Walking while black

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this happening to my child (I am white); this one hit closest to home about how we do treat different races differently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/opinion/charles-blow-at-yale-the-police-detained-my-son.html?_r=0

While it's tempting upon reading this piece to wander once again into the realm of race and perception in America and engage in discussion about all the intricacies involved, I think a far more critical facet of this article is the underlying statement about the startling evolution of law enforcement in this country and how it is steadily becoming more and more aggressive and more and more adversarial.

I don't know if it's violent video games that are to blame or if it's the fault of movies and television that repeatedly depict and project images of cops drawing their service weapons and screaming at potential suspects on first sight without a hint of hesitation or any attempt at negotiation, but something has changed dramatically in the culture of law enforcement to the extent that the meaning of the phrase "protect and serve" has been skewed somewhat and officers now interpret it not as an oath of obligation to the community itself but instead they regard it as a manifesto of justification to draw their weapons immediately in order to protect themselves and serve their own brand of justice on the spot by pulling the trigger as opposed to promoting the judicial process.

Walking while black is not a crime nor is walking while white nor walking while Asian nor walking while Hispanic nor Indian nor African nor male nor female nor gay nor transgender nor short nor tall nor skinny nor fat but even still, based on the steady developing trend of officers being more and more overzealous in their encounters with the public and often times using force or firearms when it isn't even necessary there's a steady growing chance that anybody and everybody is in danger of having a gun pointed at them no matter who they are or what they are. This is something that needs to be addressed. Nearly every employer in the country whether in the private or public sector makes it mandatory for their employees to go through some type of human resource training where they receive information and instruction regarding the rights and responsibilities of workers and a particular point of emphasis is respect for others. It helps prevent workplace issues and conflicts such as sexual harassment and race/color discrimination and age discrimination, etc. Well nowhere is this type of training and reinforcement regarding respect for others more critical than in law enforcement, an occupation where a everyday an employee holds a gun in one hand and people's lives in the other.

Care to share what facts support these statements? Can you point to any data that support your assertions about the more than 700,000 police officers in this country?

Lol - its an opinion Matlock not a research paper if you want references and stats go to http://www.thescienceforum.com/. Oh, and I might mention its a pretty widespread opinion from what I understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this happening to my child (I am white); this one hit closest to home about how we do treat different races differently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/opinion/charles-blow-at-yale-the-police-detained-my-son.html?_r=0

While it's tempting upon reading this piece to wander once again into the realm of race and perception in America and engage in discussion about all the intricacies involved, I think a far more critical facet of this article is the underlying statement about the startling evolution of law enforcement in this country and how it is steadily becoming more and more aggressive and more and more adversarial.

I don't know if it's violent video games that are to blame or if it's the fault of movies and television that repeatedly depict and project images of cops drawing their service weapons and screaming at potential suspects on first sight without a hint of hesitation or any attempt at negotiation, but something has changed dramatically in the culture of law enforcement to the extent that the meaning of the phrase "protect and serve" has been skewed somewhat and officers now interpret it not as an oath of obligation to the community itself but instead they regard it as a manifesto of justification to draw their weapons immediately in order to protect themselves and serve their own brand of justice on the spot by pulling the trigger as opposed to promoting the judicial process.

Walking while black is not a crime nor is walking while white nor walking while Asian nor walking while Hispanic nor Indian nor African nor male nor female nor gay nor transgender nor short nor tall nor skinny nor fat but even still, based on the steady developing trend of officers being more and more overzealous in their encounters with the public and often times using force or firearms when it isn't even necessary there's a steady growing chance that anybody and everybody is in danger of having a gun pointed at them no matter who they are or what they are. This is something that needs to be addressed. Nearly every employer in the country whether in the private or public sector makes it mandatory for their employees to go through some type of human resource training where they receive information and instruction regarding the rights and responsibilities of workers and a particular point of emphasis is respect for others. It helps prevent workplace issues and conflicts such as sexual harassment and race/color discrimination and age discrimination, etc. Well nowhere is this type of training and reinforcement regarding respect for others more critical than in law enforcement, an occupation where a everyday an employee holds a gun in one hand and people's lives in the other.

Care to share what facts support these statements? Can you point to any data that support your assertions about the more than 700,000 police officers in this country?

Lol - its an opinion Matlock not a research paper if you want references and stats go to http://www.thescienceforum.com/. Oh, and I might mention its a pretty widespread opinion from what I understand.

Lol - I just tend to think opinions should be supported by facts and not be based on completely unsupported generalities about a large group of people. Same way I get uncomfortable when people generalize about "blacks," "SAHMs," "lawyers," etc.

Sincerely,
Matlock

(P.S. Matlock really did make me chuckle. Thanks for the laugh.)

[Anonymous]

Care to share what facts support these statements? Can you point to any data that support your assertions about the more than 700,000 police officers in this country?

She can't because there is ZERO data compiled nationally on police shootings. Which is a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this happening to my child (I am white); this one hit closest to home about how we do treat different races differently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/opinion/charles-blow-at-yale-the-police-detained-my-son.html?_r=0

While it's tempting upon reading this piece to wander once again into the realm of race and perception in America and engage in discussion about all the intricacies involved, I think a far more critical facet of this article is the underlying statement about the startling evolution of law enforcement in this country and how it is steadily becoming more and more aggressive and more and more adversarial.

I don't know if it's violent video games that are to blame or if it's the fault of movies and television that repeatedly depict and project images of cops drawing their service weapons and screaming at potential suspects on first sight without a hint of hesitation or any attempt at negotiation, but something has changed dramatically in the culture of law enforcement to the extent that the meaning of the phrase "protect and serve" has been skewed somewhat and officers now interpret it not as an oath of obligation to the community itself but instead they regard it as a manifesto of justification to draw their weapons immediately in order to protect themselves and serve their own brand of justice on the spot by pulling the trigger as opposed to promoting the judicial process.

Walking while black is not a crime nor is walking while white nor walking while Asian nor walking while Hispanic nor Indian nor African nor male nor female nor gay nor transgender nor short nor tall nor skinny nor fat but even still, based on the steady developing trend of officers being more and more overzealous in their encounters with the public and often times using force or firearms when it isn't even necessary there's a steady growing chance that anybody and everybody is in danger of having a gun pointed at them no matter who they are or what they are. This is something that needs to be addressed. Nearly every employer in the country whether in the private or public sector makes it mandatory for their employees to go through some type of human resource training where they receive information and instruction regarding the rights and responsibilities of workers and a particular point of emphasis is respect for others. It helps prevent workplace issues and conflicts such as sexual harassment and race/color discrimination and age discrimination, etc. Well nowhere is this type of training and reinforcement regarding respect for others more critical than in law enforcement, an occupation where a everyday an employee holds a gun in one hand and people's lives in the other.

Care to share what facts support these statements? Can you point to any data that support your assertions about the more than 700,000 police officers in this country?

Lol - its an opinion Matlock not a research paper if you want references and stats go to http://www.thescienceforum.com/. Oh, and I might mention its a pretty widespread opinion from what I understand.

Lol - I just tend to think opinions should be supported by facts and not be based on completely unsupported generalities about a large group of people. Same way I get uncomfortable when people generalize about "blacks," "SAHMs," "lawyers," etc.

Sincerely,
Matlock

(P.S. Matlock really did make me chuckle. Thanks for the laugh.)

Since when do facts mean shit in this country? Was it a fact that all Native Americans were savages that needed to be eradicated and forced from their land - nope, but that didn't stop it from happening. Was it a fact that blacks were three-fifths of a person and therefore could be bought and sold and owned as property - nope, but that didn't stop it from happening. Was it a fact that all black men were unintelligent and sexually aggressive towards white women - nope, but that didn't stop them from being depicted as such in Birth of a Nation which led to 3,446 recorded (key word) lynchings of blacks between 1882 and 1968. So to wrap things up, is it a fact that all blacks are armed and dangerous killers - nope, not even most blacks are but that doesn't stop authorities from treating them as such. Since when do facts mean shit in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Care to share what facts support these statements? Can you point to any data that support your assertions about the more than 700,000 police officers in this country?

She can't because there is ZERO data compiled nationally on police shootings. Which is a disgrace.

FWIW, I support national collection of data on police shootings. - Matlock

[Anonymous]

A real black eye (no pun intended) for Yale.

[Anonymous]

What are college campus police carrying guns for,anyway?

[Anonymous]

What are college campus police carrying guns for,anyway?

Protection. The cop thought he had found the perpetrator. It is not out of line to anticipate that the suspect might be armed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, don't you love hearing your own voice.

First problem...why do you assume I am white? (Not the case)

Second problem...numbers speak louder than words. Why don't you find and share with us crime rates, controlling for SES, of white vs black vs Asian vs Latino vs illegal immigrant? You may be surprised

No thanks. I know the numbers better than you do (am in the field). However, discussing the issue with you is not worth my time. You are giving off the vibe that you do not have an open mind on the issue and you have already made up your mind. No need to waste either of our time.

Then why the heck are you here? To troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story about the black Yale student is a simple case of mistaken identity. This is not "walking while black". Please don't even try to say that it is, because the "walking while black" is a real problem for other non-Yale students. Trying to equate this lame story with "walking while black" trivializes the entire issue, and creates a strawman that deniers can easily knock over.

To the PP who said his white son was stopped similarly for playing "hide and seek", I have a question. Was your son on someone else's property?

+1. That NYT column was a joke. The same thing happens to people of all races (and I know because it happened to me, and I am not black). The real root of the problem no one talks about is, why do statistics show that blacks are as a group, much more likely to commit violent crimes? Half of all murders in the US are committed by blacks, which account for only 10% of the population.

Let's solve that first.

Most black people are not murderers. Let's remember that first.

+1

The quality of the discourse on this board makes me sad. One guy makes a red herring comment and another one gives it a +1.

It's not a red herring to point out that statistically profiling is an incredibly dangerous thing. 99.9999% of AA's are not murderers. That's a fact. So should that 99.9999% give up their civil liberties because some tiny segment of the black population committed crimes? Hell no.

It's a red herring because this data, even if true, is irrelevant to the fact that blacks have a far higher rate of crime than other racial groups. You can have a productive discussion about the possible causes of this phenomenon but it helps no one to divert discussion away from it by throwing out unrelated statistics.

Statistically profiling? Wow. That's rather redundant, don't you think? Statistics *IS* profiling. Or are you just tacking on "profiling" to make it sound awful?

It's also highly ironic that you would call statistics incredibly dangerous, then follow in the next breath to throw out a statistic that is artificial and demonstrably incorrect, and explicitly claim it as fact. Take a look at this:

http://blackdemographics.com/culture/crime/

The statistics show 84,000 blacks in prison for murder, from a population of 45 million, makes for 0.187%. Meaning 99.813% of AA's are not murderers. I get your point, but your reckless use of data doesn't help make your case. It just reveals you to be disingenuous and ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Okay, explain this to me - why is the premise that authorities treat non-white people differently such an outrageous allegation to some?

Considering this country's history concerning racism and discrimination...seriously...is it that ridiculous a notion? Is it that audacious? Is it that unbelievable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, explain this to me - why is the premise that authorities treat non-white people differently such an outrageous allegation to some?

Considering this country's history concerning racism and discrimination...seriously...is it that ridiculous a notion? Is it that audacious? Is it that unbelievable?

New poster. To me, it's outrageous to generalize unless there are clear statistics supporting the generalization -- and it just as outrageous when someone suggests most black citizens are criminals as when someone suggest most police use racist policies when interacting with black citizens. I know it's true that some black citizens commit crimes, and it's true that some police officers apply racially discriminatory standards when dealing with black citizens. And whenever we can identify either bad activity (criminal acts or racist acts), I think our society should stamp it out. But generalizing the bad activity to an entire class of people is unfair and inaccurate.

Statistics can prove useful to get a handle on how big the problem really is. I know the number of black men getting arrested (and the number harmed by police during an arrest) is far bigger than the % of black men in the US population, which suggests there may be serious problems. But I also know the number of black men committing crimes is also bigger than the % of black men in the US population, so perhaps if more black men are committing more crimes, then perhaps it makes sense that they're getting arrested more often. In all this discussion, I've never seen anyone clearly overlay the statistics on how often each race commits crimes versus how often each race gets arrested or gets harmed by police. I'm sure someone has developed those statistics, but they rarely seem to get reported. Perhaps it's because so many people discussing the issue want to focus on only one side of the ledger or the other, and are less interested in getting to an objective truth.

And admittedly, even if the statistics unambiguously show that black men are disproportionately arrested and harmed by police (or even if the statistics show they are not), it won't change the fact that some black men are mistreated, and that some police are abusers. The statistics might tell us whether we're facing a systemic problem, and whether we are making progress in addressing that problem. But they won't change the ugly reality for individual citizens who face racial abuse.

[Anonymous]

11:46 again with one additional thought -- Something often frustrating is when I hear people insisting there is some systemic problem with police. I certainly know there's a big problem with some police applying racially discriminatory approaches. But I can't tell whether it's a systemic problem with the police, or instead a number of "rogue" police officers who are violating their systemic training. Although the result is regardlessly horrible for the black men who suffer, the solution may be very different depending on which scenario it is.

[Anonymous]

But I can't tell whether it's a systemic problem with the police, or instead a number of "rogue" police officers who are violating their systemic training. Although the result is regardlessly horrible for the black men who suffer, the solution may be very different depending on which scenario it is.

NO question, there are some rogue police. However, the percentage is probably miniscule. People forget that it is very hard to take the fear away from a police officer. The media doesn't help --as in the Ferguson case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:46 again with one additional thought -- Something often frustrating is when I hear people insisting there is some systemic problem with police. I certainly know there's a big problem with some police applying racially discriminatory approaches. But I can't tell whether it's a systemic problem with the police, or instead a number of "rogue" police officers who are violating their systemic training. Although the result is regardlessly horrible for the black men who suffer, the solution may be very different depending on which scenario it is.

Hats off for an intelligent and respectful response - I agree with just about everything you said. Still, I can't help but sigh in frustration when people insist on demanding facts and data for an issue that goes much deeper than what statistics can show. The notion that authorities treat non-white people differently isn't merely a matter of analyzing how many people are arrested in relation to their percentage of the population. For instance, the New York Times article that initiated this discussion - Library Visit, Then Held at Gunpoint - no one was shot or arrested so there's no data to collect, but as the article tried to articulate..."What if?" What if that kids dad wasn't a New York Times columnist? What if he was just another black kid? Would we even have heard this story? Would we have even cared? If such a situation can arise on a college campus how unlikely is it that in predominately black communities patrolled by on a daily basis by equally "cautious" cops that kids are getting guns pointed at them with regularity and then told to go on about their business without anyone shot or arrested - encounters that don't show up in statistics. But does that make those confrontations negligible? And the bigger question...what if?