There's no statistics for this kind of thing

[Hygro]

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

As a new officer with the St. Louis in the mid-1990s, I responded to a call for an "officer in need of aid." I was partnered that day with a white female officer. When we got to the scene, it turned out that the officer was fine, and the aid call was canceled. He'd been in a foot pursuit chasing a suspect in an armed robbery and lost him.

The officer I was with asked him if he'd seen where the suspect went. The officer picked a house on the block we were on, and we went to it and knocked on the door. A young man about 18 years old answered the door, partially opening it and peering out at my partner and me. He was standing on crutches. My partner accused him of harboring a suspect. He denied it. He said that this was his family's home and he was home alone.

My partner then forced the door the rest of the way open, grabbed him by his throat, and snatched him out of the house onto the front porch. She took him to the ledge of the porch and, still holding him by the throat, punched him hard in the face and then in the groin. My partner that day snatched an 18-year-old kid off crutches and assaulted him, simply for stating the fact that he was home alone.

I got the officer off of him. But because an aid call had gone out, several other officers had arrived on the scene. One of those officers, who was black, ascended the stairs and asked what was going on. My partner pointed to the young man, still lying on the porch, and said, "That son of a [witch] just assaulted me." The black officer then went up to the young man and told him to "get the [truck] up, I'm taking you in for assaulting an officer." The young man looked up at the officer and said, "Man ... you see I can't go." His crutches lay not far from him.

The officer picked him up, cuffed him, and slammed him into the house, where he was able to prop himself up by leaning against it. The officer then told him again to get moving to the police car on the street because he was under arrest. The young man told him one last time, in a pleading tone that was somehow angry at the same time, "You see I can't go!" The officer reached down and grabbed both the young man's ankles and yanked up. This caused the young man to strike his head on the porch. The officer then dragged him to the police car. We then searched the house. No one was in it.

So when you assert there's no problem because there's no statistics, you're politically protecting unreported police brutality.

Also, crime statistics do not represent criminal demographics if the statistics are collected by police who are selectively enforcing the law in a way motivated by race. Wanted to get that one out of the way before we get six pages of the usual suspect(s?) not understanding if -> then logic.

 

[Ryika]

Also, crime statistics do not represent criminal demographics if the statistics are collected by police who are selectively enforcing the law in a way motivated by race.

So are you accusing the police of manufacturing murders by black people or of hiding murders by white people?

 

[W|M]

The police arrest black people for doing things they don't arrest white people for doing

 

[Ryika]

That may be true but does not explain the over-representation of black people in significant crimes. What I'm getting at is: If black people are over-represented in significant crimes and, even in similar percentages, are over-represented in less significant crimes, how does one rationalize that that's probably false statistics on the less significant crimes instead of just looking at the general trend and coming to the conclusion that black people as a demographic commit more crimes?

I mean it's two different things, right? Yeah, on average black people probably have to deal with prejudices cops more often than white people, but going from that to claiming that crime statistics don't represent crime demographics is just a logical jump that seems nonsensical to me. For anything that isn't a crime so tiny that they can let white people get away with it that should really not have an effect on the statistics.

 

[W|M]

White people get away with murder all the time

 

[Hygro]

That may be true but does not explain the over-representation of black people in significant crimes. What I'm getting at is: If black people are over-represented in significant crimes and, even in similar percentages, are over-represented in less significant crimes, how does one rationalize that that's probably false statistics on the less significant crimes instead of just looking at the general trend and coming to the conclusion that black people as a demographic commit more crimes?

I mean it's two different things, right? Yeah, on average black people probably have to deal with prejudices cops more often than white people, but going from that to claiming that crime statistics don't represent crime demographics is just a logical jump that seems nonsensical to me.

That's not the leap. The issue here is that the argument normally goes:

IF crime stats
THEN demographic data
THEN police are justified in holding a statistical prejudice to make policing decisions
THEREFORE the movement against police racism is unfounded/at least overeager

This is clearly bad logic if you understand that IF you have institutionally racist policing, your crime stats are going to reflect that bias by supporting that bias's aim. The "leap" is that because we have anecdotes to high heaven of institutionally racist policing from credible sources, we include that premise that we have bad information. So if you're basing your political conclusions on those crime stats, you have underfounded views.

 

[Ryika]

You've still not explained how it is possible that, if it's based on bias, those statistics also hold true for crimes that cannot simply be swept under the rug, such as murder. Black people do commit more crimes on average, period.

Of course the "THEREFORE"-conclusion is BS, but what you're doing is BS as well. You're trying to explain away the higher crime rates with wishful thinking.

 

[Hygro]

You've still not explained how it is possible that, if it's based on bias, those statistics also hold true for crimes that cannot simply be swept under the rug, such as murder. Black people do commit more crimes on average, period.

Of course the "THEREFORE"-conclusion is BS, but what you're doing is BS as well. You're trying to explain away the higher crime rates with wishful thinking.

The scientific approach is "there could be higher crime rates", and the moral approach is to not base opposition to race issues movements on that "could".

 

[Zkribbler]

White people get away with murder all the time

I'm looking at you, George W. Bush!

 

[Ryika]

The scientific approach is "there could be higher crime rates", and the moral approach is to not base opposition to race issues movements on that "could".

We have the stats. The stats are consistent throughout the whole spectrum of severity of crime. We have good reasons for why we expect the crime rates to be higher - increased poverty and gang violence to name two examples. AND we see the same rates of crimes in districts where a large portion of the police force is black. What you're doing is mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion from the obvious one, that black people commit more crimes on average.

I agree with the second part, but usually people don't do that anyway. The only time that comes up is usually when people start saying: "Black people are convicted more often therefore discrimination!" - yeah, they are, that's to be expected because on average they commit more crimes. Discrimination may also play a role that pushes the difference further, but that doesn't make the argument "More black people convicted therefore discrimination!" any more logical.

You're pushing towards an extreme that isn't logical, that doesn't match what is the most likely conclusion, that's why you get backlash.

I mean, to show the absurdity:
Our system assumes men to be more violent. Women are often times left off the hook because of gender bias towards women, they're perceived as the physically weaker and less aggressive sex.

So the system that assumes men to be perpetrators and women to be falsely accused actually creates a situation where there's tons of false statistical evidence, because the evidence produced is biased in itself. This then makes the police look closer into what men do and so they're more often convicted and there you go - the circle is complete.

I have successfully shown that men aren't actually more violent than women, that assumption is just the result of a system that is biased against them.

 

[astrallite]

This isnt that much different than how many soldiers acted in a war zone. Most of these cops basically have PTSD from having to deal with extremely high amounts of violent crime on a daily basis.

The inner cities basically have two major forces working to maintain this high crime rate--de-industrialization of America and the War on Drugs. You could end the war on drugs tomorrow and the gangs might consolidate resulting in less violent crime overall, but the crime rate will still be much higher than surburbia due to lack of jobs.

Because there are no working class jobs available, the most profitable thing is going to be grey/black market arbitrage. If you make drugs legal and send the cops away the dealers will remain but sell loose cigarettes or whatever else people on the street can come up with to profit off of government regulations.

 

[W|M]

I'm looking at you, George W. Bush!

He wasn't the only one in the government

 

[Hygro]

Ryika, I don't know why you have such a blind spot on this issue. You say "we have the stats" but we don't, we have you making an argument for why we can more or less trust the numbers as reported. You say I'm pushing toward "the extreme", I'm literally saying that there's a glaring error in the signal flow of the logic, so we shouldn't draw conclusions. Is that "extreme"? It doesn't even deny the possibility, it could very well be... or not... it just says it's not admissible as a secure argument. "Extreme"? Really? You're so good when you're talking about things you know personally, what compels you to pick a side on such shaky ground on an impersonal issue? And then call what is a fairly neutral position heading toward the "extreme".... are you waking up to yourself yet?

In the context of this thread, we're discussing that police brutality is going to lack statistics. The purpose is to demonstrate that requiring statistics before accepting a movement might not be feasible. There is a counter argument championed by a user who isn't you, but you've paired with on some debates, who for some 60-odd posts could not understand basic logical signal flow that crime stats don't prove demographic differences in race because of potential confounding variables. The only reason to care about increased crime rates in this issue of police brutality is to demonstrate why there might be justification for police to be more wary/cautious/combative/whatever around those demos that allegedly commit more crimes. You agree it's not a justification. I'm saying it's not a justification and it's not even a good line of argument to begin with. It could be true, no reason to focus on it unless it leads to a useful conclusion, not logical to assert that conclusion unless the confounding variables will be controlled for, which they won't. Meanwhile, we have lots of anecdotes that are also not being measured. To rely on statistics with known, unsolved confounding variables while dismissing mass anecdotes is not erring scientific, it's erring toward a personal preference for a desired conclusion.

Your gender example is interesting because there's evidence to support your intended argumentum absurdum is not so absurd. Women do indeed commit more acts of domestic violence and men are frequently more often arrested. My argument is about selective enforcement, though although now that you mention it.... nsfw the article is an example of that too. I was interested in the brutality more than the false arrests, but I guess it's both.

 

[useless]

We have the stats. The stats are consistent throughout the whole spectrum of severity of crime. We have good reasons for why we expect the crime rates to be higher - increased poverty and gang violence to name two examples. AND we see the same rates of crimes in districts where a large portion of the police force is black. What you're doing is mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion from the obvious one, that black people commit more crimes on average.

I agree with the second part, but usually people don't do that anyway. The only time that comes up is usually when people start saying: "Black people are convicted more often therefore discrimination!" - yeah, they are, that's to be expected because on average they commit more crimes. Discrimination may also play a role that pushes the difference further, but that doesn't make the argument "More black people convicted therefore discrimination!" any more logical.

You're pushing towards an extreme that isn't logical, that doesn't match what is the most likely conclusion, that's why you get backlash.

I mean, to show the absurdity:
Our system assumes men to be more violent. Women are often times left off the hook because of gender bias towards women, they're perceived as the physically weaker and less aggressive sex.

So the system that assumes men to be perpetrators and women to be falsely accused actually creates a situation where there's tons of false statistical evidence, because the evidence produced is biased in itself. This then makes the police look closer into what men do and so they're more often convicted and there you go - the circle is complete.

I have successfully shown that men aren't actually more violent than women, that assumption is just the result of a system that is biased against them.

A massive citation needed for all of this.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So are you accusing the police of manufacturing murders by black people or of hiding murders by white people?

Jumping all the way to murder is probably a mistake. According to the FBI's 2014 Uniform Crime Report,

Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2014. Robbery offenses accounted for 28.0 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 7.2 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent.

So while murder may seem like a useful yardstick for violent crime in some ways, it really isn't. Additionally, violent crimes (~1.2 million) only number about 1/7th of property crimes (~8.3 million), and it looks like these data don't distinguish traffic stops or arrests for nonviolent drug offenses (though there are any number of ways they could include them, such as when a cop charges a suspect with "resisting arrest" or "assaulting an officer").

That may be true but does not explain the over-representation of black people in significant crimes. What I'm getting at is: If black people are over-represented in significant crimes and, even in similar percentages, are over-represented in less significant crimes, how does one rationalize that that's probably false statistics on the less significant crimes instead of just looking at the general trend and coming to the conclusion that black people as a demographic commit more crimes?

I mean it's two different things, right? Yeah, on average black people probably have to deal with prejudices cops more often than white people, but going from that to claiming that crime statistics don't represent crime demographics is just a logical jump that seems nonsensical to me. For anything that isn't a crime so tiny that they can let white people get away with it that should really not have an effect on the statistics.

Well, we do have investigations being made. For example,

USA Today, 13 April 2016: Task force finds Chicago Police Department plagued by racism
NY Times, 3 March 2015: Ferguson Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds

And while the plural of anecdote is not data, we have anecdotes from informed people, not just angry demonstrators and "SJWs" like me.

The Washington Post, 6 December 2014: Being a cop showed me just how racist and violent the police are. There’s only one fix.

 

[Borachio]

the over-representation of black people in significant crimes.

Are black people over-represented in white-collar crimes?

And lynchings?

 

[REDY]

When is crime/offense not reported then it is not in the statistics.

I don't quite follow on what are based your other conclusions.

 

[Commodore]

White people get away with murder all the time

I know right? Like this white guy:

 

[useless]

I know right? Like this white guy:

One black guy vs all the recent killings by the mainly white cops.

Okay.

 

[Commodore]

One black guy vs all the recent killings by the mainly white cops.

Okay.

You really have no sense of humor do you?