No one disagrees with that unless they have cognitive dissonance

The problem is people are talking about "the left" or "the protesters" or "the rioters" as if it's monolithic and move forward in intellectually dishonest manners

A friend of mine posted a Turning Point USA video showing the autonomous zone with the message "this is what the left wants"

Posters in here are acting like every Democrat in the US wants dead cops. White people suddenly think they're under attack. Which is an ironic expose on their own subconscious, because what they're really thinking is that if suddenly Black people were in power, they'd do unto them as they did others...

Except that Black people are not struggling to gain power as the agenda, as if it were some race war...They're merely asking for rights they're still being denied

Decade after decade they ask for the same thing and decade after decade we have a Rodney King or a George Floyd. Let me ask you this. Would there have been riots in LA if Rodney King was simply handcuffed and put in jail? No, of course there wouldn't. Nothing would've happened. Same for Floyd. If people were honest, then they'd be having a discussion about whether the best thing to do is throw King in jail or order rehab or entertain the idea that a lenient sentence or some sort of program is best for a man like him. And Floyd wouldn't even be a conversation. Chauvin would be on trial for murder without a single pretext of outrage and historical racial oppression...Instead we have beatings and vast swaths of morons looking for every bit of justification that Floyd deserved to die. And the honest folk who see through that bullshit are now speaking out against that instead of remaining silent or not acknowledging their own problematic thinking of being in agreement with that line of thinking

It's really annoying to see people act like I myself have not brought up the concern of the internet mob rushing to judgement. That there needs to be a way to put on the brakes, because people get it wrong en masse all the time. Because I have done so on occasion. I'm not blind. And yes, Kelhus is right, the media is a big problem in that regard. But that's capitalism's fault, not the media. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Even within the media, it is clear the totem pole of dishonesty. Left media does omit truths, but right media flat out lies. It's all bad. I note it all. Many of you inordinately don't. That is why these threads are so dumb sometimes...

At some point, there will be a rise in something somewhere and it will be spoken about. Just arrive at that conclusion when it's a real concern, not some self righteous diatribe about all lives matter or something. Or that destroying property is bad. No ****, Sherlock. If you don't want any of the bad stuff, then, once more, I implore you to pay attention to why they started in the first place. It's because a man is dead who shouldn't be. Or in King's case, a man was brutally beaten bc a few other men expected to uphold the law decided it's OK to vent their frustrations on an obviously not upstanding Black man instead of their therapist, fellow man, or God. Nah, **** the Black guy. Beat his ass, get away with it, then point at all the ******s who are upset with Bush. A fantastic display of how society cares for itself. Just because human beings are an economic unit of measure relatively quantifiable in an economy does not mean they should always be treated solely as so. That is actually a morbid disgrace wrought in the human mind. I would have thought in a poker forum people would understand the value of counterintuitive thinking, but I guess self preservation and egocentricity is more important than morality, empathy, and honest introspection. Maybe I'm naive or have too much faith in humanity. I dunno

That is the greater disgrace in all of this. That we lose sight of the point of origin in the arson of the human condition and skip to the mob rule, because it might make a few mistakes along the way. The honest person would note that yes, it is a problem, no, you don't get to absolve yourself of the fact that "the mob" is something people choose to point at so they don't have to point at themselves

Just a note: This is not directed at the quoted poster. I'm just thinking out loud, sparked by the quoted post itself

Why would you say something like this? Are you cool with the KKK?

Defunding the police entails a plan that you and others deliberately ignore in the process of an honest debate. This is not OK, nor are Harkin's posts when they turn out to be false and/or intellectually dishonest/disingenuous. This is a problem

Again, the left is not monolithic. 1) Not everyone is OK with what is happening 2) If you don't want destruction, then seek to change the laws, police policy, and anything else that reduces the recurring nonsense that has come in conjunction with peaceful protests and decades upon decades of advocation for reform

You sound like someone who has watched too many YouTube videos and you're getting overheated from consumption which happens to be showing what Antifa dickheads are doing as oppposed to what White Nationalists are doing. Might I remind you that Steven Miller is INSIDE the White House. BLM is seeking to stay alive and be afforded the rights we all are guaranteed in the social contract in the pursuit of a dignified and bountiful life

We want to improve the conditions of the maligned, not continue to point, punish, and blame indiscriminately. It's not working. In some ways it is, in others it plainly isn't. Seek to address that rather than ask absurd questions

If you spit on someone like the dude did at the very beginning of the video--that's assault afaik.

Oops, missed that. I got distracted by the hyperventilating and thought she had him banged up for being too free right in her presence. Still a top notch meltdown, though. The rest of my post still stands.

One discrepancy I do see pop up repeatedly is the disproportionate number of black citizens that are subjected to 'stop and frisk' in cities like Boston and D.C. Here's one of those situations where a police oversite committee would greatly benefit the communities, by finding which police officers are guilty of this and put their jobs on the line.

Now I realize that this question is going to seem smart-alecky, but this the only way I can ask it. What other rights are black people being denied?

The 2018 statistics are the latest I could find, but the total # of police officers in the U.S. was at 686,665 then. I've brought it up before, but the total # of unarmed U.S. citizens killed by the police in 2019 was 49. That's the same # of people killed yearly by lightning strikes according to the National Weather Service.

It would be great if we could get that number to zero. It would be wonderful if as a society we could eliminate rape also. But that's just never going to happen. What we can do is develop oversight committees, eliminate qualified immunity, stop allowing the "Blue Shield" to protect terrible police officers, abolish no-knock warrants, etc....

Like in the left media, bringing up the names of Tony Timpa, Robert Ethan Saylor, Daniel Shaver, or Richard Black, Jr. b/c it doesn't fit the narrative omits a truth. And on the right, bringing up George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery's criminal records is complete trash.

Lot of good stuff in there. You should rant more often

Stop and frisk disproportionately stopping black people wasn't some individual bad officer problem. It was a problem with the whole system. It was a mayoral directive, one that Bloomberg didn't even have to walk back until this year.

Did stop and frisk achieve the desired end of reducing crime?

If we devise new policing strategies which we deem less prejudicial, but ultimately fail in other areas (eg skyrocketing murder rates) are we going to consider this a better evil and be satisfied with the results?

It failed spectacularly at catching criminals, but I am sure you can argue that changes in violent crime in line with other parts of the country would have been bigly worse but for frisking those criminal blacks.

This was taken from a Daily Mail article, so you know it’s good.

Racism isn’t just the domain of saucy republicans and CNN watching centrists.

LOL, this dipshit just cannot stop defending people who assault women, first Albuquerque now this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby..._Holder#Impact

Tony Timpa: CNN, NYT, CBS, Slate, WaPo
Robert Ethan Saylor: CNN, WaPo 1, WaPo 2
Daniel Shaver: Kelhus tried that one before, search his name in this forum, it didn't go well for him (may need to search for "Shavers" since Kelhus very often ****s up his name)
Richard Black Jr.: NBC, ABC, NYT

Particularly noteworthy is that, not only are these examples of the "left media" covering these stories that Kelhus is convinced they suppress - this is often where these people have seen the greatest coverage. I googled "Robert Ethan Saylor" in a private browser window and the three articles I cited there are the only national media stories on the front page. The people supposedly suppressing news about police killings of white men because it "doesn't fit a narrative" - turns out, actually, they're sometimes the ones shining the most light on these stories. Search for Saylor's name and add "site:foxnews.com", you'll see a bunch of Associated Press articles reprinted under a Fox News banner, they certainly don't give a ****.

As always: shocker, wow, never would have guessed. Thanks for bringing these names up and giving me the opportunity to educate myself on how Kelhus' long-running thesis in this forum is even more wrong than we already thought.

I think where the disconnect is is that plenty of people, including plenty of police officers (white, black and brown), believe that certain minority groups are profiled more because they commit more crime, and this profiling is effective in reducing crime. And in 2020 (as opposed to 1820) most of those people (although not all) don't even believe it is due to the inherent nature of specific demographic groups, but due to circumstance.

And progressive ideology denies this motivation, and argues de facto racism must be the motivation. And the perception is that as much as progressive ideology is concerned with discrimination in policing (often using gross exaggeration and hyperbole), it doesn't appear particularly concerned with developing policies to implement non-discriminatory effective policing or maintaining social order.

Right now everyone is swept up in the religious fervor, and that is fine. However, I predict ultimately the extent of progressive policing reforms being popularly supported is going to depend on the perception of whether they are working or not.

And I am pessimistic that any systemic reform that focuses on reducing policing first, as opposed to dealing with downstream processes, is doomed for failure, but we shall see I guess.

We have done this song and dance plenty of time before. I argue there is a very big difference between reporting a story and constructing a (false) narrative. And you don't seem willing to concede this. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Who can blame her, she's probably already on edge from shopping in a store that gives equal treatment to Spanish and English, it's basically as bad as being spit on or assaulted when you think about it

Excuse me Mr Officer, there is a black white supremacist filming me right now. Aren't you going to arrest him?
I have evidence. I'm filming him filming me.

I'm thinking whatever remedies we come up with to reduce/eliminate police misconduct should take into account that perspective as well.

It doesn't sound like you believe the rioters' actions are literally justified by environmental factors but rather those factors are the direct cause of their behavior. If I'm reading you correctly, I agree to an extent. But I don't hear that same sentiment coming from the more vocal critics of the police. Contra the Stanford Prison Experiment et al, they seem to treat deviant behavior by the cops as way more a character issue than an environmental one. I'm not saying there aren't bad cops or even that the job doesn't tend to attract some that aren't suited to it, but I think that's more the exception than the rule. Mostly I think cops start out as basically average people, get exposed to certain environmental factors (both in terms of the high-stress nature of the job along with the sort of us v. them mentality and quasi god complex that develops) and the output is consistently and persistently egregious enough that it's probably more about the game we as society created and pay the cops to play in than the nature or character of the players.

If you run a program to drive down crime in high-crime neighborhoods, and your high-crime neighborhoods are all primarily Black or Hispanic, are you systemically racist or just being pragmatic? Resources are not unlimited. You deploy your assets strategically for maximum impact, not spread evenly in the interests of political correctness. If there was reasonable suspicion for the specific stop, I have no issues with it, no matter what the final 'stats' end up being.

Stop and Frisk took guns off the street, that was its purpose. The purpose was not to target and harass Black people, that was an unfortunate outcome.

Violent crime is now soaring in NYC.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...shows/2489730/

The combination of bail reform, catch and release arrests, COVID inmate release is probably most of this. Who knows how much of an impact disbanding the plainclothes anti-crime units have had at this point, but it has to be a non-negligible factor.

I'm old enough to remember a NYC where it was not safe to walk around in certain areas, most of the kids out there protesting do not. There were shootings literally every week near my parent's store. There was a point where they were held up probably every other month. It is undeniable that proactive policing drove down violent crime in NYC, and the stats bear that out. The amount of Black lives lost as a result of police not being able to get guns off the streets will be exponentially higher than those saved by the reduction in police brutality.

A large portion of NYC would probably not want a reduction in police force size. People decry the system, but forget why the system was put into place in the first place. They forget when the NYPD was held up as a model department for the nation and forget why they were asked by parents to police the schools and why metal detectors were put in. It's really troubling that we now have mob rule by hashtag instead of democratic decisions. The duly elected mayor was overruled. The vocal subset of the population is now dictating terms. The left really has gone too far in empowering criminals.

tl;dr: hurr durr cops good; criminals bad.

The point was not to "catch criminals" exactly. The point was for gang members to be scared to walk down the street with a handgun tucked in their pants for fear of a pat down. So yes, it would have been bigly worse.

The news article you linked is literally comparing a 7 day period. I doubt that this has anything to do with longer-term policy choices. It has to do with very recent social unrest. I don't think it provides any evidence as far as the value of Stop and Frisk.

I'm not aware of any evidence that crime rates changed significantly after Stop and Frisk ended. See for example this 2016 post from the Brennan Center. I don't see any spikes in homicide in more recent data either (some simple stats here).

There is also evidence that racial disparities in stops and searches do not merely reflect underlying differences in crime rates. See for example this recent paper in Nature: A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States

This study used data from across the country, but I believe at least some prior research in NYC has found similar results, e.g. this study.

It's also worth noting the evidence that one of the bigger problems with police stops is also the much larger racial disparities in the use of force. The Stop and Frisk program was one source of data Fryer used in his studies (see here, for example).

So I think there are multiple issues with programs like Stop and Frisk. One is just whether or not it's effective in general at preventing crime. It doesn't seem that there's a lot of evidence for it being effective, and it does impose a pretty substantial invasion of individual privacy. That is an issue regardless of race. Another issue is that racial disparities do not reduce simply to underlying differences in crime rates. There is evidence of bias. The third issue is with the use of force, which is clearly conditional upon interactions with the police.

In combination, I think these three issues provide a pretty compelling argument against Stop and Frisk, or similar practices.

It's a pretty banal statement to liberals to state that poverty increases crime, but this is also due to racism, just FYI.

I am not arguing that Stop and Frisk was not unfair to Black people, I am arguing that that was not its intent.

I still believe the biggest driver of crime is socioeconomic, and arguably Stop and Frisk was no longer needed after many years of record prosperity. The data showing that Stop and Frisk does nothing now, does not equal the data showing that Stop and Frisk did nothing before. And in any case, Stop and Frisk was just one aspect of proactive policing.

They conclude here that S&F has definite short term effect, but not enough data to evaluate long term effects. In a way that makes sense, since it's just difficult to measure a counter-factual.

https://www.nap.edu/read/24928/chapter/6

It is inarguable that proactive policing, and boots on the ground, drove down crime in NYC. NYC far outpaced the rest of the nation. With all else being equal, only proactive policing can be the determining factor.

https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9...03.2%20percent.

Also, in my post, I stated that I believe most of the uptick is due to the mass releases of criminals due to COVID and the new 'catch and release' policies in NY. Criminals don't fear arrest when they are out in a day. Bail reform laws went into effect Jan 1, 2020. Last figure I read was something like 1,500 inmates released from NYC jails due to COVID concerns. Compstat is showing a 42% increase in shooting victims on the year to date:

https://compstat.nypdonline.org/2e5c...e7c75c/view/89

I kind of doubt it has to due with "social unrest" anecdotally, as none of the shootings I'm reading about have anything to do with the protests/rioting. I would really like to revisit this in a couple years if/when the economy goes into the shitter.

Ok. I think that's just a misunderstanding then. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue it was intended to be discriminatory. Just that it was.

This is a nice link, thanks. Where are you reading the conclusion about definite short term effects? What I'm seeing is this section on Stop, Question, and Frisk (begins at p. 148):

I'm not seeing anything about short vs. long term results, and some of the specific details described (e.g. focusing on high-risk repeat offenders) seem quite different from the kind of racial profiling stops I was discussing.

I'm wondering if maybe you're describing other proactive policing policies that are not specifically stop and frisk? To be clear, I'm not arguing against policing in general.

Yeah, I'm speculating. I think the main point is just that a week of data is useless as far evaluating larger policy questions. I don't think events have to be directly related to protests to be tied to heightened unrest that is a result of heightened awareness and agitation regarding policing, though.

#amerikkka