Poverty and class is a better guide. A drugs turf war won't affect many middle-class people.
Even other cops get racially profiled by the NYPD
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
Poverty and class is a better guide. A drugs turf war won't affect many middle-class people.
I'm not about to get sucked into a debate. I don't care. Culture, class, poverty.... I noticed you asked for a cite for a claim. It seemed pretty easy to find so I provided it.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
The point I was making were that ST and DJ were making a lot of claims, but not providing a shred of support to back up their claims; unlike others in the thread.
I did look at the references, and the numbers are not entirely free of bias; though they're probably the best available.
In any case, they do not support the "7 times more likely" claim. I also see that the majority are drug-trade related; which is a class issue, not a race issue. Black people are more likely to be involved in the drug trade (typically fighting over turf and position), because they are also disproportionately represented among the lowest income levels.
Looking further at the numbers, I see that homicides and violent crime perpetrated by black offenders is falling at the same rates as for offenders of other races; in 2013 (the most recent compiled data) reaching it's lowest point since 1966. This certainly fails to justify racial profiling.
Looking up related statistics, blacks are also over 4 times more likely than whites to be the target of a hate crime, 71% vs 17%.
Simply put, I don't think anyone would enjoy bring singled out for police stops based on an accidental feature of their birth, one that is not a direct cause of a crime. I am "white" but would not like to be stopped by police on suspicion of being a mass murder only because most mass murders have been white. I am a male, and would not like being stopped by police only on the basis that most rapists are males. Sure, certain traits are directly linked to a crime (being unable to walk a straight line and being DOI) but I don't like the idea that someone would think that I was likely to be a particular kind of crook only because I was born a particular type of gender or ethnicity. I suspect most con men have a friendly face and outgoing personality, but if we don't automatically suspect people with the latter traits to be con man.
Ammonitida
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 616
The study had little to do with actual citations. It just compared citations to the speeders captured on camera. It found that blacks were twice as likely to speed, and even more likely to break 90mph. This was consistent with blacks being pulled over for wreckless driving twice as often as whites.
Ammonitida
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 616
The FBI data is unreliable.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/02/34888/
The NCVS is based on reported and unreported, which is much more reliable since the FBI relies on police reports only.
"The report by the Justice Department is the one most often cited by hate-crime experts as depicting the true national story. It shows the number of incidents is more than 15 times higher than FBI statistics alone reflect."
"While nine in 10,000 whites and nine in 10,000 Hispanics are victimized by hate crimes, only seven in 10,000 blacks are targets, according to the report."
"The report says 38 percent of all those reporting hate crimes said the attacker was black, and in 90 percent of those cases, the victim believed the offender’s motive was racial. In incidents involving white attackers, only 30 percent attribute the hate crime to race, while 20 percent attributed it to ethnicity."
"But it does contain some surprising numbers. While race is, by far, the No. 1 factor cited as the reason for hate crimes, blacks are slightly less likely to be victims and far more likely to be perpetrators, the statistics show."
Ammonitida
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 616
And that's why blacks are disproportionately arrested for drug violations, despite near equal rates of drug abuse among whites and blacks. Indeed, 62% of all drug related homicide victims are black.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Where to start. First, there's the fact that WorldNetDaily is is a hard-Right news organ with a well-known bias, and the article distorts the findings of the study substantially in order to paint white people as more victimized than black people.
The NCVS is also highly flawed, and relies heavily on victim perception, rather than actual demonstrable evidence.
Emphasis added.
Sorry, but "derogatory language" does not automatically transform an ordinary violent crime into a hate crime. Further it's based in large part on the victim's reporting of their perception of the perpetrator's motivation; which is every bit as valid as a victim's reporting their perception of racial profiling. Their definition and evidentiary standards are too loose to make a reasonable conclusion from, and some other form of corroboration is needed.
While the FBI statistics may be flawed, at least they have the advantage of more stringent evidentiary criteria for defining and determining hate crimes. The NCVS is not a study of hate crimes per se, it's a study of victims' perceptions.
Last edited:
Ammonitida
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 616
Please point out how it "substantially" distorts the NCVS. I'm not going to take your word for it since the majority of your response attempts to discredit the NCVS by insinuating that a very large percentage of reported white victims of hate crimes were "mistaken", despite them being subjected to at least racial slurs during these crimes. Even the FBI data shows that blacks are disproportionately represented among hate crime perpetrators, agreeing in part with the NCVS. Further, the FBI data only deals with reports to the police, not convictions. I recall a study that examined hate crime perpetrators of murder as logged by the FBI, and it found that in quite a few of these cases the murder was later ruled to be non-racially motivated (and at least two of the "white" perps were actually Hispanic gang members from LA, which brings up another issue with the FBI -- not separating whites from Hispanics in the offender category). It appears that victim (and cop) perception is also at play with the FBI stats.
"even POLICE OFFICERS may misinterpret the symbols or words."
--------------------------
"and relies heavily on victim perception, rather than actual demonstrable evidence."
Ethnic slurs is objective evidence. That's pretty much a NCVS requirement for race-based hate crimes.
"perception of the perpetrator's motivation; which is every bit as valid as a victim's reporting their perception of racial profiling."
In every real life example that I know of where whites reported being victims of race-based hate crimes, racial slurs were a factor, whereas with racial profiling, merely being white is enough to get you accused of such. For the NCVS, some type of objective evidence of bias is required. Not so for "racial profiling" claims.
"he NCVS is not a study of hate crimes per se, it's a study of victims' perceptions....Sorry, but "derogatory language" does not automatically transform an ordinary violent crime into a hate crime."
I don't think you'd be as dismissive of their perceptions if it was a gang of whites calling a black guy racially offensive names during a beating, even if they stole his wallet afterwards.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
I'm not discrediting the NCVS, I'm pointing out the flaws in the study that are noted in the study itself.
The study does not say what the WND article says it does; which is not surprising since WND is well-known as an outlet for fringe-conservative right-wing conspiracy-theorist; and is at the forefront of the Birther movement.
The NCVS, again, is a study on victim perception, which it attempts to extrapolate to real-world crime; and quite clearly enumerates its own shortcomings, and need for more in-depth, evidence-based study. Which you'd know, of course, if you'd bothered to actually read it carefully.
No, ethnic slurs on their own are not conclusive objective evidence of a hate crime. Not unless you redefine "hate crime" to be effectively meaningless. Especially when they are victim-reported and without corroborating evidence.
Did you miss the part where the study itself says that it depends on victims' reporting and and perception? I seem to recall reading that. And I'm not sure why you're so set on insisting racial slurs alone are sufficient to make something a hate crime; since such language is commonplace. There have to be other factors involved. Circumstances besides language that point to a hate-motivated crime.
Again, this is very little different from perceptions of racial profiling, and your insistence on handwaving that away because you want to paint a particular group is inherently criminal will not change that. You haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion that one set of perceptions is more valid than the other, despite very similar circumstances; and despite the wealth of evidence I and other have already provided supporting the reported perceptions of racial profiling.
Last edited:
Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
Heh. I'm wondering why some black dude shooting some other black dude, means I get beaten. Doesn't seem logical to me...in fact, it seems violently racist.
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,121
Speaking of profiling, thought I'd share a little experience I had last night.
I decided to go out for a walk in the wee hours, and I had only walked one measly block from my house (in a very safe, very white upscale town - just how I like it) before a cop rapidly pulled his SUV up next to me, rolled down the window, and engaged me in conversation.
Asks me if I live around there. I said yes, and pointed to the top of the street, told him I lived up there.
Asked me my name. I told him my first name, he asked me for my last name too. I gave him that as well.
He apologized for the bother, but said "we're looking for a guy on a domestic, and all I know is he has a brown coat on like you do" - I said I completely understood, it was no problem at all. He shook my hand, introduced himself, and was very pleasant.
I was cooperative and pleasant, and btw I think despite him saying ALL he knew was the guy's coat color, the reality is he at least knew it was a male he was looking for, and based on how BOLAs work, it's almost a certainty he knew he was looking for a white male such as myself.
He didn't demand my license and compare the address on it to where I was pointing, and make sure the name I gave was the same.
So how did he become willing to say to himself "okay, not my guy" and be pleasant and leave me to what I was doing?
I would imagine it was because, despite matching the description, I was pleasant, cooperative, and open with my information. The whole encounter was over in less than a minute and we both went on our way. It was very pleasant actually.
So was it my white privilege that made it go so well, or was it my stereotypically white demeanor which many a black comedian has joked about, and my absence of steroetypically black demeanor which many a black comedian has also joked about? Namely, was being pleasant and cooperative and respectful toward the officer "acting white" and being a punk, etc.? Was my failure to be confrontational, aggressive, and inflammatory a failure to be a man and represent? It would certainly be viewed that way in the very same communities which keep on having trouble with police, by a LOT of people therein.
If I was black, would that incident last night be chalked up to me having been racially profiled and would I go the rest of my life citing it as an example of a time I was stopped just for being black?
I decided to go out for a walk in the wee hours, and I had only walked one measly block from my house (in a very safe, very white upscale town - just how I like it) before a cop rapidly pulled his SUV up next to me, rolled down the window, and engaged me in conversation.
Asks me if I live around there. I said yes, and pointed to the top of the street, told him I lived up there.
Asked me my name. I told him my first name, he asked me for my last name too. I gave him that as well.
He apologized for the bother, but said "we're looking for a guy on a domestic, and all I know is he has a brown coat on like you do" - I said I completely understood, it was no problem at all. He shook my hand, introduced himself, and was very pleasant.
I was cooperative and pleasant, and btw I think despite him saying ALL he knew was the guy's coat color, the reality is he at least knew it was a male he was looking for, and based on how BOLAs work, it's almost a certainty he knew he was looking for a white male such as myself.
He didn't demand my license and compare the address on it to where I was pointing, and make sure the name I gave was the same.
So how did he become willing to say to himself "okay, not my guy" and be pleasant and leave me to what I was doing?
I would imagine it was because, despite matching the description, I was pleasant, cooperative, and open with my information. The whole encounter was over in less than a minute and we both went on our way. It was very pleasant actually.
So was it my white privilege that made it go so well, or was it my stereotypically white demeanor which many a black comedian has joked about, and my absence of steroetypically black demeanor which many a black comedian has also joked about? Namely, was being pleasant and cooperative and respectful toward the officer "acting white" and being a punk, etc.? Was my failure to be confrontational, aggressive, and inflammatory a failure to be a man and represent? It would certainly be viewed that way in the very same communities which keep on having trouble with police, by a LOT of people therein.
If I was black, would that incident last night be chalked up to me having been racially profiled and would I go the rest of my life citing it as an example of a time I was stopped just for being black?
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
What a load of crap. Seriously. "Oh, the police won't bother you if you just act pleasant despite being harassed." "They won't bother you if you just act middle-class WASP enough."
"They won't bother you if you just know your place."
Sorry, but there aren't sufficient words allowed here for how horrible that attitude is. Of course it's bloody privilege. Whether it's white privilege, middle-class privilege, or just acting-like-the-preferred-stereotype-token privilege.
Since you are so fond of claiming your anecdotes are conclusive evidence of how the world really works; here's one of mine. I've been stopped by police in a wide range of different circumstances, and every single time, my treatment has not depended on my demeanor, it's depended entirely on my appearance.
When I've been dressed like an average white middle-class white-collar office worker, yes, the police have been reasonable and polite. However, the moment that appearance changes, so does the way that the police treat me. And I have never been anything from unfailingly polite and pleasant, regardless of how I look.
I was pulled over on my way home from work one night, dressed in a polo shirt and jeans, a bit sleep deprived due to having gotten off a particular long swing shift, and I didn't pull over when I should have, I just zoned out and ended up pulling over a slightly-too-long distance later. When the officer came up, he was understandably upset, and seemed to believe I was stoned. I explained my condition, was suitably apologetic (after all, I had actually been speeding and missed the turnout where I should have stopped) he mellowed out, and let me off with a warning.
Some time later, I had a similar issue, sleep deprived, wandered through a stop sign and nearly got t-boned. The response was nearly identical to the first time. I've had similar experience getting stopped for not updating my tags, or running red lights (to be fair, my city is really crap about where they put them, and some of them are nearly invisible, especially when the sun was behind them). In the last case, the officer was gruff but polite, and suggested I start wearing sunglasses. Sometimes I get tickets, sometimes I dont (I have no illusions that I'm a particularly good driver). Again, every time, looking like your basic office joe.
The moment I start to look at all different, their reaction to me changes.
When I was in my 20s, I was on my way home from going out with my girlfriend, standing around the ferry waiting room for the boat that was to take us home. I was dressed like a punk; not a scruffy street punk, but a middle-class art school punk. This crusty old beat cop walks in, takes one look at me, and immediately begins to berate me about what a horrible person I am. No prologue, no asking why I was there, just an almost ten minute long harangue. Never asked me a single question. I just stood there smiling at him, and the more I smiled, the more strident he got, until he finally gave up and walked away after a few vague threats about running me in (for what, he never said, something to do with my outfit involving an old military dress jacket set him off and was the bulk of his tirade).
Another time, my brother and a couple of our friends were driving back from a practice session of his (punk) band; and we were stopped by a cop. We were all late teens at the time. We were not speeding, or driving in any way abnormally. The officer spent the next five minutes grilling everyone in the car about who they were, where we were going, why we were out on the road, and so on. Everyone was unfailingly polite. After a while the officer just glared at us and said he was letting us off with a "warning"; and never once said why he pulled us over of what the warning was for. It was well-known where I grew up that city PD did not like teenagers, and would take any opportunity to harass them. One officer in particular had a thing for the high school girls; and was eventually brought up on disciplinary charges for extorting sexual favours from them at traffic stops.
In another case, I was walking downtown on my way to work, with a couple of co-workers who I had met up with slightly earlier. I was dressed pretty visibly Goth, and one of my co-workers was dressed flamboyantly queer (dude had a great sense of style). There was kind of event going on, and an officer was directing traffic at an intersection. There were a number of guys in suits and "business casual" attire standing at the edge of the sidewalk waiting to cross. As we walked up, the officer looked over before we were even 10 feet from the sidewalk, and she started screaming at us to stop. Literally screaming. Not saying a word to anyone who was already at the intersection, but screaming very loudly and shrilly at us to stop before we were anywhere near it. We just smiled at her and ignored her for the most part, and she quieted down somewhat, but kept shouting at us (I couldn't actually make out most of what she said).
Another time, I was similarly on my way to work, looking like I'd just stepped out of a Goth club, with the same flamboyantly gay man, and a couple of other co-workers. This was the day after a protest downtown had been cleaned up (WTO in case you're interested); and we had been informed that we would be able to get to work without a problem, as long as we had our badges. No dice. A couple of cops on horses accosted us, demanded to know what we were doing there, despite having our badges prominently displayed. We explained we were on our way to work, which they officers did not seem to want to accept, and they refused to allow us into the office, which was roughly half a block away. We started out the same as before, but after several minutes of this, while we remained politely insistent, we had quit smiling Mind you, the entire time we are being harassed by these two horse cops, guys in suits are walking by completely unchallenged. Eventually they called someone on their radios, and let us get to the office. The entire time we're walking, the two cops are following us and threatening us, insisting that they'er "coming after" us, "going to get" us, if we "so much as step one foot past the door".
And I have plenty of similar stories, mine and others, about being harassed by police simply for looking like "freaks".
So yes, it's definitely about privilege and prejudice. We were "profiled" as troublemakers simply do to an accident of appearance, and treated like criminals despite not being engaged in any sort of suspicious activity. There is no other way to explain it. For every one of your "I've never been profiled and harassed, so it can't possibly be true" anecdotes, I've got a dozen contrary ones.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Even police concede that 'who you appear to be' does have a bearing on how you will be treated. Especially with cops who tend to get a bit edgy even in the best of circumstances.
On a recent PBS newscast report some police officers conceded that it's sometimes about class. If you look like someone who could possibly make trouble for the officer -- because you might be a lawyer or a highly paid professional or might know or even hobnob with a city official -- if you decided to lodge a complaint about his or her behavior, officers will often make sure to be cordial. If you look like someone who has trouble paying his rent...
Screw you pal! I said I wanna see your license. You high on something punk?
On a recent PBS newscast report some police officers conceded that it's sometimes about class. If you look like someone who could possibly make trouble for the officer -- because you might be a lawyer or a highly paid professional or might know or even hobnob with a city official -- if you decided to lodge a complaint about his or her behavior, officers will often make sure to be cordial. If you look like someone who has trouble paying his rent...
Screw you pal! I said I wanna see your license. You high on something punk?
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,121
Who exactly do you think you're kidding here?
An accident of appearance?
You made a choice to dress as a Goth and/or punk.
In my experience, anyone who dresses like that and embraces that culture, to some degree or another views themselves as a an outcast and at odds with the greater society. Typically they cherish this status and cultivate it.
Such people have always been prone to talk about "squares" and disparagingly refer to things which are "mainstream" and look down their noses at the drones and the middle class suburban people who "float through life just living as they're expected to" blah blah blah blah blah.
You know exactly what I'm talking about, and for you to pretend that being someone who dresses like that has absolutely no association with being someone who is counter-culture and views themselves as being in an adversarial dynamic with society, would be very disingenuous.
In fact, I think most people who dress that way would be mightily disappointed if they didn't make regular people uncomfortable. They tend to relish the knowledge that they're doing so, and live for the moments when they see people giving them weird looks.
In many cases, I would also wager that having an occasional "some fascist cop was giving me a hard time" story to tell their compatriots is a prized and cherished validation of their worldview and opportunity to commiserate/build credibility within their scene.
Deny this if you wish.
Mind you, I don't really have any issue with such people myself. Sometimes I've even admired them. I just think we should be honest about it.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Exactly. Just like Black people chose the color of their skin.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
You know, there's a guy who will pay you a million dollars if you can demonstrate your psychic powers under controlled conditions.
Seriously, this is the most pathetic bunch of handwaving I've ever seen, and amply demonstrates that you are arguing from prejudice, not rational evaluation of evidence. You can't argue on the evidence, so you resort to argument from anecdote and incredulity fallacies. When challenged on that, you resort to laughably stupid stereotyping and juvenile insults.
Profiling -- whether it's racial, class, sexual, or social -- has been amply demonstrated by actual scientific studies; and has been flat-out admitted by a number of police department officials in multiple jurisdictions. It really doesn't get any more clear than that. It doesn't matter that it doesn't happen in every single case, the fact that it happens at all, let alone the extent to which it has been demonstrated, means that there is something seriously wrong with our law enforcement culture and practice in this country.
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,121
I haven't insulted anyone, I've said something quite obvious about certain subcultures which most people within said subcultures would freely admit, and probably even say "duh" to.
As I said, I don't have any issue with those subcultures, I just didn't think it was credible to portray dressing as they do as though it were some thing you couldn't control and which just sort of happened, and/or to imply it isn't something people do to distance themselves from the bulk of society. Seeing as how police represent society's mechanism for maintaining order and keeping people within social boundaries, it isn't surprising to me and it shouldn't be surprising to anyone else, that people in counter-culture groups will have some brushes with them.
I've also never said profiling doesn't happen. I've said I think a lot of incidences which aren't examples of someone being profiled get categorized as such because a lot of peoples' "I was profiled" detector is set to way too high of a sensitivity. There's a lot of confirmation bias going on for a lot of people, a lot of viewing every interaction with cops through that lens, etc.
Furthermore, I've said I don't think profiling is inappropriate. I certainly don't agree that profiling taking place means there is something seriously wrong with our law enforcement. I think it's working properly and I think I'd like the police to continue, quite rationally, paying more attention to 20 somethings than 80 somethings, men than women, able-bodied than crippled, and blacks than whites.
As I said, I don't have any issue with those subcultures, I just didn't think it was credible to portray dressing as they do as though it were some thing you couldn't control and which just sort of happened, and/or to imply it isn't something people do to distance themselves from the bulk of society. Seeing as how police represent society's mechanism for maintaining order and keeping people within social boundaries, it isn't surprising to me and it shouldn't be surprising to anyone else, that people in counter-culture groups will have some brushes with them.
I've also never said profiling doesn't happen. I've said I think a lot of incidences which aren't examples of someone being profiled get categorized as such because a lot of peoples' "I was profiled" detector is set to way too high of a sensitivity. There's a lot of confirmation bias going on for a lot of people, a lot of viewing every interaction with cops through that lens, etc.
Furthermore, I've said I don't think profiling is inappropriate. I certainly don't agree that profiling taking place means there is something seriously wrong with our law enforcement. I think it's working properly and I think I'd like the police to continue, quite rationally, paying more attention to 20 somethings than 80 somethings, men than women, able-bodied than crippled, and blacks than whites.
deadrose
Illuminator
Yep, and his friend chose to be gay.
Why should wearing a style of clothing subject you to loud verbal abuse by a cop? Especially goth clothing, which you certainly wouldn't wear if you were planning to cause trouble. Lace cuffed poet shirts and spray paint graffiti are a poor combination
Why should wearing a style of clothing subject you to loud verbal abuse by a cop? Especially goth clothing, which you certainly wouldn't wear if you were planning to cause trouble. Lace cuffed poet shirts and spray paint graffiti are a poor combination
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,121
Yep, and his friend chose to be gay.
Why should wearing a style of clothing subject you to loud verbal abuse by a cop? Especially goth clothing, which you certainly wouldn't wear if you were planning to cause trouble. Lace cuffed poet shirts and spray paint graffiti are a poor combination
I'm not really defending the specific examples he gave, and I certainly don't think cops have any good reason to come up to someone who's dressed goth-style and start harassing them on that basis alone.
I just don't think people should pretend that part of the entire point of dressing like that, and in similar ways, isn't to distance oneself from society and to get a rise out of society.