This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

If the officer is in a predominantly black area, I wouldn’t expect the numbers to equal the same population numbers across the US. In other words, if the area is 80% non white, I would expect the statistics to indicate those numbers.

You’re also still missing the point. I have no issue with punishing any officer for any reason. In your hypothetical situation, you stated the officer had a clear choice between a black and white person. In that case, the numbers should be roughly 50%. My question is to how we know there was a choice.

---

You would know if he is patrolling an area which isnt 100% black demographic.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

If the officer is in a predominantly black area, I wouldn’t expect the numbers to equal the same population numbers across the US. In other words, if the area is 80% non white, I would expect the statistics to indicate those numbers.

You’re also still missing the point. I have no issue with punishing any officer for any reason. In your hypothetical situation, you stated the officer had a clear choice between a black and white person. In that case, the numbers should be roughly 50%. My question is to how we know there was a choice.

---

Because I gave you the entirety of the scenario. It is a hypothetical. In the hypothetical he had a choice, that's how we know. You are trying to explain or justify the discrepancy by questioning things that are not in the hypothetical.

It's why you won't give a direct answer to whether there is enough evidence in the scenario to reprimand or fire him; because you don't think there is. And your inability to believe there is enough evidence is why you cannot comprehend systemic bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

You would know if he is patrolling an area which isnt 100% black demographic.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Agreed. So the statistics should be in line with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Because I gave you the entirety of the scenario. It is a hypothetical. In the hypothetical he had a choice, that's how we know. You are trying to explain or justify the discrepancy by questioning things that are not in the hypothetical.

It's why you won't give a direct answer to whether there is enough evidence in the scenario to reprimand or fire him; because you don't think there is. And your inability to believe there is enough evidence is why you cannot comprehend systemic bias.

---

Yes and I said on multiple occasions that in your hypothetical the cop should be fired or reprimanded. My only hesitation (in my typing) was due to you assuming the cop had a choice. I’ve said on multiple occasions now that the cop should be reprimanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Yes and I said on multiple occasions that in your hypothetical the cop should be fired or reprimanded. My only hesitation (in my typing) was due to you assuming the cop had a choice. I’ve said on multiple occasions now that the cop should be reprimanded.

---

So now apply that same concept writ large and you have systemic racism.

For instance in Ferguson, although black people make up roughly 2/3 of the town, 86% of drivers pulled over were black. They were also twice as likely to be searched and arrested despite being less likely to have contraband on them.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...03abb9d86.html


This phenomenon is not restricted to Ferguson, Stanford University did a study on 100 million stops in 21 states and found:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...l-bias-n980556

The results show that police stopped and searched black and Latino drivers on the basis of less evidence than used in stopping white drivers, who are searched less often but are more likely to be found with illegal items.


So less evidence is needed to search black and latino drivers and they are actually more likely to find illegal items on white drivers. How is that not systemic bias?


Here is another study of 20 million stops in North Carolina, which found:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-while-black/

We found that, compared to their share in the population, blacks are almost twice as likely to be pulled over as whites — even though whites drive more on average, by the way. We also discovered that blacks are more likely to be searched following a stop. Just by getting in a car, a black driver has about twice the odds of being pulled over, and about four times the odds of being searched.

African Americans are much more likely to be searched after a stop than white drivers, but less likely to be found with drugs, guns, alcohol or other forms of contraband after discretionary searches.


So the idea that people are pulled over in proportion to the demographics of the area is erroneous, because blacks are getting pulled over at far higher rates than their demographic to the population. And the idea that blacks are pulled over because they are more likely to have contraband is also erroneous because white people are more likely to have contraband when searched. But the idea that police are stopping the vehicles in the first place is because they suspect contraband (such as drugs) due to higher crime rates among the black community is also erroneous:

Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are committed by minorities. The premise is factually untrue, but it has nonetheless become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos, they find a disproportionate number of them with contraband. Therefore, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, thus reinforcing the perception that drug trafficking is primarily a minority activity. This perception creates the profile that results in more stops of minority drivers. At the same time, white drivers receive far less police attention, many of the drug dealers and possessors among them go unapprehended, and the perception that whites commit fewer drug offenses than minorities is perpetuated. And so the cycle continues.


And you can't say the reason black people are pulled over and searched is because of their violent crime rates because they aren't being pulled over for committing a violent crime (or even suspicion of a violent crime).

So what explanation is there for black people getting pulled over more and searched more despite finding less contraband? What is your explanation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Agreed. So the statistics should be in line with that.

---

Well valade already addressed this in his scenario but you seemed to kinda ignore the fact that he did.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

So now apply that same concept writ large and you have systemic racism.

For instance in Ferguson, although black people make up roughly 2/3 of the town, 86% of drivers pulled over were black. They were also twice as likely to be searched and arrested despite being less likely to have contraband on them.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...03abb9d86.html


This phenomenon is not restricted to Ferguson, Stanford University did a study on 100 million stops in 21 states and found:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...l-bias-n980556

The results show that police stopped and searched black and Latino drivers on the basis of less evidence than used in stopping white drivers, who are searched less often but are more likely to be found with illegal items.


So less evidence is needed to search black and latino drivers and they are actually more likely to find illegal items on white drivers. How is that not systemic bias?


Here is another study of 20 million stops in North Carolina, which found:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-while-black/

We found that, compared to their share in the population, blacks are almost twice as likely to be pulled over as whites — even though whites drive more on average, by the way. We also discovered that blacks are more likely to be searched following a stop. Just by getting in a car, a black driver has about twice the odds of being pulled over, and about four times the odds of being searched.

African Americans are much more likely to be searched after a stop than white drivers, but less likely to be found with drugs, guns, alcohol or other forms of contraband after discretionary searches.


So the idea that people are pulled over in proportion to the demographics of the area is erroneous, because blacks are getting pulled over at far higher rates than their demographic to the population. And the idea that blacks are pulled over because they are more likely to have contraband is also erroneous because white people are more likely to have contraband when searched. But the idea that police are stopping the vehicles in the first place is because they suspect contraband (such as drugs) due to higher crime rates among the black community is also erroneous:

Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are committed by minorities. The premise is factually untrue, but it has nonetheless become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos, they find a disproportionate number of them with contraband. Therefore, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, thus reinforcing the perception that drug trafficking is primarily a minority activity. This perception creates the profile that results in more stops of minority drivers. At the same time, white drivers receive far less police attention, many of the drug dealers and possessors among them go unapprehended, and the perception that whites commit fewer drug offenses than minorities is perpetuated. And so the cycle continues.


And you can't say the reason black people are pulled over and searched is because of their violent crime rates because they aren't being pulled over for committing a violent crime (or even suspicion of a violent crime).

So what explanation is there for black people getting pulled over more and searched more despite finding less contraband? What is your explanation?

---

The piece that you are conveniently missing compared to your hypothetical is the choice. This is why I was hesitant on answering you because I knew you were going to attempt use my answer to attempt to corner me and why I hit so hard on the officer having a choice.

In Ferguson for example, you stated the town consisted of at least 66% black people but that black people made up 86% of the police stops. That number is not that far off considering. Now you have to prove to me where the officer had a choice between a black person to pull over and a white person to pull over... I’ll wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Well valade already addressed this in his scenario but you seemed to kinda ignore the fact that he did.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

I wasn’t ignoring it. I pointed out exactly the issue with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I wasn’t ignoring it. I pointed out exactly the issue with it.

---

I got you, just saw it..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

The piece that you are conveniently missing compared to your hypothetical is the choice. This is why I was hesitant on answering you because I knew you were going to attempt use my answer to attempt to corner me and why I hit so hard on the officer having a choice.

In Ferguson for example, you stated the town consisted of at least 66% black people but that black people made up 86% of the police stops. That number is not that far off considering. Now you have to prove to me where the officer had a choice between a black person to pull over and a white person to pull over... I’ll wait.

---

First, so your argument is that the police had no choice but to pull over all these black people? There were no other cars on the road? No one else was speeding? You honestly believe that?

Second, Even IF that were true, that still doesn't explain why black people are more likely to be searched, have less justification for getting searched, and have less contraband on them than white people.

So how do you explain everything after the initial stop, since your argument only applies to that...

Oh, and being pulled over at a rate 20% higher than the Demographic of the area is a pretty significant difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Oh, and being pulled over at a rate 20% higher than the Demographic of the area is a pretty significant difference.

---

Its def not good.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First, so your argument is that the police had no choice but to pull over all these black people? There were no other cars on the road? No one else was speeding? You honestly believe that?

Second, Even IF that were true, that still doesn't explain why black people are more likely to be searched, have less justification for getting searched, and have less contraband on them than white people.

So how do you explain everything after the initial stop, since your argument only applies to that...

---

I didn’t say the police had no choice but to pull over black people. I said you don’t know if they had a choice in each situation, as per your hypothetical. I said early on that you were making a huge assumption and I was right, so thanks for proving it.

I have no idea why black people were more likely to be searched. Of course you assume it’s racism. Surprise surprise. It could be something as simple as the driver acted different in each situation. Furthermore, given the area, it is more likely that black people would have contraband despite the findings. I’m opposed to drugs being illegal so making them legal would solve a lot of those issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

The piece that you are conveniently missing compared to your hypothetical is the choice. This is why I was hesitant on answering you because I knew you were going to attempt use my answer to attempt to corner me and why I hit so hard on the officer having a choice.

In Ferguson for example, you stated the town consisted of at least 66% black people but that black people made up 86% of the police stops. That number is not that far off considering. Now you have to prove to me where the officer had a choice between a black person to pull over and a white person to pull over... I’ll wait.

---

Fact don’t care about your feelings Joey


(Did I do it right?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

why is this how some media/some people cover Jacob Blake?
why does Jacob Blake get this type of support?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/u...gtype=Homepage

17th paragraph (go ahead and count) before getting into his crimes.

---

I always miss the part of the article where they point out that the president digitally raped a woman.