Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[gaara4158]

What do you mean by "the way they're deployed disproportionately?" What is "disproportionate" in this context? Disproportionate by race in terms of the officer-to-citizen? Disproportionate to the crime rate? Do you mean that they have more patrols through areas with less crime than those with more crime...because if they have more patrols through areas with more crime, that would not be disproportionate.

Back in the 80s, one real case of police systemic racism was discovered in Omaha NE (a city with a significant racist history). The police department typically assigned its rookies and "problem" officers to the black North Side, while the favored officers were assigned to the wealthy white West Side. But that was 40 years ago.

In nearly 70 years of being black, I've had five "business" interactions with police. My first, at age 15 1/2, was driving without a license and getting in a fenderbender. The white Oklahoma police officer looked closely at me, decided I wasn't a real troublemaker, took me back home, and left me in the custody of my mother...no further action. The only officers I ever felt disrespected me were two black Washington DC officers, who cuffed and stuffed me on a humbug...and I had been the person who called 911 for their help.

One thing I believe has helped me is something my Army father instructed me about getting along in the military: "If you ever find yourself in trouble...Shut up! Running your mouth is only going to make them determined to find some reason to hammer you. Just shut the <bleep> up."

Dialing 911 is like opening a box of chocolates.

Disproportionate to the given demographics’ share of the overall population.

 

[gaara4158]

Right now might be the best time to join, at least as far as the possibility of combat is concerned. But I'd strongly advise joining the Air Force or the Space Force. The superiority in the quality of life over the other services is dramatic.

I’d strongly advise against signing several years of your life away for 3 hots and a cot.

 

[RDKirk]

Disproportionate to the given demographics’ share of the overall population.

But what is the difference in the crime rates of those areas? It would be silly to deploy police according to the size of the population. The reasonable method would be to deploy according to the crime rate. Areas with higher crime rates should have more patrols.

 

[gaara4158]

But what is the difference in the crime rates of those areas? It would be silly to deploy police according to the size of the population. The reasonable method would be to deploy according to the crime rate. Areas with higher crime rates should have more patrols.

Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics. The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests. Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data. Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can see the parallel of them both being nations of conquerors which has gone on since the first person built a fence and got people to help defend it.

I appreciate the concession....even if it was to a point I wasn't really making.

What I don't identify with is someone dictating to others what their life experience is

Remember when you wrote this?

"it's your privilege that makes you think you know the experience of every person on Earth"

You're literally dictating whatever you imagine my life experience is. What privilege? Tell me about this privilege you imagine I have and how it's affected my life. To sit there and try to act as if I'm dictating your experience to you....while you do it to me....is either a bizarre lack of self awareness or perhaps projection.

I asked you what oppression you faced yesterday. I didn't claim to know what did or didn't happen....I gave you an opportunity to explain. You didn't answer.

and denying that a conquered people are not affected by that down the generations just as the conquerers are affected.

The irony of this statement is found in the post you replied to....

Because as @rambot made clear in his post....some time less than 500 years is a point where he disregards historical causality. I can only assume that he has an expiration date on all such historical claims of generation after generation being affected. I don't agree....I think we can point to events and causes 2000 or more years ago that affect today (in fact, I'm pretty certain of it). There's no compartmentalizing any of it...

What Is Historical Causation? | Synonym

"Everything that becomes or changes," Plato said, "must do so owing to some cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause." Historical causation is the attempt to trace current and historical events to their root causes. It tries to find an explanation for changes and predict future events.

classroom.synonym.com

In fact, the idea that the cause of something in the present being found in history is....really the point of history. What I don't understand is when people go back to a certain point.....then stop....as if nothing happened before that point to cause everything that led up to that point.

It looks like it's done for the purpose of laying blame....or some political agenda
...and not for any true sort of understanding. It becomes a gross sort of spreading ignorance for personal gain.

 

[rjs330]

Right, but there is still a lingering effect. We now have more avenues to justice but I wouldn't say the race problem has been cured. Our country is still treating the problem with the civil rights laws being the medicine so to speak. There are still a lot of outdated notions about race but the longer time goes on, the better it gets.

Yes the better it gets because of those civil rights laws. There is no longer any systemic racism. Anything lingering is over stuff that happened in the past. We can't fix the past so let's move on shall we and recognize we need to quit saying there is systemic racism TODAY and then trying to prove it by pointing out things that no longer exist.

We must remember history or be doomed to repeat it (the saying goes something like that).

The past is over and sure we can look at it with a somber eye and recognize how bad it was. I think that's legit. What's not legit is looking at the past and then using it to claim syasyemic racism STILL is ongoing as if the present in any way resembles the past.

That is true I just think some people because of what they were exposed to and endured as a child, have no hope for their future.

That may be true for the older generations who lived throu
gh Jim Crow. And those people may be being held back by their refusal to let go.

But today? Nope, doesn't cut it. The things people endure now are nothing similar to what was done 70+ years ago. There are no more of those kinds of excuses. No one is excluded from pursuing anything due to the color of their skin.

It's already don. There is no changing it now. I was just stating a hypothetical on how the Europeans could have immigrated non-violently.

Fair enough.

 

[rjs330]

Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics. The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests. Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data. Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.

I've heard this kind of nonsense before. It's blaming police for crime. It's line there was this much crime then when police start patrolling crime increases.

What kind of nonsense is that?

What, do we get rid of police cause that will cause crime to go down? How about we dont patrol those areas. Crime will definitely decrease.

 

[rjs330]

I’ve seen it happen on numerous occasions. George Floyd’s death, they claim racism. Least amount of black doctors in America, they claim racism. Least amount of wealthy people in America, they claim racism. Lowest percentage of homeowners, they claim racism. Highest percentage of prison population, they claim racism. Highest percentage of people in poverty, they claim racism. Highest percentage of people on welfare, they claim racism. And they completely ignore the fact that the fact is, unfortunately blacks have the highest percentage of unemployment and the lowest percentage of college graduates. So naturally these are going to contribute to most of these problems listed above. And yeah I get it, college isn’t cheap, but the military doesn’t cost a dime to join and they’ll pay for college. That’s what my daughter’s plan is to go to college because we can’t afford it either but we’re not going to make excuses that she couldn’t succeed in life because she’s Filipino and being discriminated against. I’ve taught my kids that they can accomplish anything they want in life if they work hard and apply their self. Sure they’ll face obstacles just like everyone else but you have to overcome those obstacles to survive. That’s just life.

You sound like a great dad. Hope your kids appreciate you.

 

[rjs330]

But what is the difference in the crime rates of those areas? It would be silly to deploy police according to the size of the population. The reasonable method would be to deploy according to the crime rate. Areas with higher crime rates should have more patrols.

Don't be silly. Haven't you heard? Just putting more cops there causes more crime. If there weren't any cops crime would drop dramatically.

 

[RDKirk]

Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics. The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests. Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data. Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.

Do areas with more patrols generate more 911 calls? Not just "crime statistics" but more calls about occurring crimes.

Higher police presence neither reduces nor increases crime because crime is caused by other factors than police presence...you actually just countered your own argument from one sentence to the next.

But more 911 calls to an area would result in a greater perceived police presence merely by their responding to the greater number of calls, and it would certainly require more patrols assigned to the area to manage the greater number of calls.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Areas with more patrols naturally generate higher crime statistics.

In what sense?

Obviously a speed trap is going to catch more people speeding but generally speaking, patrols don't cause people to steal or murder.

The purpose of patrols is to generate arrests.

The purpose is to reduce response times to emergency calls.

Further, the notion that higher police presence reduces crime is not borne out in the data.

Actually it is....higher visibility, lower response times, and greater numbers are exactly what caused the year after year crime reductions from the early to mid 90s all the way up till very recently.

Strangely enough, the root cause of crime is not a lack of police. It’s silly to think ramping that number up is the solution.

Did anyone actually suggest "lack of police" causes crime?

 

[gaara4158]

I've heard this kind of nonsense before. It's blaming police for crime. It's line there was this much crime then when police start patrolling crime increases.

What kind of nonsense is that?

What, do we get rid of police cause that will cause crime to go down? How about we dont patrol those areas. Crime will definitely decrease.

Is it nonsense, or is it just something that conflicts with your worldview? The ego is a funny thing. It has a way of making new ideas sound stupid and wrong, regardless of their factual basis. I don’t see a counterpoint in your response, only an emotional reaction. I’ll let you take another whack at it, once you’ve calmed down.

 

[RDKirk]

I’d strongly advise against signing several years of your life away for 3 hots and a cot.

Eh, my family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been soldiers and all the women married soldiers. I did a career and my wife was an Army brat herself. Our family get-togethers are like VFW meetings. The military has done well by us.

 

[gaara4158]

Do areas with more patrols generate more 911 calls? Not just "crime statistics" but more calls about occurring crimes.

Higher police presence neither reduces nor increases crime because crime is caused by other factors than police presence...you actually just countered your own argument from one sentence to the next.

But more 911 calls to an area would result in a greater perceived police presence merely by their responding to the greater number of calls, and it would certainly require more patrols assigned to the area to manage the greater number of calls.

911 calls are wholly separate from patrols, by definition. Most 911 calls have nothing to do with police anyway.

 

[gaara4158]

Eh, my family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been soldiers and all the women married soldiers. I did a career and my wife was an Army brat herself. Our family get-togethers are like VFW meetings. The military has done well by us.

I’m sorry to hear that. I served for eight years myself. It’s a shame there aren’t better ways for those with limited means to secure the benefits and stability offered by military careers.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've heard this kind of nonsense before. It's blaming police for crime. It's line there was this much crime then when police start patrolling crime increases.

What kind of nonsense is that?

What, do we get rid of police cause that will cause crime to go down? How about we dont patrol those areas. Crime will definitely decrease.

You've probably seen the same mass looting videos I have....

And you're probably aware that it was caused by changes in bail laws, and shoplifting laws, etc.

And I would guess you probably know that these cities that have defunded police....have serious problems with police not showing up when citizens call 911.

So how did Democrats conclude that crime didn't increase in these places despite everyone being able to see it?

Because if a report isn't filed with police...it may aa well not have happened. A lot of these cities also reclassified shoplifting under X amount as a misdemeanor (you get a ticket for it) and police don't waste their time trying to grab 1 of 12+ people robbing a store. Misdemeanors aren't always included in crime data.

So while these failed policies have wreaked havoc on the unfortunate people living under them, and businesses have literally closed up and left....Democrats have claimed success.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Eh, my family has been solidly military since the Spanish-American war. All the men have been soldiers and all the women married soldiers. I did a career and my wife was an Army brat herself. Our family get-togethers are like VFW meetings. The military has done well by us.

I've known you were ex military for some time and I know I've been a harsher critic of the military than most...

I want to point out that's never a judgment of you or any individual soldier.

And in case I've never said it, I both understand and I'm grateful for the service you have done for us.

 

[Ana the Ist]

911 calls are wholly separate from patrols, by definition.

911 calls are wholly separate from guns by definition....

In fact, wait a moment, something just occurred to me....

911 calls are wholly separate from everything but 911 calls by definition.

Really makes you think.

Most 911 calls have nothing to do with police anyway.

Yeah most people aren't calling 911 because of the police. It’s typically medical emergencies, crimes, fires, etc.

 

[rjs330]

Is it nonsense, or is it just something that conflicts with your worldview? The ego is a funny thing. It has a way of making new ideas sound stupid and wrong, regardless of their factual basis. I don’t see a counterpoint in your response, only an emotional reaction. I’ll let you take another whack at it, once you’ve calmed down.

Yeah, thought about it. Still nonsense.

There are no facts that bare out that having more cops causes more crime.

You don't have a counterpoint cause there isn't one.

 

[gaara4158]

Yeah, thought about it. Still nonsense.

There are no facts that bare out that having more cops causes more crime.

You don't have a counterpoint cause there isn't one.

It causes more *reported* crime because there are more police out there to *report* said crimes, which indeed drives up crime statistics. This isn’t controversial. The baseline crime rate might be higher in those places to begin with, but the police presence does exacerbate those numbers. Further, the evidence supporting the idea that more policing leads to less crime is vanishingly thin. The vast majority of crimes prevented by patrols are auto thefts and thefts from vehicles - the kinds of crimes they’re not doing because a cop is right there watching. When it comes to serious crimes like homicide, statistics show it takes 10-17 new police hires to prevent a single solitary murder per year. In a city like Chicago with 600+ homicides in a year, that’s over 10,000 new hires - doubling the size of the entire force - to curb the murder rate. No, the lack of patrols is not the root cause of crime.