The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
I'm pretty sure B was highlighting that your argument, BI, always sounds very "white". And your response is no different. Maybe the cops don't need to patrol some neighborhoods so aggressively, and maybe that leads to a better environment.
And to be clear I don't mean "white" as a bad thing, I just mean you'd probably have a different opinion if you weren't. That's how I try to look at things.
I can see that. We can only see through the lens that shapes our world. The thing is that the policing and the policy changes being advocated don't just effect one intersectional group, they effect us all, so it the issues cannot be viewed just through what is assumed to be a "black" perspective. That does not mean don't listen and evaluate another's ideas, it just means don't default to acceptance. The piece I struggle with in particular about the police presence thing is that tougher enforcement works. Taking criminals off the street works. The broken windows polices of the last decade proved that, the question is if the reduction in crime was worth the resultant impact of skyrocketing incarceration rates and the downstream effects on the populace. And we can tie this directly into black lives by looking at what is actually taking them:
To me at least, it seems like focusing policy debates/changes here instead of on the 20-some unarmed black men killed by cops each year makes more sense if it's really black lives you care about. So maybe someone can help me make the leap from this perspective to what better reflects others views.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8888 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Quote:
“History shows that crime data was never objective in any meaningful sense,” Muhammad wrote. Instead, crime statistics were “weaponized” to justify racial profiling, police brutality, and ever more policing of Black people.
This phenomenon, he believes, has continued well into this century and is exemplified by William J. Bratton, one of the most famous police leaders in recent America history. Known as “America’s Top Cop,” Bratton led police departments in his native Boston, Los Angeles, and twice in New York, finally retiring in 2016.
Bratton rejected notions that crime was a result of social and economic forces, such as poverty, unemployment, police practices, and racism. Instead, he said in a 2017 speech, “It is about behavior.” Through most of his career, he was a proponent of statistically-based “predictive” policing — essentially placing forces in areas where crime numbers were highest, focused on the groups found there.
Bratton argued that the technology eliminated the problem of prejudice in policing, without ever questioning potential bias in the data or algorithms themselves — a significant issue given the fact that Black Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at disproportionately higher rates than whites. This approach has led to widely discredited practices such as racial profiling and “stop-and-frisk.” And, Muhammad notes, “There is no research consensus on whether or how much violence dropped in cities due to policing.”
“History shows that crime data was never objective in any meaningful sense,” Muhammad wrote. Instead, crime statistics were “weaponized” to justify racial profiling, police brutality, and ever more policing of Black people.
This phenomenon, he believes, has continued well into this century and is exemplified by William J. Bratton, one of the most famous police leaders in recent America history. Known as “America’s Top Cop,” Bratton led police departments in his native Boston, Los Angeles, and twice in New York, finally retiring in 2016.
Bratton rejected notions that crime was a result of social and economic forces, such as poverty, unemployment, police practices, and racism. Instead, he said in a 2017 speech, “It is about behavior.” Through most of his career, he was a proponent of statistically-based “predictive” policing — essentially placing forces in areas where crime numbers were highest, focused on the groups found there.
Bratton argued that the technology eliminated the problem of prejudice in policing, without ever questioning potential bias in the data or algorithms themselves — a significant issue given the fact that Black Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at disproportionately higher rates than whites. This approach has led to widely discredited practices such as racial profiling and “stop-and-frisk.” And, Muhammad notes, “There is no research consensus on whether or how much violence dropped in cities due to policing.”
Available research suggests hot spots policing – a practice where police focus on locations where crime is concentrated – produces short-term crime reduction effects without simply displacing crime into surrounding areas. Studies tend to find that these programs also have beneficial crime reduction effects in immediately adjacent areas.
It comes back to the question of what is the problem you are trying solve is. If you are trying to solve statistical inequity, then it is a failure. If you are trying to reduce crime, then it is a success.
Edit: I am not saying that they aren’t both problems that need to be addressed, but all of the solutions we (society) have come up with seem to be either or.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8888 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Bi_3 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Quote:
“History shows that crime data was never objective in any meaningful sense,” Muhammad wrote. Instead, crime statistics were “weaponized” to justify racial profiling, police brutality, and ever more policing of Black people.
This phenomenon, he believes, has continued well into this century and is exemplified by William J. Bratton, one of the most famous police leaders in recent America history. Known as “America’s Top Cop,” Bratton led police departments in his native Boston, Los Angeles, and twice in New York, finally retiring in 2016.
Bratton rejected notions that crime was a result of social and economic forces, such as poverty, unemployment, police practices, and racism. Instead, he said in a 2017 speech, “It is about behavior.” Through most of his career, he was a proponent of statistically-based “predictive” policing — essentially placing forces in areas where crime numbers were highest, focused on the groups found there.
Bratton argued that the technology eliminated the problem of prejudice in policing, without ever questioning potential bias in the data or algorithms themselves — a significant issue given the fact that Black Americans are arrested and convicted of crimes at disproportionately higher rates than whites. This approach has led to widely discredited practices such as racial profiling and “stop-and-frisk.” And, Muhammad notes, “There is no research consensus on whether or how much violence dropped in cities due to policing.”
Available research suggests hot spots policing – a practice where police focus on locations where crime is concentrated – produces short-term crime reduction effects without simply displacing crime into surrounding areas. Studies tend to find that these programs also have beneficial crime reduction effects in immediately adjacent areas.
It comes back to the question of what is the problem you are trying solve is. If you are trying to solve statistical inequity, then it is a failure. If you are trying to reduce crime, then it is a success.
Edit: I am not saying that they aren’t both problems that need to be addressed, but all of the solutions we (society) have come up with seem to be either or.
I was more focusing on the self-fulfilling nature of the conversation.
Where certain people live is where the crime is, we arrest and police these people more, we see that this is where the crime is, we arrest and police these people more...
And the deterioration of the community, and the dead-end outcomes of those in this community, continues.
Totally agree, I don't know what we differently though from a policing perspective. Accept some level of victimization in the hope that things work out in a generation or two?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8888 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Bi_3 wrote:
Totally agree, I don't know what we differently though from a policing perspective. Accept some level of victimization in the hope that things work out in a generation or two?
I not sure either, but less funding in one realm would certainly provide for other options to be explored:
Quote:
“You can have all the armored personnel carriers you want in Ferguson,” said Terry, “but public safety is more likely to come from redressing environmental pollution, poor education, and unfair work.”
Totally agree, I don't know what we differently though from a policing perspective. Accept some level of victimization in the hope that things work out in a generation or two?
I not sure either, but less funding in one realm would certainly provide for other options to be explored:
Quote:
“You can have all the armored personnel carriers you want in Ferguson,” said Terry, “but public safety is more likely to come from redressing environmental pollution, poor education, and unfair work.”
Looks we are about to conduct this experiment by having fewer and fewer police:
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8888 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Bi_3 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
Totally agree, I don't know what we differently though from a policing perspective. Accept some level of victimization in the hope that things work out in a generation or two?
I not sure either, but less funding in one realm would certainly provide for other options to be explored:
Quote:
“You can have all the armored personnel carriers you want in Ferguson,” said Terry, “but public safety is more likely to come from redressing environmental pollution, poor education, and unfair work.”
Looks we are about to conduct this experiment by having fewer and fewer police:
Fewer police doesn't have to mean fewer people to respond:
Quote:
Some community-based safety models have yielded important results. Smith singles out the Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets program (known as CAHOOTS) in Eugene, Ore., which supplements police with a community-based public safety program. When callers dial 911 they are often diverted to teams of workers trained in crisis resolution, mental health, and emergency medicine, who are better equipped to handle non-life-threatening situations. The numbers support her case. In 2017 the program received 25,000 calls, only 250 of which required police assistance. Training similar teams of specialists who don’t carry weapons to handle all traffic stops could go a long way toward ending violent police encounters, she said.
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8888 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
I did a quick search to see what the site had on homicide specifically and found this interesting if only that (since it's still a fairly unsupported theory):
It must be really bad if the cops are sitting on this footage.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
It must be really bad if the cops are sitting on this footage.
Warrant based on confidential informant buying drugs from the decedent. Is this going to turn out like the Texas case with that couple killed and the warrant was based on a non-existent confidential informant? Get some overtime for serving a warrant, get a drug arrest, keep those promotions coming.
Even if the warrant was legit, this is the kind of policing we should have less of. Stop going after violent crime? Not so on board with that.
They are going to have to cancel the deescalation training they probably signed up that Deleware police officer for since he's been pronounced clinically dead..
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum