I've already spent multiple posts trying to explain to you what the corruption is, and it's not just a cop that murders someone.

That said, the analogy is that just as for one not to be considered a murderer, ALL, and yes I mean ALL of one's human-to-human interactions have to not result in murders. It doesn't really matter if you have millions of non-murder interactions with people against just one murder. You're still a murderer. Similarly, for a police department to not be corrupt, all of the actions of its members have to be non-corrupt, not just most of them. You don't get to even out covering up for a murdering cop with 1000 instances of letting people off with warnings for traffic violations.

And keeping those communities poor has basically been engineered into the system for ages--from numerous angles. Even some cops will say--ya we could have less police if we expanded social services/improved economic situations etc--and then they go support the guys who are opposed to/fighting against all those things--it's effectively job security

When people point out that 'all' the crime is from minorities like it's some gotcha all they're really doing is broadcasting--that yes in fact our system is designed to have it be that way--and the results prove it

Right, it has to be perfect, in order for it not to be corrupt. Good luck implementing utopia.

Nope. It just has to be not corrupt.

I think the number one reason racial disparities exist is becasue of poverty ( poor people have worse outcomes across the board), not the police. But if you want to focus on police issues, focus on one the ones who say the police are the issue, as they are the ones in charge of these cities, and allowed these unions to get as powerful as they are. However, nothing will happen becasue there is no standard for what they want to achieve. They are entirely abstract goals "ending systemic racism" with no real explanation of what that looks like when it's accomplished (i.e. does it mean no racial disparities? is there a threshold?).

If 90% of the people doing meth are white, it's correct that 90% of those arrested for meth are white. That's a correct disparate outcome.

Cool, cool. Now do resume callbacks.

And then do why black people are 4x as likely to be arrested for a drug they use at the same rate as white people.

Like it's hard to come up with a better example of how clueless IHIV is with his "systemic racism is fake" arguments than this:

As shown, this is actually NOT how drug arrests work. Black people are arrested far more heavily than their rate of drug use would suggest they should be! And according to IHIV's own posts, this incorrect disparate outcome successfully demonstrates systemic racism:

Dude is so inept he manages to make the case proving systemic racism exists, using his own premises, in his attempts to dismiss it as a lie. Incredible.

Yeah, so this "study" doesn't even pretend to try and explain the reasons, and admits that it would be challenging if not impossible to do so given the data they used, but that isn't stopping Wookie from just automatically blaming race bias.

This isn't any different than trying to explain why 13% of the population commits 50% of the violent crimes.

It's obviously more complicated than "that's just who the cops decide to arrest."

Oh right, as long as whatever bullshit ideas Inso has for alternative explanations, no one can ever, ever blame racism. I don't know about you, but unemployed people I know just cruise around in their cars all the damn time during the day, and then stop at night, while the gainfully employed, the people who commute for work, they do the opposite to balance it out. That's totally the explanation.

You fail to do the most basic of self-tests when ascribing your racism to people in law enforcement. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Why would cops behave the way you're convinced they do?

Traffic cops are there to enforce traffic laws, not spend their time and effort filling out paperwork on people who haven't done anything wrong. This is not a recipe for long term career success.

My bullshit ideas are at least as valid as your constant cries of racism in the absence of actual evidence.

They aren't basic tests, and as discussed in the paper, data don't exist for many of them. Is there a test that could be done that, after doing it, would cause you to blame racism?

Traffic cops can bust basically any driver at any time. You always obey the speed limit? Use a turn signal every single time? Come to a cop's definition of a stop at every sign? If you do all those things, can you prove to a judge that you do against a cop who says that you didn't?

defund and start over sounds good to me actually. really, any other options seem ludicrous in comparison.

Could you at least acknowledge you would be in favour of a "hamsterdam" solution?

Would you care to speculate on some plausible explanations that are unrelated to bias? I assume you just believe that black people have very different driving habits than white people, especially at night? Is there a basis for that assumption, or are you simply inferring that from the disparate outcome?

I don't need a study for that; I live it every day.

I should get a dash cam.

Not exactly, no.

Really? You honestly believe that black people have much different driving habits than white people? Traffic fatality data does not seem to support that assumption. White people and black people have an approximately equal chance of dying in a car crash. It's slightly higher for black people, but the difference is very modest, and I can think of a lot of reasons unrelated to driving habits that could account for a modest discrepancy.

He's about that confirmation bias life.

But Inso feels that unemployed Black people are out there all day, driving around badly and getting tickets.

Ah yes, the "It's not racism if you believe it" defense.

All about that common sense life.

Maybe you can help me understand your thought process. So cops are pulling over black people because they're racist, not necessarily because these drivers are doing anything wrong. Okay, so what's the endgame for that decision? Take me to the next step in your race-based policing process.

To annoy black people?

Pulling them over for doing 55 in a 54, so they can look around the car a lil bit and maybe illegally search their ****.

But they may also want to see if they are carrying a weapon, a lot of them are.

Two things. First, you could have made the same argument in 1950, but no one seriously disputes that there was disparate policing in 1950.

Second, do you live in a world where bias can only result from specific intent? Because that isn't the real world. There is a reason why there were virtually no black quarterbacks in the NFL in the 1970s and 1980s. (Hint: It wasn't because NFL coaches of the era were sitting around twirling their moustaches, trying to think of ways to annoy black people.)