Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[Ana the Ist]

Feb. 23, 2020: Ahmaud Arbery, 25, is shot three times and killed in the Satilla Shores neighborhood outside Brunswick.

Police arrive within minutes and speak to father and son Travis and Gregory McMichael, as well as William "Roddie" Bryan, at the scene, who detail chasing Arbery and shooting him, believing him to be a neighborhood thief who had stolen from a construction site.

Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson recuses herself from the case since Gregory McMichael was a former longtime investigator for the DA's office.

When Johnson steps aside from the case, it goes to Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George E. Barnhill, who also recuses himself, citing a connection to one of the defendants.

No arrests are made.

I'm not sure what your criticism of the police is here....

It appears to be a problem with the DA.

Either way, I'm sure you'll be pleased to learn that both those guys have been convicted of murder.

Also, the guy who recorded the incident and provided evidence was convicted too....I'm not sure what they got him on, but I'm sure that the lesson is to not record or share evidence.

 

[Pommer]

I'm not sure what your criticism of the police is here....

It appears to be a problem with the DA.

Either way, I'm sure you'll be pleased to learn that both those guys have been convicted of murder.

Also, the guy who recorded the incident and provided evidence was convicted too....I'm not sure what they got him on, but I'm sure that the lesson is to not record or share evidence.

“The system works*!”
*if an attorney leaks video of the murder

Sure, let’s go with that. Otherwise it might be evidence that the system was/is racist. (And we know that can’t be because you say so.)

 

[rjs330]

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.

Having more cops causes more people to report crime? Well that is a far cry from what it sounded like you were saying before.

Yes it would drive up crime statistics. But only recorded crime statistics. The crime is there whether or not it's reported.

If a neighborhood has a 100 crimes and there are no cops and no reports the crime statistic is still 100 crimes. Is it not?

And now we interject police into the situation and 50 of those Crimes are reported we now have a recorded statistic of 50 Crimes. But there was still 100 crimes correct?

The police did not exacerbate anything correct?

Is police presence only there to prevent murder? How can you accurately measure how much crime was prevented? You cannot measure something that did not happen.

While it's true that you seem to need all those cops to stop one homicide there's a larger picture. Here it is.

"Williams and his colleagues find adding a new police officer to a city prevents between 0.06 and 0.1 homicides, which means that the average city would need to hire between 10 and 17 new police officers to save one life a year. They estimate that costs taxpayers annually between $1.3 and $2.2 million. The federal government puts the value of a statistical life at around $10 million (Planet Money did a whole episode on how that number was chosen). So, Williams says, from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault."

If we are simy talking a reduction in crime with more police it appears to be accurate.

"While they find serious crimes fall after the average city expands its police force, the economists find that arrests for serious crimes also fall. The simultaneous reduction of both serious crime and arrests for serious crime suggests it's not arrests that are driving the reduction. Instead, it suggests merely having more police officers around drives it. These findings are consistent with other research that finds concentrating police in "hotspot" crime areas appears to be an effective way to reduce crime."

So yes more cops is good for a reduction in crime.

When You Add More Police To A City, What Happens?

A new study looks at the effects of growing police forces on racial inequality.

www.npr.org

 

[gaara4158]

Having more cops causes more people to report crime? Well that is a far cry from what it sounded like you were saying before.

Yes it would drive up crime statistics. But only recorded crime statistics. The crime is there whether or not it's reported.

If a neighborhood has a 100 crimes and there are no cops and no reports the crime statistic is still 100 crimes. Is it not?

And now we interject police into the situation and 50 of those Crimes are reported we now have a recorded statistic of 50 Crimes. But there was still 100 crimes correct?

The police did not exacerbate anything correct?

Is police presence only there to prevent murder? How can you accurately measure how much crime was prevented? You cannot measure something that did not happen.

While it's true that you seem to need all those cops to stop one homicide there's a larger picture. Here it is.

"Williams and his colleagues find adding a new police officer to a city prevents between 0.06 and 0.1 homicides, which means that the average city would need to hire between 10 and 17 new police officers to save one life a year. They estimate that costs taxpayers annually between $1.3 and $2.2 million. The federal government puts the value of a statistical life at around $10 million (Planet Money did a whole episode on how that number was chosen). So, Williams says, from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault."

If we are simy talking a reduction in crime with more police it appears to be accurate.

"While they find serious crimes fall after the average city expands its police force, the economists find that arrests for serious crimes also fall. The simultaneous reduction of both serious crime and arrests for serious crime suggests it's not arrests that are driving the reduction. Instead, it suggests merely having more police officers around drives it. These findings are consistent with other research that finds concentrating police in "hotspot" crime areas appears to be an effective way to reduce crime."

So yes more cops is good for a reduction in crime.

When You Add More Police To A City, What Happens?

A new study looks at the effects of growing police forces on racial inequality.

www.npr.org

And a weed whacker reduces the prevalence of weeds in your lawn. But it isn’t the solution, because it doesn’t address the root cause. It’s a band-aid while you figure out what the root cause is.

 

[Pommer]

And a weed whacker reduces the prevalence of weeds in your lawn. But it isn’t the solution, because it doesn’t address the root cause. It’s a band-aid while you figure out what the root cause is.

The root cause is the choice between wanting to police crime and over having a just society.

 

[rjs330]

Tying this back in with policing, we established earlier that police are prone to unjustified excessive violence.

Where did you establish that police are prone to unjustified excessive violence?

 

[Pommer]

Where did you establish that police are prone to unjustified excessive violence?

As police are to unjustified excessive force, so is a citizen to voter fraud.
Both are rare, but should be as rare as is possible.
You might think that there’s just enough unjustified excessive force without having to address it further.
Others might hold a different view.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have you on ignore, but somehow I’m seeing this reply, so here’s a rare response from me. Yes. Literally, yes. Don’t look so surprised. This can’t be the first time someone has pointed this out to you.

Certainly not...but no one ever sticks to this position. I imagine that is because it’s untenable. People tend to drift into blaming racist individuals or pull examples from the Jim Crow days for racist laws and policies. We can skip that though...if you intend to keep this position....

Sure, it doesn’t seem like a problem to the one who doesn’t have a multitude of speed traps along his daily commute to work.

Or to the one who doesn't speed.

It is for the one who does. We can discuss what solutions would look like after you admit the problem exists.

Well the speed traps exist as a solution to a problem....speeding. It's a problem that kills people every year and before I would agree to do away with or alter speed traps....I'd need a pretty good reason why.

That is, after all, the subject of this thread.

I don't want this to come off the wrong way since you had me on ignore, so please, consider the following words as honest and my tone as sincere...

I genuinely don't see the problem. It's because I can separate the concept you're describing from the phrase you use to describe it...systemic racism. Without any racist actors or laws or rules, the racism part of the concept can be dropped...and along with it, any moral imperative derived from the word. Systemic, imo, just a descriptor floated in front of "racism" to confuse people and get them to stay silent for fear of sounding ignorant. Fortunately for me, I can't even remember the last time I feared sounding ignorant.

If we're assuming procedural fairness....then it's safe to say that we won't find any racism in the system. Indeed, you're claiming that the racism is found in the outcomes. I'd say that this conception of "systemic racism" is only about outcomes....and frankly, a more accurate term for the concept would be....

"Average racial group outcomes".

Hopefully, I'm not wrong....and you would agree that is what you're talking about. If I am correct...then you would say we have a problem whenever average racial group outcomes are different....but we don't have a "problem" whenever "average racial group outcomes" are the same.

Is that a fair description of the position you're taking? We can go back to calling it systemic racism if you want.....the label on the jar doesn't matter to me. We can call it "furry hobbit feet" if you want....I just want to be sure we're talking about the same thing. It's typically at this point where the person I'm speaking with reverts to something about racist individuals or laws....
.
.I'm hoping that's not the case with you.

 

[Ken-1122]

Systemic racism doesn’t require any racist actors or laws to enforce explicitly racist rules - it is merely the result of nominally unbiased systems operating the same towards members of all demographics, but whose effects differ along racial lines.

(Ken)
So why would you call an unbiased system, systemic racism? Sounds like a contradiction in terms

Tying this back in with policing, we established earlier that police are prone to unjustified excessive violence. Now, even assuming there is a perfectly fair reason to deploy more patrols into predominantly Black neighborhoods, the inevitable result is more Black people being exposed to the risk of an unjust police encounter.

But black people are victims of, and commit a disproportionate amount of crime when compared to other demographics, so the police are needed in these communities.

Thus, while no one’s being racist individually, one racial group suffers more than others as a result of systems working normally.

If black neighborhoods require greater police presence than other neighborhoods due to crime and victimhood, how can you call this greater police presence racism? This sounds like a crime problem, maybe an economic problem, or some other problem; but not a racial problem. Now; if you can prove if other neighborhoods required a greater police presence, they wouldn't get it, then you might be able to make such a case.

 

[Ken-1122]

It causes more *reported* crime because there are more police out there to *report* said crimes, which indeed drives up crime statistics.

(Ken)
You aren’t suggesting in white neighborhoods they have just as much crime, but the cops just let em kill each other because they would rather patrol black neighborhoods are you? C’mon!

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.

Black victims of crime call the police more than anybody else. If police only exacerbate the problem, why do you suppose black people are so prone to call the police for help?

Further, the evidence supporting the idea that more policing leads to less crime is vanishingly thin.

CHAZ in Seattle (summer of 2020) proved getting rid of the police will greatly increase crime levels. My city is still suffering from the effects of that mistake

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.

Ahh…. so you admit more cops DO prevent crimes; huh?

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.

Again; you’re making the case that more cops even cut into the homicide rate. This is a good thing right?

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.

No; lack of patrol isn’t the root cause of crime, it just allows more crime to take place; as you have already pointed out above.

 

[rjs330]

Thus, while no one’s being racist individually, one racial group suffers more than others as a result of systems working normally. That’s what systemic racism is, despite what reactionary pundits on the Daily Wire might say.

Well if one racial group didn't commit so much crime the system wouldn't have to be there.

Would you say the system should not work normally?

 

[rjs330]

If you want to change the culture now, material conditions need to change. If it was institutions and government responsible for the material conditions of the past, why not again enlist them to rectify those conditions now? Seems silly and toxic to suddenly rely on the atomized individual to overcome and eradicate cultural problems centuries in the making. We can do better than that.

As we've noted the material conditions of the past cannot be changed. They can only be ended. Who ended them?

 

[rjs330]

And a weed whacker reduces the prevalence of weeds in your lawn. But it isn’t the solution, because it doesn’t address the root cause. It’s a band-aid while you figure out what the root cause is.

What is the root cause for the need for police in those areas?

 

[rjs330]

, it doesn’t seem like a problem to the one who doesn’t have a multitude of speed traps along his daily commute to work. It is for the one who does. We can discuss what solutions would look like after you admit the problem exists. That is, after all, the subject of this thread.

It's only a problem to the neighborhood with a multitude of speeders. As soon as people stop speeding the cops go away. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue then.

If there is no systemic racist problem why would we need to discuss solutions? That seems a bit backward.

 

[rjs330]

And a weed whacker reduces the prevalence of weeds in your lawn. But it isn’t the solution, because it doesn’t address the root cause. It’s a band-aid while you figure out what the root cause is.

So now you admit that having more cops reduces crime?

 

[rjs330]

As police are to unjustified excessive force, so is a citizen to voter fraud.
Both are rare, but should be as rare as is possible.
You might think that there’s just enough unjustified excessive force without having to address it further.
Others might hold a different view.

How much unjustified use if force is there? Wouldn't that have to be established first?

He said he established that police are prone to it. Mull that over for a second. Police are prone to unjustified use if force. What would we think if we said doctors are prone to killing their patients. (And I don't mean murder).

What would constitute an amount that would not be considered too many?

 

[gaara4158]

Well if one racial group didn't commit so much crime the system wouldn't have to be there.

Would you say the system should not work normally?

I wonder why the crime rate is so high among the one group with a uniquely oppressed history in the US. It’s a shame no one has looked into that.

As we've noted the material conditions of the past cannot be changed. They can only be ended. Who ended them?

You can’t un-punch someone in the face, but you can give them an ice pack.

What is the root cause for the need for police in those areas?

There isn’t a need for police, there’s a need for societal stability. You decided police presence is sufficient, not reality.

It's only a problem to the neighborhood with a multitude of speeders. As soon as people stop speeding the cops go away. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue then.

If there is no systemic racist problem why would we need to discuss solutions? That seems a bit backward.

Every neighborhood has a multitude of speeders. It’s just the commuters through this one that pay for it. You don’t see a problem there?

So now you admit that having more cops reduces crime?

I’ve already gone into the effectiveness of police in reducing crime. It doesn’t address the root.

How much unjustified use if force is there? Wouldn't that have to be established first?

He said he established that police are prone to it. Mull that over for a second. Police are prone to unjustified use if force. What would we think if we said doctors are prone to killing their patients. (And I don't mean murder).

What would constitute an amount that would not be considered too many?

My interlocutor in that conversation already agreed cops are known to abuse their power, listing several such cases he was aware of himself. For our purposes, that premise was indeed established to be the case.

 

[BNR32FAN]

“Nothing is free” is a poor excuse for the wealthiest nation in the world not to provide health and higher education benefits to all citizens, not just those who join the armed forces. Of course, that’s probably the point. No one would be pressured to join up if they were already being taken care of, and the military-industrial complex demands their labor. By the way, I wonder how the racial breakdown of military enlistment looks? Think it’s proportional to the general population? Hmm…

Are there other countries out there that offer free college to all of its citizens?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You’ve already defended the system by throwing ex-Officer Chauvin under the bus,


So let’s move on to an earlier incident, the murder of Ahmaud Aubrey; initially there were no charges filed against anyone for two months (and then only after public outcry). Mightn’t this, a situation that saw a respected retired former LEO hunt down a black man who had the audacity to be in the wrong neighborhood, be a case of systemic racism?

No that isn’t a case of systemic racism because Ahmaud was shot by civilians. It had nothing to do with the government or the law.

 

[gaara4158]

Are there other countries out there that offer free college to all of its citizens?

Yes. We can learn from those countries.