Ferguson

[B-Man]

The Department Of Justice’s Policing Statistics Don’t Lie

 

Three is a pattern, they say, and protesters in Times Square and elsewhere can cite more than three examples — Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, and John Crawford and Tamir Rice in Ohio — to back up their claim that there is a pattern of excessive force by white law enforcement against black citizens revealing itself in America. But, compelling as these anecdotal examples may be, they are outliers amid a decade’s worth of data that indicate nothing in the way of systemic bias in encounters between law enforcement and citizens (of every color).

 

{snip}

 

One could consider these situations from another perspective. Of the 40 million Americans (16.9 percent) who had a face-to-face encounter with law enforcement in 2008, only 1.4 percent reported having force threatened or used against them. Three years earlier, the number was 1.6 percent, and in 2002 it was 1.5 percent. As a percentage of the population, averaged from 2002 to 2008, blacks (3.7 percent) have been slightly more likely than whites (1.2 percent) and Hispanics (2.2 percent), but the rates for each racial group have remained approximately flat.

 

But, considering police-public interactions more broadly, are there indications that police disproportionately initiate contact with minorities? In short, no. When it came to traffic stops in 2011, black drivers (13 percent) were stopped more frequently than white (10 percent) or Hispanic (10 percent) drivers. That is hardly a damning finding. Moreover, while blacks (7 percent) were slightly more likely than Hispanics (6 percent) or whites (5 percent) to be ticketed, they were also slightly more likely than whites to be let go with no enforcement action (2 percent versus 1 percent).

 

These disparities are small, and they square with citizens’ perception of police behavior: Eighty-three percent of black drivers who were stopped believed police behaved properly, compared with 87 percent of Hispanic drivers and 89 percent of white drivers. Furthermore, racial differences between citizen and officer made little difference in these perceptions. Black drivers were equally likely to believe they were stopped “legitimately” whether the officer was black (71 percent) or white (70 percent), and among black drivers who believed they were stopped legitimately, those stopped by white officers were in fact more likely to report “proper” officer conduct (94 percent) than those stopped by black officers (92 percent).

 

None of this precludes the possibility of instances of racism among law-enforcement personnel. But taken as a whole, Police-Public Contact Survey data suggest that no racial group is unjustifiably targeted by law enforcement as a national matter and that black Americans by and large find little objectionable about their encounters with white police officers. There are, to be sure, isolated incidents of police malpractice. But whatever happened in Ferguson, Staten Island, and the few other cases cited by protesters, according to this collection of data, the events seem to have been statistical anomalies, not indicators of any pattern.

 

.

[shrader]

LeBron James again demonstrates social conscience with 'I Can't Breathe' shirt

http://www.usatoday....shirt/20128799/

 

 

 

I just love how all of this gets spun and how it gets turned in to some pop culture social movement revolving around an ignorant premise that was proven false.

 

When do the cops respond with their "I can't play, I have cramps" t-shirts?

[boyst]

Jordan was asked to take social stands all the time when he played. He never did. Why? Because, "Republicans buy sneakers too."

 

People kill athletes for not speaking out and kill them for taking a buck. They can't win, so might as well do whatever moves them.

 

But the real Lebron story is this one:

 

http://www.usatoday....-them/20134729/

!@#$ Brittish royalty, seriously. They ain't **** in this country. They aren't anything more then pomp and circumstance in their own country. They serve no purpose and just because they are born to an incestuous "royal" family they should get a harp player to wake them up every morning outside of their window?

 

Stone them.

 

And, it's not about athletes speaking up or not speaking up. If they speak up they simply need to stick to the cheese and cream filling. Schools, domestic violence, homeless, etc. Don't mix in politics, ever. Don't mix in social stances or make yourself personal. Play the sport, be good at it and be a good man off the court. Don't mix them.

 

When do the cops respond with their "I can't play, I have cramps" t-shirts?

When LeBron gets robbed or stolen from.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

And, it's not about athletes speaking up or not speaking up. If they speak up they simply need to stick to the cheese and cream filling. Schools, domestic violence, homeless, etc. Don't mix in politics, ever. Don't mix in social stances or make yourself personal. Play the sport, be good at it and be a good man off the court. Don't mix them.

 

Funny, I thought we lived in a country where people, even athletes, can say what they want. Just because you might not agree with a particular stance doesn't mean athletes shouldn't speak out. A lot of people are angry about this, a lot of people want to speak out, they have every right to within the law. Just because a guy makes millions of dollars playing a sport doesn't mean he loses his right to free speech.

[boyst]

Funny, I thought we lived in a country where people, even athletes, can say what they want. Just because you might not agree with a particular stance doesn't mean athletes shouldn't speak out. A lot of people are angry about this, a lot of people want to speak out, they have every right to within the law. Just because a guy makes millions of dollars playing a sport doesn't mean he loses his right to free speech.

Yes, but when the critics approach him or when his soap box falls in on him do not expect mercy.

 

It is a weird, strange world we live in. Michael Jordan is/was six times the douche that LeBron has been and still gets major sponsorship and everyone ignoring it. He was possibly worse then Cosby, but someone like Cosby is now scum of the Earth. I guess it just has to do with him wearing a sweater vest.

 

I don't mind athletes, artists, or celebrities making personal opinion statements as long as they're ready to own up to it thrown right back in their face. Few can make these statements as gracefully and be forgiven as Alex Baldwin.

[Deranged Rhino]

Yes, but when the critics approach him or when his soap box falls in on him do not expect mercy.

 

I'm sure Lebron is shaking in his boots worrying about the wrath of Boyst.

[boyst]

I'm sure Lebron is shaking in his boots worrying about the wrath of Boyst.

Of course he isn't. LeBron is not worried about anyone else but LeBron. But, I am worried about the message he sends to the pop culture sycophants who will emulate his message. His message was pure ignorance and of great disregard to the justice system and all things being right with this country.

[Deranged Rhino]

Of course he isn't. LeBron is not worried about anyone else but LeBron. But, I am worried about the message he sends to the pop culture sycophants who will emulate his message. His message was pure ignorance and of great disregard to the justice system and all things being right with this country.

 

Got it. So only Boyst can have an opinion on an issue...

 

[boyst]

Got it. So only Boyst can have an opinion on an issue...

 

No. Not at all what I am saying. I just find it amazing that someone like Natalie Maines can come out and say something political then be upset when there is a backlash, or that when someone like the St Louis players come out and then get backlashed more backlashed is put up against them.

 

I think celebrities need to think a little harder before they speak.

[4merper4mer]

I have my opinion on Ferguson and I don't think the cop acted improperly based on what I read. I don't claim to know all about it though so I realize it is not 100% informed....but it is enough for me to have an opinion/guess. Even with that, I think I understand why it is seen as racial......I think incorrectly, but still.

 

The NYC thing to me is like a mirror image. The guy did not deserve to die for selling cigarettes, the whole thing just spun too far and he clearly had underlying health issues. I can see a case being made that the cop acted too aggressively....some might agree or disagree. Here's the thing....the guy was sort of acting like a jerk confronting police. I think a huge white dude acting the same way would have received the same treatment from the cop....without judging whether that is the correct treatment. I don't see it being racial at all. Did I miss an allusion to race at any point in the interaction? To me the question is more about the grand jury....if the victim was white, would there have been an indictment? I don't think we'll ever know.

[Deranged Rhino]

No. Not at all what I am saying. I just find it amazing that someone like Natalie Maines can come out and say something political then be upset when there is a backlash, or that when someone like the St Louis players come out and then get backlashed more backlashed is put up against them.

 

I think celebrities need to think a little harder before they speak.

 

It is what you're saying. You're saying you don't agree with Lebron's stance and thus he shouldn't have said it because it "was pure ignorance and of great disregard to the justice system and all things being right with this country."

 

I think Boyst needs to think a little harder before he posts.

[boyst]

It is what you're saying. You're saying you don't agree with Lebron's stance and thus he shouldn't have said it because it "was pure ignorance and of great disregard to the justice system and all things being right with this country."

 

I think Boyst needs to think a little harder before he posts.

Those were the only examples recent and relevant. I don't support athletes coming out, celebrities coming out, anyone speaking out for or against anything.

 

And, if you disagree about the findings by the Grand Jury's then you have every right to but to speak out against them is ignorance. It is the fabric of this country.

Edited December 9, 2014 by jboyst62

[Deranged Rhino]

Those were the only examples recent and relevant. I don't support athletes coming out, celebrities coming out, anyone speaking out for or against anything.

 

And, if you disagree about the findings by the Grand Jury's then you have every right to but to speak out against them is ignorance. It is the fabric of this country.

 

So, you are in fact saying that athletes and celebrities shouldn't say anything unless it's something you agree with.

[boyst]

So, you are in fact saying that athletes and celebrities shouldn't say anything unless it's something you agree with.

No. I am saying that if Ted Nugent wants to come out and say something he should be met with just as much criticism. If Charles Barkley says something it should be weighed and met with criticism just the same. Both of those figures are as much commentators on society as they are celebrities but even someone like Peyton Manning coming out and saying that the protesters are wrong or Geno Smith coming out and telling everyone to carry a gun... it's all stupid.

[Deranged Rhino]

No. I am saying that if Ted Nugent wants to come out and say something he should be met with just as much criticism.

 

But that's not what you're saying:

 

If they speak up they simply need to stick to the cheese and cream filling. Schools, domestic violence, homeless, etc. Don't mix in politics, ever. Don't mix in social stances or make yourself personal. Play the sport, be good at it and be a good man off the court. Don't mix them.

But, I am worried about the message he sends to the pop culture sycophants who will emulate his message.

 

You're saying he shouldn't say anything controversial or ever take a public stand. That's VERY different from what you think you're saying... which is why you should take your own advice and think more before posting.

[boyst]

But that's not what you're saying:

 

 

 

 

You're saying he shouldn't say anything controversial or ever take a public stand. That's VERY different from what you think you're saying... which is why you should take your own advice and think more before posting.

Taking a public stand is a lot different then saying something.

 

There is some movie with the spoof that a pop star goes and works on getting funding for vegans in South African villages. Some things celebrities take up are stupid, sure, but they're not really taking a stand on anything in that type of case. Bono speaking out against AIDS is good (but I hate Bono), Willie Nelson and Farm Aid, Cam Newton and the United Way, Lady Gaga and the homosexual community... those are what they should speak up about.

 

But, they don't need to get in to the dark areas like Ferguson or the NYC incident. Not even the grey areas like who to blame with Katrina or firearms possession.

 

Talk about the happy, puffy cloud sweet stuff.

[Deranged Rhino]

Taking a public stand is a lot different then saying something.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't only protect private conversations... which is the point.

 

There is some movie with the spoof that a pop star goes and works on getting funding for vegans in South African villages. Some things celebrities take up are stupid, sure, but they're not really taking a stand on anything in that type of case. Bono speaking out against AIDS is good (but I hate Bono), Willie Nelson and Farm Aid, Cam Newton and the United Way, Lady Gaga and the homosexual community... those are what they should speak up about.

 

That's terrifyingly backwards thinking. People can only speak about what you presume they know about? That's essentially you advocating that you should only be allowed to talk about farming. Does that define you? Aren't you more than just your profession? Or because you're not famous or have a large platform does that mean you're instantly more qualified to discuss and take public stances on whatever you want?

 

Come on, you're digging a deeper hole!

 

But, they don't need to get in to the dark areas like Ferguson or the NYC incident. Not even the grey areas like who to blame with Katrina or firearms possession.

 

Talk about the happy, puffy cloud sweet stuff.

 

Once again you're giving us the definition of censorship. You're trying to dictate what can or cannot be spoken about in public. It's ridiculous. The more controversial the subject the more people -- and I do mean all people -- should be talking about it. What happened to the marketplace of ideas? If the country worked the way you're proposing think about how easy it would be for tyranny (that's not tranny) to take control. You're advocating not talking about anything complicated or potentially controversial...

 

Germany kind of worked the same way in the 30s.

Edited December 9, 2014 by GreggyT

[3rdnlng]

Freedom of speech doesn't only protect private conversations... which is the point.

 

 

 

That's terrifyingly backwards thinking. People can only speak about what you presume they know about? That's essentially you advocating that you should only be allowed to talk about farming. Does that define you? Aren't you more than just your profession? Or because you're not famous or have a large platform does that mean you're instantly more qualified to discuss and take public stances on whatever you want?

 

Come on, you're digging a deeper hole!

 

 

 

Once again you're giving us the definition of censorship. You're trying to dictate what can or cannot be spoken about in public. It's ridiculous. The more controversial the subject the more people -- and I do mean all people -- should be talking about it. What happened to the marketplace of ideas? If the country worked the way you're proposing think about how easy it would be for tyranny (that's not tranny) to take control. You're advocating not talking about anything complicated or potentially controversial...

 

Germany kind of worked the same way in the 30s.

 

If I remember correctly you weren't so tolerant when it came to Donald Sterling.

[Deranged Rhino]

If I remember correctly you weren't so tolerant when it came to Donald Sterling.

 

You remember incorrectly. I had, and have, zero problems with the consequences that come from free speech. Which is my point with Boyst... I get he hates Lebron and thinks he's a dummy, and he might even be right that in this case Lebron's taking the wrong side of this issue, but that still doesn't excuse Boyst taking the stance he's taking. Lebron has the right to take whatever public stances he wishes to take. If it's the "wrong" stance and it hurts Lebron in his wallet, that's the cost of having that right.

 

Boyst is arguing for censorship. That's not at all what happened in the Donald Sterling case.

[boyst]

I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm arguing for common sense. There is no need to have sound bites from public personas about politics or that which spew hate or negativity toward individuals or groups just because you or anyone has a different opinion.

 

I think sterling is an idiot right there with james. Right there with the Vikings punter and the NBA player that was on the radio saying he hates gays.

 

They're idiots who shouldn't get the light of day upon their words. They have every right to say them but society is better off casting them aside when they prove to be the bigots they are.