their kind and fascists. I do not mind if there are communists among the demonstrators, but a formal alliance of your side's cause with the communists and anarchists is a deal-breaker, for me.

And by the way, how is chasing the drug dealer through my neighborhood with chaos in their wake preserving order? The west side neighborhood with its drug dealer appears far more orderly for the absence of 'police protection'.

Because it is rare, quite temporary, and local compared to what has occurred over the past week. Cops don't burn businesses, flip over cars and set them on fire, or block major transportation arteries and shut down commerce to call attention to themselves.