DOJ: Ferguson PD descrimination against blacks is routine

Checkmite said:
Racist humor would be humor that affirmatively evokes negative race stereotypes. For instance, one of the jokes shared among Ferguson city officials involved a quip about black women who have gotten abortions being given cash rewards by crime prevention organizations afterwards. This joke is a reference to the negative stereotype that being a criminal is something endemic and inevitable about being an African American. Unless you believe in the truth of that stereotype, there's no humorous exaggeration in the joke to laugh at - it's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

But it is funny because everyone knows almost all blacks are criminals. Just like the jokes Obama leaving office because honestly who would think a black man could hold down a job for more than 6 months? Never happen.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
... because if that's true, it essentially means that an absolutely enormous percentage of white liberals are dormant racists underneath the surface. I think you'd be shocked at how common these sorts of jokes are among the most supposedly non-racist/anti-racist when they are in private with those they trust.
Click to expand...

Yep a lot of white liberals are racist and are not aware of it but know to hide their joking to situations that they think it is ok. You are right about that.
 
WildCat said:
ponderingturtle said:
So as we clean up everywhere at once why bother trying to clean up anywhere?
Click to expand...
Because justice intentionally unevenly applied is as bad or worse than no justice at all.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that is a misapplication of that principle. Justice should be equally available to all, but in Ferguson there is irrefutable evidence that it has been biased against blacks, along with what looks like petty corruption. This can be fixed in Ferguson because the problem is clearly identified.

If I am understanding your point correctly, it seems to be that you are arguing that identified police discrimination and corruption should not be dealt with because that would be unfair on people where the force hasn't been investigated thoroughly.

You could take it further. If some police forces discriminate racially and some don't then it is unfair on the blacks in the areas where discrimination occurs. Obviously it would be ideal to remove the discrimination everywhere, but it would be better for discrimination to be everywhere than in a few places, so maybe an alternative is to encourage discrimination in those forces that do indeed, "Protect and Serve" with no racial discrimination.

I hope you would say that is a silly exaggeration of your position, but what is different?



There is a lot of evidence of a wider problem, part of which I think is due to the number of small police forces with little effective oversight.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics

In 2008, 12,501 local police departments with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the U.S.
Click to expand...

About half of local police departments employed fewer than 10 sworn personnel, and about three-fourths served a population of less than 10,000.
Click to expand...


However that doesn't mean one shouldn't deal with injustice where it is documented. Other police forces have been disbanded due to racial discrimination so the problem can be dealt with in particular areas.


WildCat said:
jimbob said:
Some constitutional amendments are more important than others.

The Fifth Amendment is more important than the Eleventh, for example.

The 27th Amendment is hardly as vital to a civil society as the First Amendment.

Many other countries manage to function as democratic societies without the Second Amendment. They couldn't function as democratic societies without a free press and justice that follows due process.

​

That doesn't mean that one should "trample" on them - however if by "trample", you mean "challenge an interpretation of them in court", then that is different.
Click to expand...
The Obama administration, and many of the liberals on this board, are openly hostile to the 1st and 2nd Amendments, as well as the 4th and 5th Amendments in certain cases.

And you have far more in common with the powers that be in Ferguson than I do, since you both have decided that you can pick and choose which civil rights are important and which can be ignored.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? I said that some amendments are important for a functioning democratic society, whilst others are not. That is not saying that I can pick and chose which civil rights are important, but that it is possible to argue for some being repealed or amended. The constitution is a good document, especially given when it was written, but it is not immutable. Nor should it be.

The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed. The US functioned for over 200 years without the 27th Amendment being ratified. The 27th Amendment looks to be a generally good idea, but hardly as vital as the right to free speech and due process.

So yes, I can pick and choose which Amendments I think are currently a good idea.
 
jimbob said:
I'd argue that is a misapplication of that principle. Justice should be equally available to all, but in Ferguson there is irrefutable evidence that it has been biased against blacks, along with what looks like petty corruption. This can be fixed in Ferguson because the problem is clearly identified.

If I am understanding your point correctly, it seems to be that you are arguing that identified police discrimination and corruption should not be dealt with because that would be unfair on people where the force hasn't been investigated thoroughly.

You could take it further. If some police forces discriminate racially and some don't then it is unfair on the blacks in the areas where discrimination occurs. Obviously it would be ideal to remove the discrimination everywhere, but it would be better for discrimination to be everywhere than in a few places, so maybe an alternative is to encourage discrimination in those forces that do indeed, "Protect and Serve" with no racial discrimination.

I hope you would say that is a silly exaggeration of your position, but what is different?



There is a lot of evidence of a wider problem, part of which I think is due to the number of small police forces with little effective oversight.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics



​


However that doesn't mean one shouldn't deal with injustice where it is documented. Other police forces have been disbanded due to racial discrimination so the problem can be dealt with in particular areas.
Click to expand...
I eagerly await the Justice Dept.'s crusade against towns that use the police to generate revenue. I won't hold my breath.




jimbob said:
Where did I say that? I said that some amendments are important for a functioning democratic society, whilst others are not. That is not saying that I can pick and chose which civil rights are important, but that it is possible to argue for some being repealed or amended. The constitution is a good document, especially given when it was written, but it is not immutable. Nor should it be.

The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed. The US functioned for over 200 years without the 27th Amendment being ratified. The 27th Amendment looks to be a generally good idea, but hardly as vital as the right to free speech and due process.

So yes, I can pick and choose which Amendments I think are currently a good idea.
Click to expand...
The 18th Amendment restricted rights, you're really going to compare that to repealing part of the Bill of Rights?

And the odds of that happening are between slim and none, and slim isn't in the house at the moment.
 
WildCat said:
I eagerly await the Justice Dept.'s crusade against towns that use the police to generate revenue. I won't hold my breath.





The 18th Amendment restricted rights, you're really going to compare that to repealing part of the Bill of Rights?

And the odds of that happening are between slim and none, and slim isn't in the house at the moment.
Click to expand...

You can pick and choose parts of the constitution then? Where does the Fourteenth Amendment come relative to the first ten?

It is also ironic that despite the much-vaunted freedom Americans gain from the Second Amendment, US state agencies shoot far more* citizens than in other countries without this guarantee of freedom.

I see no reason why any parts of the constitution should not be open to discussion.



*Of course we don't know how many more as the statistics are not collected. Unlike iother states, for example the UK, where every time a taser, let alone a firearm, is drawn it has to be logged.
 
Last edited:
Civilian oversight board coming to St. Louis police after aldermen approve it

Supporters said it will help quell civilian suspicion of police officers. Opponents showcased differing arguments: Some said it would restrain police officers and interfere with investigations, while others argued the bill didn’t give the civilian board enough power.

Under the proposed bill, a seven-person St. Louis Civilian Oversight Board would have the authority to investigate allegations of police misconduct; research and assess police policies, operations and procedures; and make findings and recommendations. It could also review evidence and witness statements from investigations by police internal affairs. The board would report its findings to the city’s public safety director and police chief.

The mayor would nominate one member from each of seven city districts. Each district would contain four city wards. The prospective members would need approval by the Board of Aldermen.

The review board would lack subpoena power, which was a point that drew considerable debate over the past months.
Click to expand...

This is for St. Louis City, not the County and certainly not Ferguson, but it is the city leading by example. Hopefully some good will come from this.
 
‘The Blue Line’- A former police officer talks racial division in St. Louis
Terrell Carter, a former St. Louis City police officer, will join “St. Louis on the Air” host Don Marsh to discuss ways to combat the racial divide as introduced in his book "Walking The Blue Line: A Police Officer Turned Community Activist Provides Solution for the Racial Divide."
Click to expand...
It's streaming live as I write, but the archive will be up sometime later.


I think the interview is doing a great job of highlighting a cop's perspective without glossing over the racism in the judicial system. Carter even has some ideas for approaching the problem.
 
More changes due to the DOJ report:

Missouri legislature sends municipal court changes to the governor
Senate Bill 5 would cap traffic revenue used by local governments at 20 percent of their general operating revenue statewide, except in St. Louis County, where it would be capped at 12.5 percent. Fines and court costs for minor traffic offenses would be capped at $300, and no one would be sentenced to jail for not being able to pay a fine.
Click to expand...
Which all sounds pretty good. For reference, in 2013, Ferguson percentage of revenue from fines was 14.38%

The part that gave me pause was this:
Also, citizens would be able to vote to dissolve their local governments if they don’t turn over excess traffic revenue to the state within 60 days.
Click to expand...
Aside from the logistics on who determines when the criteria has been met and handles that vote, what happens after a local government is dissolved and who handles that?
 
sigh...

just in case...here's the news...
Tactics used by police in Ferguson, Missouri, to control demonstrators protesting the shooting death of a black teenager by a white police officer last year sometimes violated free-speech rights and provoked crowds, according to a Department of Justice document, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Monday. The report comes nearly four months after the Justice Department accused Ferguson officials of disregarding the constitutional rights of the city’s African-American residents.

According to the summary of the report, “vague and arbitrary” orders by police “violated citizens’ right to assembly and free speech.” The document summary also pointed to the use of “highly elevated tactical responses,” which were considered “inappropriate” as they only served to “exacerbate tensions between protesters and the police.”
Click to expand...

Basically, believe your non-lying eyes. Nothing we hadn't seen.
 
Ferguson Man Charged With Bleeding On Cops Wins Appeal. (Warning: the link contains a video with audio that plays automatically. I hate that.)

“As unreasonable as it may sound, a reasonable officer could have believed that beating a subdued and compliant Mr. Davis while causing only a concussion, scalp lacerations and bruising with almost no permanent damage did not violate the Constitution,” the district court ruled in tossing out the case.

They also ruled that his scalp damage, concussion, and other injuries weren’t enough for the court to believe his personal constitutional rights were violated.

Davis and his attorney, James Schottel, stressed that it was less about the injuries he sustained and more about the nature of the officers’ behavior. An appeals court quickly sided with Davis on Tuesday, reversing the lower court’s ruling.
Click to expand...

Turns out it may not be legal to just beat the crap out of someone after all.
 
Justice Dept sues the City of Ferguson to force policing reform
The Department of Justice filed a 56-page civil lawsuit Wednesday against the City of Ferguson, Mo. alleging that, 18 months after the police shooting of Michael Brown, the city’s police and court system continue to violate black residents’ civil rights.

The suit — a contentious next-step in what has been a months-long negotiation process between federal and city officials over potential reforms — says these “ongoing and pervasive” violations come from the city’s use of law enforcement to generate revenue.

“Residents of Ferguson have suffered the deprivation of their constitutional rights — the rights guaranteed to all Americans — for decades,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said during a news conference Wednesday. “They have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer.”
Click to expand...
 
Ferguson doesn't do anything 90% of American municipalities don't do. Nearly all traffic enforcement is revenue-driven, and it always hits the poor more because they're far more likely to have cars with broken taillights, cracked windshields, etc. as well as being unable to afford fines for speeding, parking, and all the rest.

Ferguson was singled out for political reasons.
 
WildCat said:
Ferguson doesn't do anything 90% of American municipalities don't do. Nearly all traffic enforcement is revenue-driven, and it always hits the poor more because they're far more likely to have cars with broken taillights, cracked windshields, etc. as well as being unable to afford fines for speeding, parking, and all the rest.

Ferguson was singled out for political reasons.
Click to expand...


Weirdly enough, "everybody else was doing it!" isn't an accepted legal defense in most jurisdictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom