Video........If you wonder why blacks hate cops

Most people may be harmed by people they know, but by the nature of their jobs, police spend more time in already heated situations than normal. I don't think many people are calling the cops when a group of people is hanging out watching TV. They get called in when something is already going on. So it may not be a 'fair' (see: apples to apples) question, but one could make the argument that it's not fair enough to the cops point of view given the nature of when they are present.

3.5x sounds about right as it sounds like roughly the factor that the black population commits crime over the white population. Unfair (or incorrect, depending on how you choose to phrase it) detention is unfair to anyone, but if one population is statistically more likely to be deserving of detention, it stands to reason that the number of mistakes goes up as well. Also, what are the controls for these numbers? For instance, you cite 3.5x times being shot unarmed, does that control for whether the person getting shot was being physically aggressive? Meaning: there is a difference when someone gets shot with their hands up sitting on their sofa and someone getting shot while attacking an officer. I'd just like to know what controls are in place for this 3.5x. Are there any controls for the income (poverty) level of the person getting shot? Meaning if you only look at people making over $40k (arbitrary) per year are blacks still more likely to get shot than whites?

Is there any context to the search/contraband data? Sorry for the need for detail, I'm an analyst by trade and I'd get fired if I only presented high level overviews without providing contextual back-up.

Long Trigger Ranger wrote:

I do not have stats. But I believe that someone posting above gave the correct answer (without any means of proving it).

The right metric would not be per person but rather per person interaction or per minutes of interaction. With that metric I believe that cops kill black people at a rate that is many, many times higher than the rate at which black people kill black people.

Again, admittedly with no stats/links to back it up.

I put this in another reply, but interaction time is not the way to measure this. Cops aren't called in to play XBox and chill with the population. They get called in when something needs addressing. By the nature of what they do they are automatically far, far more likely to be involved in confrontations and violence than the average person.

Rufus Jefferson wrote:

This type of thing happens EVERYDAY! White cops harassing black men for no reason.

Check out @Elguxop_Marly's Tweet:

https://twitter.com/Elguxop_Marly/status/889572330787270657?s=09

Well maybe just maybe if this guy was at, oh, I don't know, what do they call that thing people go to.......... oh that's right: WORK, then maybe, just maybe the cops wouldn't bother him. Fly UNDER the radar and the cops won't bother you. It's not like any cop wants to create work and headaches for themselves. Blacks need to get over this whole "Why they always pickin' on me?" attitude. 9 times out of 10 there is a good reason the cops are dealing with you - and it's for reasons YOU created. Fix those reasons (aka pull up your pants, turn down your radio, drive normally in a normal car, don't openly stand on a corner selling drugs, don't threaten people by flashing the gun in your waistband or threatening to "bust a cap" in the ass of the guy that cut you off on the freeway, go to work and if after all that you are approached by the cops be polite) and maybe you wont be the subject of a youtube video. The cops aren't the problem.

I'd argue that the idea that black people are deserving of heavier policing based on the idea that they are more likely to commit crime is false.

Consider marijuana charges:

So white and black people generally smoke marijuana at roughly the same rate.

Black people are more likely to be stopped and illegally searched, and if they're found with marijuana they're more likely to be arrested.

When arrested for the same crime, they are statistically more likely to be convicted. An when convicted, they are statistically more likely to be incarcerated. So despite the fact that 10-15% of whites use marijuana and 10-15% of blacks use marijuana, a higher number of blacks might be convicted of a drug charge, despite the fact that there are more white people.

So black people might be convicted of crimes at a higher rate, but those numbers have obvious problems, because they are a product of our entire system of policing. If you police people more heavily, you'll catch more crimes, etc.

(I think everything I mentioned is covered in the post article)

The 3.5x figure from the UC Davis study does control for other non race related factors. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a study.

I agree with you that cops are more likely to have to shoot someone. No matter how you interpret the original question it doesn't make sense to ask.

Ultimately it comes down to this: I don't believe that any one racial or ethnic group of people is inherently more violent. And I grant that minorities are more likely to live in situations that lead to crime, and so crime rates are likely higher among minorities. Although not by nearly as much as rates of conviction would indicate. It's not a cut and dry issue, but because of my above belief I think that we have to try to solve it. One step is to stop unwarranted racial bias in our policing, and limit the use of force with better police training and better screening of officers.

I didn't say 'deserving', I said it makes sense that they're more likely to be inaccurately held, targeted, whatever based on the crime rate of the population.

Your marijuana citation is tough to decipher and possibly impossible to fully understand without more detail. 'Marijuana used in the past 12 months' does that mean once in the last 12 months or 500 times in the last 12 months? I mean, literally, this measure is practically useless.

Convictions stats: again, need more backup details. History, volume, etc. Controls are everything.

The UCD study you claim has controls, I didn't see them. Where are they?

I also agree that races are not more prone to violence. I would argue that poverty tends to lead to everything bad. Blacks in America tend to be poorer more frequently, thus blacks in America tend to get more profiling and violence from police. To solve the problem means to solve the poverty issue, not call cops racist.

I don't want to argue on the internet. I know I haven't totally backed all of my claims up. I'm going to bed. You can google these things if you wish.About the marijuana thing: The key point is that the rate of usage is the same. The Post cites the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and health- I'm sure the survey questions and methodology are catalogued somewhere on the internet if you want. It's not perfect obviously, but at some point I trust reputable sources like the Post to provide correct data. Here's the ACLU report linked to by the Post article that goes into more detail about the things you questioned:https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdfhttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854this is the UCD thing if you care to take a look. I would look at the research objectives, discussion, and methodology. Obviously, I simplified things earlier- this is a running website.Sure- solve poverty and all your problems disappear. I think it's naive to think that there aren't racist cops. It's an important problem to solve too: human life is precious. If use of deadly force can be reduced in all cases, regardless of race, that's the best thing. The fewer people that need to die the better. Also, a key is that the profiling is often disproportionate to the real disparity in the rate of crime- which then puts certain black populations in danger and at a disadvantage further than what they already faced (if you have a drug charge for something as minor as marijuana possession you'll have a lot more trouble earning money).I appreciate you making me more back myself up better. I think we may agree on the actually important points here. This will be my last post on the issue.

And sort of power in evil and corrupted. There is no such thing as moral use of power, or use of power only for self defense, because evil is the use of power, and goodness is being devoid of power. So as long as people think that the police and armies and anything with power is good for something or is meant to be good for something, this will go on. And it will stop only when there is no more police and armies etc

This guy was at work.

The cop pulled out his handcuffs because the black man had the audacity to ask him for his name and card.

This has been extensively studied and there are literally volumes of studies on it. You can look that all up or you can argue here.

() wrote:

I didn't say 'deserving', I said it makes sense that they're more likely to be inaccurately held, targeted, whatever based on the crime rate of the population.

Your marijuana citation is tough to decipher and possibly impossible to fully understand without more detail. 'Marijuana used in the past 12 months' does that mean once in the last 12 months or 500 times in the last 12 months? I mean, literally, this measure is practically useless.

Convictions stats: again, need more backup details. History, volume, etc. Controls are everything.

The UCD study you claim has controls, I didn't see them. Where are they?

Absolutely wrong. It doesn't matter if he has a warrant on him or not. He has to have cause to ask for ID and he didn't as he had committed no crime.But, if he recognized him as someone he had ran into before, and he looked him up BEFORE approaching him, found an open warrant, then yes, he can approach him and say turn around or lie down and put the cuffs on him. Obviously by asking his name, he didn't know that!!!!In addition, the cop is flat out lying when he says that you have answer his questions when asked, that is NOT true. The cop lied and the young man had no obligation to give him his name or birthdate, whether it be true or false.

The whole story wrote:

CutToTheChase wrote:

The bottom line is that as soon as the cop saw the guys card and mower, he should have wished him good luck and gone looking for actual criminals.

Sounds like Officer Cates found himself an actual criminal wanted by law enforcement on an outstanding warrant.

Even a fat bald donut eatin mustachioed dufus on patrol beat knows when someone can't get their own birthdate right that somethin is up. Kudos to the Sherlock Holmes of Houston.

Also, why did the officer just stand there when the young man backed away and said no?

Because he already knew he was wrong and he was being recorded. There was zero reason for him to even say anything to either person for going door to door unless it was "have a nice day". I don't care about the warrant, that cop was wrong.

You think this would be the way a cop would interact with two WHITE teenagers mowing lawns and dropping off their business cards?

You think he would ask for their personal information to "investigate" what they were up to?

Give me a break. This is the kind of barely hidden racism that this society is full off and as seen on these pages is acceptable and defended.

I'm not here to argue either, I just get miffed when people claim 'statistics' but have clearly been manipulating or guiding their data to tell a story. Data is my job and it's easy as hell to figure out when someone is baking.

Marijuana study - number one it's done by the ACLU, but I'll still check it out (it's 182 pages so I'm skimming for the few points I asked about earlier).

They claim blacks and whites use marijuana at the same rate and back it up by citing a survey in which people answered 'have you smoked in the last 12 months?'. So, is this a valid measure of smoking frequency?

They claim to have controlled for income, but their level of granularity was all the way down to the county level for household income. COUNTY! In your opinion, how meaningful is that control?

I never said there aren't racist cops. I would argue that there aren't enough of them to merit the number of news articles circulating social media claiming how racist cops (and every non-white person for that matter) is.

And the profiling isn't disproportionate. It's right in line with, if not less so, for blacks when you look at the crime rate.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

You think this would be the way a cop would interact with two WHITE teenagers mowing lawns and dropping off their business cards?

You think he would ask for their personal information to "investigate" what they were up to?

Give me a break. This is the kind of barely hidden racism that this society is full off and as seen on these pages is acceptable and defended.

I'm white and was very poor growing up, in a poor part of town. I've had quite a number of interactions with police very similar to this. Been hauled "downtown" a couple times as well, and have stood in front of a judge as a result. I was mad as hell back then but looking back, most of it was my fault and I probably deserved it. So, YES, I do think this is the way a cop would interact with two WHITE teenagers, especially if they lie to him about their identity right off the bat.

Police just have an instinct about people. I don't think it is really shocking when 90% of these incidents it turns out the "poor innocent guy" being harassed by the cops turns out to have a warrant outstanding, or drugs on him, or some other history of criminality. Police just know - they deal with shit heads all day long, they develop a sense about them.

Bobby Hill wrote:

Thx alotta people say im smart, but tbh I never been to law school. IKR. Anyway the point I was trying to make is the kid is not a hardcore gangster, or criminal. What kinda gangster records his encounter with cops, or doesn't flee the first chance he gets. The kid is heard saying something along the line of, if I don't do something they gonna do it again and someone might get hurt. Again sounds like a real criminal right. Thanks to whoever corrects my grammar.

Sorry, you must have missed the sarcasm in my prior post. I actually do not think you are smart. Based on your posts on this topic, I frankly think you are kind of stupid. It is blindingly obvious you have never been to law school; in fact, it is clear you know next to nothing about law at all.

I actually think your logic was horrifically uninformed and inaccurate. And then you compund it with this latest post, clarifying "the point you were trying to make". Your point is actually terrible and is indicative of an undeveloped mental capacity.

It makes me sad, and a bit scared really, that a moron like you could be called to sit on a jury.

The analysis was done by the ACLU, but I do not believe much of the underlying surveying, especially on marijuana use, was original with this report. So you will have to dig into and look at the underlying sources. I'm pretty sure the NIH uses statistically valid surveys. And pretty much EVERY study indicates the same thing...blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates. Again, it has been extensively and repeatedly studied by many, many different researchers and they all come to the same conclusion.

But if you are looking to punch holes in that, I am sure you will be able to find a way.

Anyway, marijuana arrests are often cited as an example of racially disparate policing. But of course there is no marijuana smoking going on in the video. This was a policeman who is engaging in overly aggressive policing and then overreacting when asked for his name.

I don't honestly care what the race of the officer or the person was. I am against the sort of overly aggressive policing and violation of rights seen here. Of course that happens to blacks more than it does to whites, but it is wrong every time it happens and regardless of the races involved. Civil rights are for everybody.

[/quote]

This guy was at work.

The cop pulled out his handcuffs because the black man had the audacity to ask him for his name and card.[/quote]

I want to see his time card before I believe that. Once again, when a cop is dealing with you is NOT the time to be asking for his name, badge number, business card or otherwise suggesting you plan of filing a baseless complaint with the sole purpose of jamming him up. You don't want to deal with the cops? Don't put yourself in situations in which the police are likely to become involved.

back the blue wrote:

This guy was at work.

The cop pulled out his handcuffs because the black man had the audacity to ask him for his name and card.[/quote]

I want to see his time card before I believe that. Once again, when a cop is dealing with you is NOT the time to be asking for his name, badge number, business card or otherwise suggesting you plan of filing a baseless complaint with the sole purpose of jamming him up. You don't want to deal with the cops? Don't put yourself in situations in which the police are likely to become involved.[/quote]

He was mowing lawns for his business. Are you really disputing that? I haven't filled out a time card in years.

When a policeman is harassing you, that is the time to be asking for his name, badge, or business card. Good gracious, when else are you going to ask?

What situation? did this young man put himself in that "the police are likely to become involved?" He was working for his business and trying to solicit more business.