DOJ: Ferguson PD descrimination against blacks is routine

[jimbob]

In Ferguson it was so blatant that this could be discounted. I have posted quotes upthread but am on a phone.

I would agree that the Ferguson PD was corrupt as well as racist but it was clearly racist.

One also needs significant logical contortions to explain away the wider statistics.

Right, they sit there being all menacing by being black and having a penis, what can they expect?

I expect, rather I demand that the police and court act in a very professional manner. Any court or officer who sentences or arrests based on 'posture' doesn't deserve to be employed. It's a facile handwave.

And you don't even have evidence of this difference. It absolute doesn't account for the difference, nor should it.

Indeed - the DoJ report was aware of a lot of the potential criticisms and addressed them at the time.
Here's one quote from the report - showing how violent whites were dealt with:

During our investigation, FPD officials told us that their police tactics are responsive to the scenario at hand. But records suggest that, where a suspect or group of suspects is white, FPD applies a different calculus, typically resulting in a more measured law enforcement response. In one 2012 incident, for example, officers reported responding to a fight in progress at a local bar that involved white suspects. Officers reported encountering “40-50 people actively fighting, throwing bottles and glasses, as well as chairs.” The report noted that “one subject had his ear bitten off.” While the responding officers reported using force, they only used “minimal baton and flashlight strikes as well as fists, muscling techniques and knee strikes.” While the report states that “due to the amount of subjects fighting, no physical arrests were possible,” it notes also that four subjects were brought to the station for “safekeeping.” While we have found other evidence that FPD later issued a wanted for two individuals as a result of the incident, FPD’s response stands in stark contrast to the actions officers describe taking in many incidents involving black suspects, some of which we earlier described.

And this

Ferguson’s Law Enforcement Practices Are Motivated in Part by Discriminatory Intent in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Other Federal Laws
The race-based disparities created by Ferguson’s law enforcement practices cannot be explained by chance or by any difference in the rates at which people of different races adhere to the law. These disparities occur, at least in part, because Ferguson law enforcement practices are directly shaped and perpetuated by racial bias. Those practices thus operate in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits discriminatory policing on the basis of race. Whren, 517 U.S. at 813; Johnson v. Crooks, 326 F.3d 995, 999 (8th Cir. 2003).47
An Equal Protection Clause violation can occur where, as here, the official administration of facially neutral laws or policies results in a discriminatory effect that is motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory purpose. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 (1976). In assessing whether a given practice stems from a discriminatory purpose, courts conduct a “sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available,” including historical background, contemporaneous statements by decision makers, and substantive departures from normal procedure. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266; United States v. Bell, 86 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 1996). To violate the Equal Protection Clause, official action need not rest solely on racially discriminatory purposes; rather, official action violates the Equal Protection Clause if it is motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory purpose. Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979).

We have uncovered significant evidence showing that racial bias has impermissibly played a role in shaping the actions of police and court officials in Ferguson. That evidence, detailed below, includes: 1) the consistency and magnitude of the racial disparities found throughout police and court enforcement actions; 2) direct communications by police supervisors and court officials that exhibit racial bias, particularly against African Americans; 3) a number of other communications by police and court officials that reflect harmful racial stereotypes; 4) the background and historic context surrounding FPD’s racially disparate enforcement practices; 5)the fact that City, police, and court officials failed to take any meaningful steps to evaluate or address the race-based impact of its law enforcement practices despite longstanding and widely reported racial disparities, and instead consistently reapplied police and court practices known to disparately impact African Americans.

The race-based disparities we have found are not isolated or aberrational; rather, they exist in nearly every aspect of Ferguson police and court operations. As discussed above, statistical analysis shows that African Americans are more likely to be searched but less likely to have contraband found on them; more likely to receive a citation following a stop and more likely to receive multiple citations at once; more likely to be arrested; more likely to have force used against them; more likely to have their case last longer and require more encounters with the municipal court; more likely to have an arrest warrant issued against them by the municipal court; and more likely to be arrested solely on the basis of an outstanding warrant. As noted above, many of these disparities would occur by chance less than one time in 1000.

b. Direct Evidence of Racial Bias
Our investigation uncovered direct evidence of racial bias in the communications of influential Ferguson decision makers. In email messages and during interviews, several court and law enforcement personnel expressed discriminatory views and intolerance with regard to race, religion, and national origin. The content of these communications is unequivocally derogatory, dehumanizing, and demonstrative of impermissible bias.

FPD also has not significantly altered its use-of-force tactics, even though FPD records make clear that current force decisions disparately impact black suspects, and that officers appear to assess threat differently depending upon the race of the suspect. FPD, for example, has not reviewed or revised its canine program, even though available records show that canine officers have exclusively set their dogs against black individuals, often in cases where doing so was not justified by the danger presented. In many incidents in which officers used significant levels of force, the facts as described by the officers themselves did not appear to support the force used, especially in light of the fact that less severe tactics likely would have been equally effective. In some of these incidents, law enforcement experts with whom we consulted could find no explanation other than race to explain the severe tactics used.

Anyone who doubts where the blame lies needs to read the report without ideological blinkers.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

So where does the bias come from?

Thin air?

Or a reaction to reality?

 

[jimbob]

So where does the bias come from?

Thin air?

Or a reaction to reality?

I'm guessing that in Ferguson it was because the upbringing of many of the police and court staff.

It is not reflecting "reality" to arrest a group of black people for "Peace Disturbance" due to them playing loud music (with no complaints, so an illegal arrest) if you don't arrest anyone involved in a brawl involving "40-50" whites, where bottles and chairs were thrown and an ear bitten off.

It is not reflecting reality to stop more blacks, search them more often than whites, find contraband less often than when searching whites, and arrest the blacks at a higher rate.

For example.

The reality is that blacks were treated more harshly and prejudged by the courts in Ferguson - and with stonking hypocrisy - claiming that blacks lacked a sense of "personal responsibility" whilst simultaneously writing off traffic violations for colleagues.

There is plenty more.

Disclosure, I am white, but about 40% of my immediate colleagues are non-white. About 40% (a slightly different but overlapping 40%) are immigrants.

 

[Upchurch]

So where does the bias come from?

Thin air?

Or a reaction to reality?

300+ years of systemic and systematic subjugation is not nothing. Dozens of generations of learned racism is not nothing.

 

[Cleon]

300+ years of systemic and systematic subjugation is not nothing. Dozens of generations of learned racism is not nothing.

Can we just cut to the chase and skip the beating-around-the-bush?

Skeptic Tank thinks the cops are biased against lacks because Blacks deserve it.

 

[Upchurch]

Can we just cut to the chase and skip the beating-around-the-bush?

Skeptic Tank thinks the cops are biased against lacks because Blacks deserve it.

Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean claims should not be challenged.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think dismissing people on the basis that they hold a different opinion is going to be very productive. In fact, it's a bit ridiculous, since debate is, by definition, held with people with different opinions.



That sounds racist. In fact it sounds exactly like what Skeptic Tank says about white people.

I'm dismissing their opinion based on their failure to deal with absolutely overwhelming evidence in a previous case on the exact same issue. It's not worth repeating to people who will not believe it regardless.

Whether or not there is systemic racism in all too many places in the US is not an opinion.

EDIT: It's a straw man you're making here by the way. I suggest you read the Department of Justice report on Ferguson. Sunmaster14 did, and that he still believes people shouldn't be upset or protesting against systemic racism means one would do well to dismiss his opinions on any such matter anyway. Even if it is 'his opinion', it's still worth dismissing.






It's supposed to.

Which previous case is that? I was under the impression you were spaking about the US in general, not a specific case.



It should be up for discussion regardless, but it's an opinion that it's widespread or "systemic", yes.



What do you think "straw man" means, anyway?

Yeah but I'm sure you have statistics to show that there is systemic racism in 'many' places in the US. 'Many' as in, a significant percentage.



So present your statistics, then. And by statistics, I mean, not anecdotes.



Maybe they disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence or they think the evidence is insufficient. Your conclusions aren't the only rational ones.

First of all, a comprehensive report on all the locations or even a significant number of them isn't possible as the resources nor the political will to do so isn't there.

Ferguson report here, ACLU stats here.






Secondly, Ferguson isn't an anecdote; it's a case study. If one cannot accept the findings there, then any data point will be rejected likewise and no stats will be accepted. That's why it's of no use to debate this with anyone who won't accept that the Ferguson justice system was found to have systemic racism.






In the case of Ferguson, yes it is. There is no other rational explanation. To deny that means they will deny all.





Fair enough. There is even a better thread on the subject now with the study thread.

EDIT: If anyone wants to, continuing here would probably be best.

So we cannot yet draw conclusions on your claim.



That does not follow. Furthermore, this was not your original claim.

I've continued this line of argument from this other thread here.


Yes it does follow, yes that was my claim.

You're saying that the standard of evidence needed is a comprehensive report on most of the local justice systems in the US, while at the same time claiming that people not accepting even an example of exactly what you say is the standard of evidence in a specific case is not related to them being able to accept the evidence.

That's completely wrong. If they won't accept an example as an example, they won't accept any data because all the data points will be dismissed likewise. If there is no agreement on basic definitions, there can be no meaningful discussion.

If I wanted to discuss a subject where people won't accept even the most thorough evidence, I'd go to a flat-earth thread. It's a lot less depressing because it doesn't generally involve horrid racism destroying people's lives. This is why I find it's not productive to continue discussing the issue with people who don't accept Ferguson as an example of systemic (remember, locally) racial disparity in justice. If not that as an example, then no evidence will be accepted by them.

As for 'not enough evidence', I'd say it's shown well past the point where it needs to be investigated thoroughly, and not dismissed as 'no evidence'. Did you not read my citations that also indicate widespread racial disparity, if not prove it conclusively? No, this is a facile handwave.

 

[Belz...]

Yes it does follow, yes that was my claim.

It does not follow that denying one is to deny all. That is an absolutist ideology that has no place in a rational discussion.

Your original claim was :

While looking through the Ferguson thread for my citation (that I did not find), I realized what a giant waste of time it is to argue with anyone who doesn't believe there is racial injustice still systemic in many parts of the US.

And now you're only talking about a single case. Those are not the same claim.

 

[tyr_13]

It does not follow that denying one is to deny all. That is an absolutist ideology that has no place in a rational discussion.

No. To deny this one is to deny all. If a comprehensive modern investigation from the Department of Justice finding systemic racial bias in Ferguson is not accepted as evidence of systemic racial bias in Ferguson, then the standard of evidence is so 'high' that nothing will meet it.

That has no place in rational discussion. The discussion with sunmaster14 was not rational. It was denialist. Thus, not productive to continue. Any individual point is moot compared to the denial of absolutely clear evidence.

Your original claim was :



And now you're only talking about a single case. Those are not the same claim.

Yes they are. One is less exactly worded, but you're not taking clarification in good faith. I've explained, you're asserting.