Reactions to Justice Dep't study of Ferguson

Have we reached a verdict on this?

Mundus Vult wrote:

A March 2010 email mockingly read: "I be so glad that dis be my last child support payment!" Month after month, year after year, all dose payments!"

October 2011: An email included a photo of a group of topless, dancing black women, seemingly in Africa, with the caption: "Michelle Obama's High School Reunion."

A December 2011 email included jokes playing on offensive Muslim stereotypes

[/quote]

These jokes are bad news.

Bias and inappropriate jokes from all races exist in all settings. Steps need to be taken to expunge this type of humor and attitude out of our society.

However if someone examined all your emails (regardless of your background and ethnic makeup) how many would contain jokes that that might be inappropriate. How about posts on Letsrun?

this is wrote:

Have we reached a verdict on this?

The only crimes committed in Ferguson related to this case were committed by blacks.

A black man stole cigars from a convenience store.

A black man assaulted a store clerk when confronted about stealing the cigars.

A black man assaulted a police officer when confronted on the street.

Intermission : black witnesses brazenly lie about what happened when the shooting occurred. These lies stoke a feeding frenzy of anti-white, anti-police sentiment driven by black activist leaders, a willing media, our black Attorney General, and our black President. The white police officer (the assault victim) is not indicted because he justly defended himself.

Blacks riot in Ferguson.

Blacks assault several white people and newsmen while screaming anti-white, and anti-police slurs.

Blacks burn police cars.

Blacks break windows.

Blacks loot stores.

Blacks burn down dozens of buildings.

... all while law enforcement led by a black man, stood by and did nothing.

After the black crime spree is over our black President sends in his black Attorney General to find out what went wrong and guess what he finds?

The white Ferguson police officers who had nothing to do with any of this are found guilty!!!

Yeah. We got a race problem. We got a "race hustling" problem.

Do you even understand how these stats happen?

if only black people are pulled over, only black people's crime will show up in the statistics.

As shown in the report, white crime in Furguson gets pushed off the books, so no matter what the real rate of crime is, it will look like black crime is much higher.

Mundus Vult wrote:

You need a stats and a reading class. Go back and read the statistical findings from Ferguson. Whites were twice as likely to have contraband.

And you need to pull your naive head out of your arse and quit cherry picking stats.

Here, I explain it real slow.

1) White people looking for drugs.

2) They go to a neighborhood known for dealing drugs. In this case, the dealers are black.

3) When they get pulled over, SURPRISE!!!!!! They have contraband. And the people that sold it to them are black criminals.

If it were Hispanics gangs dealing the drugs, you could switch them in place of the blacks.

Don't make it sound like you'll get the same percentage of white people getting busted with contraband in a low crime area. Also, in high crime areas you also have a bigger concentration of police, which if they are doing their jobs, means more people are being investigated and if the predominant race or ethnic group is the criminal element, they are going to be detained more often.

Also, in a high crime area what is the best way for cops to send messages? Enforce the small stuff, let the criminals know you are watching.

Try reading the report.

Stat master wrote:

Do you even understand how these stats happen?

if only black people are pulled over, only black people's crime will show up in the statistics.

As shown in the report, white crime in Furguson gets pushed off the books, so no matter what the real rate of crime is, it will look like black crime is much higher.

It's not pushed off the books, it's possession vs possession with intent to sell. Read the rest of the stats. You are more likely to be prosecuted "Nationwide" if you have enough dope in the car to be charged with intent to sell. Instead of saying "criminals with less than 1/2 ounce of marijuana" were likely to receive more lenient sentencing, they just said "whites".

stat master-baiter wrote:

It's not pushed off the books, it's possession vs possession with intent to sell. Read the rest of the stats. You are more likely to be prosecuted "Nationwide" if you have enough dope in the car to be charged with intent to sell. Instead of saying "criminals with less than 1/2 ounce of marijuana" were likely to receive more lenient sentencing, they just said "whites".

Where are these stats that have twice been cited? They aren't in the report.

Mundus Vult wrote:

You need a stats and a reading class. Go back and read the statistical findings from Ferguson. Whites were twice as likely to have contraband.

Where did you see that? Have you read the report?

The statistics that you're referring to are summarized briefly in a couple of passages in the report, and discussed in more detail on pages 64-66 of the report. The statistics show that whites were stopped about half as often as blacks (more precisely, white individuals accounted for about 15% of stops, while constituting about 29% of the population.) Among those individuals who were stopped, about 11% of stopped black drivers and 5% of stopped white drivers were subjected to searches. Among those who were searched, about 24% of searches of blacks and 30% of searches of whites resulted in contraband findings. The report asserts that this disparity in contraband findings for blacks and whites who were searched remains "even after controlling for the type of search conducted," and concludes that this "indicates" and "suggests" racial bias in enforcement decisions. Perhaps. But the statistics also indicate a higher percentage of contraband findings among blacks who were stopped (about 2.64%) than among whites who were stopped (about 1.5%), which suggests to me that the racial disparity in contraband findings among those who were searched may have been based, at least in part, on factors that were not effectively captured by the report, and I don't find the report's further regression analysis purporting to control for "non-race-based variables" (like age and gender) to be especially persuasive.

I want to stress that I am not suggesting -- at all -- that the statistics indicate that the Ferguson police make enforcement decisions without regard to race. I am, in fact, confident that police in Ferguson, like people elsewhere, make judgments based on factors that include race, and I do not approve of commentary that minimizes the experiences of those who have had to deal with this kind of discrimination throughout their lives. But I am troubled by this report's reliance on some statistics that seem to me rather equivocal, and I'm also troubled by inaccurate summaries of those statistics by third parties who may lack the background to interpret the statistics or who may simply be passing on misinformation provided by others.

I should also add that I'm familiar with legal authority that may support the report's use of such statistical analysis to make claims of racial bias, at least for constitutional purposes. I'm not contending that the analysis is legally frivolous.

Mundus Vult wrote:

.

Where are these stats that have twice been cited? They aren't in the report.[/quote]

Yes, please share the cite.. Those are the stats for the St Louis, I can't find anything that narrows down Ferguson exclusively. Please don't water down the facts with false percentages. The argument is strong enough without them. As for the Report, the statistics don't prove causation, especially when you compare them to the stats for the rest of the country. It's easier to call a department racist than to admit there is a problem. One demographic is responsible for the Lions share of crime, but you can break it down further by household income and have a stronger correlation. In the case of Ferguson the impoverished community happens to be black.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Mundus Vult wrote:

You need a stats and a reading class. Go back and read the statistical findings from Ferguson. Whites were twice as likely to have contraband.

Where did you see that? Have you read the report?

I have read the report. The stat I cited was a misinterpretation I read from a 3rd party.

Agree with most of what you have said.