WOW - Minneapolis City Council announces it will disband Police department

Jeff Wigand wrote:

What he then does is adjust that to the incidence of crime by race,

Thank you for admitting that your methodology was superficial and wrong.

Another more recent study debunks your stat analysis. Blacks are not more likely to get shot by white cops.

Stop exaggerating and hyping up the situation which stirs up the rioters and looters.

You wouldn't want more looting and rioting, now would you?

facts and reason wrote:

It's unfair to attack all policemen because of the actions of a few bad apples.

When someone is on trial for domestic violence, should we focus on the 99.9% of the time they were NOT battering their partner? Buying your wife flowers one day does not somehow counteract giving her a black eye the next. We don't have to evenly discuss everything police officers have ever done.

The US police system is on trial right now in the streets. Your evidence has nothing to do with the trial. I hope you understand any blowback you receive from your "positive sentiments".

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Public sector unions are the root of much evil.

Phone in a complaint about any of them, you know who it goes to? The union.

It’s the tail wagging the dog. As they are monopolies, unions should not be permitted. At the Federal level, Kennedy’s executive orders should be rescinded.

The problem is incentives. If the unions were responsible for pensions, you can bet the members would police themselves to protect their interests. And since the cost couldn't be punted 20 years down the line, politicians would have to stop trading current liabilities for future ones. If the 10 million wrongful death settlements had to be paid by the members, you can bet they would be kicking out the 5% of the people who cause problems.

Hardloper wrote:

They'll still have "police," it will just be renamed something else

Yeah this is just like a corporate rebranding. Maybe get them all new uniforms. Instead of the blue wall, maybe we can transition to the lime green wall. Scapegoat a couple people and then get back to business as usual.

Gutless of you to cutoff my main point of not taking into account the socioeconomic factors that predict criminality.

Serious concerns about your prized study:

That’s true, but the problems with a public sector union go much deeper than incentives. They could easily do nothing wrong by doing...nothing. Which is exactly what has been happening. The only things they do are revenue-generating stuff, and displays of overwhelming force, replete with disco sirens and a light show. Other public sector unions also serve exclusively their own interests by intention, and the public’s interests only by incident or accident.

facts and reason wrote:

It's unfair to attack all policemen because of the actions of a few bad apples.

But the "good" policemen don't arrest the bad, they let it happen. So when they choose protecting a bad cop over a citizen, they are equally or more worse than those that participated in the brutality.

Bugaloo progression noted.

Just stop training using Israeli techniques.

Go back to being cops and stop being an occupying army wearing kevlar and riding tanks.

This is a a great opportunity for African-American entrepreneurs to open private security companies, hire minorities, and provide needed law enforcement to individuals and businesses. That niche is a definite unmet need.

what?! wrote:

Wow. I must say I don't get this.

Legal liability. The city ends up paying the lawsuits against rogue cops.

Good.... lowlife scumbags.

nice try but the facts are wrote:

Crime is far less in poor white areas than black. Even blacks in the middle class commit more crime than poor whites.

The real criminals make $1 billion per year on Wall Street.

Don't be a sucker and let them convince you poor folks or black folks are the problem

We shouldn't use prison or the police to hide problems in society. Under the 'more policing is better' doctrine if we curfew for 23.5 hours a day then street crime will disappear.

It probably would disappear, but is this the best and most ethical way to reduce crime? Surely if the murder rate triples then it's best to first address the problems in that community which cause a high crime rate in the first place?

To some extent, this has already been happening on a very low level in many jurisdictions. In Houston, they established a mobility patrol to replace police working traffic control and helping with broken down vehicles, etc. There is no reason why we need police carrying guns out doing traffic citations. You could probably get rid of half of all the incidents of excessive force by having traffic enforcement officers be unarmed with no authority to make arrests. If you run a red light or are speeding, you get a ticket. That is it. If the traffic enforcement runs across a stolen vehicle or someone with a warrant, they call in armed police officers to handle.

hi wrote:

When someone is on trial for domestic violence, should we focus on the 99.9% of the time they were NOT battering their partner?

You are using the false analogy fallacy.

We are not comparing a singular man at different times of his life.

The proper comparison would be a feminist saying, "All men are pigs!", after she broke up with her boyfriend. But most men are not wife beaters.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:Maybe get them all new uniforms. Instead of the blue wall, maybe we can transition to the lime green wall.

I suggest pink. If the problem is that the job attracts bullies, I am pretty sure that a large proportion of those bullies will be scared away by the thought of a pink uniform.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Serious concerns about your prized study:

Your "counter study" is worthless.

"Knox and Mummolo submitted their critique to PNAS as a letter to the editor, but the journal declined to publish it."

That alone raises red flags. It's your choice if you want to use a paper that's been rejected by a peer-reviewed journal.

"Dean Knox, a political scientist at Princeton University". "Princeton political scientist Jonathan Mummolo".

Another red flag is that these are not sociologists. They may be simply supporting a political position.

"They illustrate their critique with a thought experiment".

This is another red flag. I don't do imaginary scenarios for this. I go by facts.

Your "counter study" is inadmissable.

"We have data on a total of 2,699 fatal police killings for the years 2013 to 2015. This is 1,333 more killings by police than is provided by the FBI data on justifiable police homicides. When either the violent crime rate or the demographics of a city are accounted for, we find that white police officers are not significantly more likely to kill a black suspect."

I can't force you to accept this. It's your choice to believe that over 2,000 murders are not representative enough to draw meaningful conclusions from.

"Nick Selby, author of the 2016 book In Context: Understanding Police Killings of Unarmed Civilians, does not believe there is sufficient data to conclude that black police officers are more likely to kill black citizens, but he agrees with Lott’s finding that white police officers aren’t more likely to kill black suspects than their colleagues of color."

I've got even more people on my side now. I've won the debate.

facts and reason wrote:

Your "counter study" is worthless.

You can assume that black and white police officers encounter black and white suspects with equal frequency if it suits you, but I’m not making that assumption.

facts and reason wrote:

They may be simply supporting a political position.

Pure speculation.

facts and reason wrote:

I've got even more people on my side now. I've won the debate.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I guess it’s a mystery to you why black people across the country feel a different level of treatment from law enforcement in general than their white counterparts.