Institutional racism in policing and how to rectify it.

[Farm Boy]

Body cameras are probably a win, but there at least probably something of a downside to ~three quarters of a million police officers running around recording the public.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Body cameras are probably a win, but there at least probably something of a downside to ~three quarters of a million police officers running around recording the public.

No doubt. But the grim reality is that between traffic cams and property surveillance cams and cell phone cams everyone really should be conducting themselves as if they are being recorded anyway.

If a citizen does something wrong the cops are almost certainly going to be able to find video. At least with body cams when a cop does something wrong and the cops say they can't find any evidence we would know they are lying instead of just assuming it.

 

[tetley]

The bigger issue is who controls the video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If they are serving a search warrant and catch somebody with a sheep you can bet that the highest bidder will control the video.

 

[Abegweit]

Institutional racism in policing and how to rectify it.

I submit that the Chodorov Principle applies. The solution to any societal problem is to abolish the government agency causing it. In this case, of course, the agency in question is the police.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

New contracts with new Indians. There are a lot of Indians.

You don't need Indians, you need Nepalis, i.e. Gurkhas! Singapore has Gurkha police solely to provide a tough, racially-neutral force in case of race riots. They will happily bash blacks, whites, or anyone else who gets in the way in equal measure.

First, we have to determine what 'institutional' really means. It means something that is organized and structured in such as way as to be intentional. Law enforcement agencies, banks, and other institutions are NOT structured in such a way as to be racist, nor are they racist as a matter of policy. So, what we have is certainly NOT institutional racism.
<snip to later post>
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?

'Institutional racism' is a technical term which I guess you haven't come across before. One widely-accepted definition: “The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority
ethnic people." MacPherson Report, 6.34

"Institution" here does not emphasize the fact that the police is an incorporated body. It emphasizes unwritten customs, as in "the institution of marriage." The police's written policy may not be racist, but their institutions are.

For example, if the police only hold suspects at their central depot, and the depot is on the north side of the river, and the north side of the river is pretty much all green-skinned people and not purple-skinned people, then there's institutional racism against purple-skinned people. The police's (lack of) facilities planning has become far more powerful than any Word document or speech about equality. They are not providing an appropriate service to purple-skinned people. And that's just not good enough when they have the authority to detain people, never mind shooting people dead.

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.

Do you think Condi and Michael Steeel have a "relationship with communists, anarchists, and other such groups"? Obviously not, you know that "blacks" have a diverse range of views on these issues. Maybe more specific terminology would help the debate.

On the substantive point, do I take you believe that the US was wrong to co-operate with the USSR in World War II? I realize many Americans are opposed to the UN, but would free trade with China also be a deal-breaker? Or could there be some situations where co-operation with Communists is the lesser evil?

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.

As a thought experiment: don't US law enforcement authorities routinely destroy the assets of a major US industry (drugs), regularly destroy/flip cars in chases, maintain permanent blocks on all the major air travel arteries, and regularly shut down commerce in areas like gambling and prostitution? Of course, the majority of people usually want them to do these things, because they have authority to enforce social laws. But isn't it part of the US constitution that the people also have a right to resist the authorities with violence, especially in response to unjust detention?

I will probably agree with your answers to those questions, but I don't think the use of violence is as one-sided as you suggest.

Executive action may well be appropriate. Ferguson PD has body cameras. They were donated. They don't use them.

Apologies for referring to the Place That Must Not Be Named, but I think that info is outdated: Ferguson police wear cameras.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Apologies for referring to the Place That Must Not Be Named, but I think that info is outdated: Ferguson police wear cameras.

My bad on both counts. I referred to them first, and I have not kept up. I note that the article linked reports they have started using them without mentioning how long ago they got them. But better late than never in any case.

 

[reddishrecue]

Races that are trying to defend themselves and their people are considered racists? There's people from the same race that often practice racism on themselves by taking out racist emotions on people of same race because not everyone has that ability to be racist and savagely kill people of other races. There have been both black and white people killed by police officers during the latest days. There seemed to be a Caucasian man that got killed in salt lake city by a police officer and nobody really continued with this story. Not everyone is really able to commit a racist act of killing people from other races because of the other people from the same race that tend to have envious selfish emotions that make them want to stand up for their race instead of the person who initially wants to stand up for its race and commit a racist act. Not only that but there are other conscientious feelings that could develop which prevent racism at the last minute. Some people just want to be saved that badly that killing becomes disabled to them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Races that are trying to defend themselves and their people are considered racists? There's people from the same race that often practice racism on themselves by taking out racist emotions on people of same race because not everyone has that ability to be racist and savagely kill people of other races. There have been both black and white people killed by police officers during the latest days. There seemed to be a Caucasian man that got killed in salt lake city by a police officer and nobody really continued with this story. Not everyone is really able to commit a racist act of killing people from other races because of the other people from the same race that tend to have envious selfish emotions that make them want to stand up for their race instead of the person who initially wants to stand up for its race and commit a racist act. Not only that but there are other conscientious feelings that could develop which prevent racism at the last minute. Some people just want to be saved that badly that killing becomes disabled to them.

Under potential causes of death "shot by police" is twenty times more likely for a black man than a white man. Therefore black men, and relatives and friends of black men, are a lot easier to get engaged and involved in the subject. They do unfortunately tend to get involved more readily when a black man gets shot. I try to maintain the same level of concern no matter who has been killed most recently.

 

[Smote]

I recall one instance of police believing themselves "Above the Rules" as told to me by my boss. I was working at a convenience store at the time, and we had a strict "Parking is for customers only" policy. If cars lingered in the parking lot too long, my boss would go out, take down their license plate, and call the towing company. People liked to do this, because our parking lot was near popular bars and restaurants. He'd call the tow-ers, who would come over and tow them.

At one point, a cop left his car in our lot. Naturally, this annoyed my boss. So he called the towing company, who towed the cop's car. The cop got enraged about this, saying he couldn't do his job protecting public safety without his car, etc. and the police contacted the towing company. The towing company changed their policy on towing to cause all tows to have to be verified by police before they are acceptable.

This changed the response time on calling for towing to increase from about 10 minutes to a couple hours. Abuse of our parking lot abounded, and my boss was no longer able to efficiently stop it during prime hours, thanks to the cops getting the rules changed so that they have a say.

 

[JohnRM]

'Institutional racism' is a technical term which I guess you haven't come across before. One widely-accepted definition: “The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority
ethnic people." MacPherson Report, 6.34

"Institution" here does not emphasize the fact that the police is an incorporated body. It emphasizes unwritten customs, as in "the institution of marriage." The police's written policy may not be racist, but their institutions are.

For example, if the police only hold suspects at their central depot, and the depot is on the north side of the river, and the north side of the river is pretty much all green-skinned people and not purple-skinned people, then there's institutional racism against purple-skinned people. The police's (lack of) facilities planning has become far more powerful than any Word document or speech about equality. They are not providing an appropriate service to purple-skinned people. And that's just not good enough when they have the authority to detain people, never mind shooting people dead.

The fact that a few illiterates decades ago decided to term it as such does not make it correct. It is a distortion of the truth, at best, and intentionally misleading, at worst.

Do you think Condi and Michael Steeel have a "relationship with communists, anarchists, and other such groups"? Obviously not, you know that "blacks" have a diverse range of views on these issues. Maybe more specific terminology would help the debate.

On the substantive point, do I take you believe that the US was wrong to co-operate with the USSR in World War II? I realize many Americans are opposed to the UN, but would free trade with China also be a deal-breaker? Or could there be some situations where co-operation with Communists is the lesser evil?

We are clearly not talking about Condoleezza Rice and Michael Steele, in this case. Yes, the Allies were wrong to cooperate with the Soviet Union in WWII. There was very little to distinguish the Communists from the Nazis.

I am not opposed to the UN.

I oppose cooperation with China while it persists in its aggressive posture toward its neighbors.

As a thought experiment: don't US law enforcement authorities routinely destroy the assets of a major US industry (drugs), regularly destroy/flip cars in chases, maintain permanent blocks on all the major air travel arteries, and regularly shut down commerce in areas like gambling and prostitution? Of course, the majority of people usually want them to do these things, because they have authority to enforce social laws.

If you are going to attempt to make a silly comparison such as this, I don't think we can possibly have a productive discussion.

But isn't it part of the US constitution that the people also have a right to resist the authorities with violence, especially in response to unjust detention?

No.

I will probably agree with your answers to those questions, but I don't think the use of violence is as one-sided as you suggest.

Clearly not, but the use of violence by law enforcement is almost always justified whereas the use of violence by private citizens is almost always not.

 

[classical_hero]

Under potential causes of death "shot by police" is twenty times more likely for a black man than a white man. Therefore black men, and relatives and friends of black men, are a lot easier to get engaged and involved in the subject. They do unfortunately tend to get involved more readily when a black man gets shot. I try to maintain the same level of concern no matter who has been killed most recently.

But how much more likely are lacks being accused of crime and thus come under police action as a result of that?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But how much more likely are lacks being accused of crime and thus come under police action as a result of that?

Whether you think they deserve to die or not, it seems likely that they are going to continue to complain about it...and the longer those complaints go ignored the more likely 'oh, don't get violent there are better ways to make yourself heard' will be ignored itself.

 

[classical_hero]

Wow, you are so ignorant. Do more black get shot by police because more blacks put themselves into positions where they violently confront police and put themselves into harms way, more often than white or other races?

Moderator Action: That first sentence is flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wow, you are so ignorant. Do more black get shot by police because more blacks put themselves into positions where they violently confront police and put themselves into harms way, more often than white or other races?

Moderator Action: That first sentence is flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Are they 'putting themselves in the way'? Are the police focusing their efforts in certain communities? Does the great white public think that concentrating police efforts is justified and a few casualties are 'only to be expected'? I can't seem to figure out the 'real' balance among these three contributing factors...but since the real balance can't be determined I tend to think the opinions that should matter most are the opinions of the people in the group taking the casualties. Which is the group saying something that you are uncomfortable with so you'd rather lash out than hear it.

 

[Angst]

I don't know if it has to do with police racism, but I have concerns about the policing culture of the US. Some of you read my posts in the "Ferguson" thread in particular. Would these concerns be welcome in this thread?

 

[tetley]

Certainly welcome by me. My read of the OP and the mod is they are.

The UN committee on Human Rights has expressed concerns about the US police force as well: racism, human rights violations, over-militarization.

 

[bhsup]

The UN can kiss my hairy backside. They are not now, nor will they ever be in any way a solution or part of a solution to any internal American issue. In fact, the very idea of them trying to stick their nose into our internal business would probably just make me dig in my heels on whatever issue they were doing it on, even if I would have otherwise been inclined to agree with them. We don't need the UN, we don't want the UN.

 

[warpus]

Americans getting upset at the U.N. is always amusing to me. All I picture when it happens is an old man yelling at a passing by cloud.

 

[Angst]

The UN can kiss my hairy backside. They are not now, nor will they ever be in any way a solution or part of a solution to any internal American issue. In fact, the very idea of them trying to stick their nose into our internal business would probably just make me dig in my heels on whatever issue they were doing it on, even if I would have otherwise been inclined to agree with them. We don't need the UN, we don't want the UN.

This attitude is excellent, it's exactly why the UN is so well-functioning as an institution