Bringing up "black-on-black crime" is a common disingenuous tactic to distract from conversations about police brutality. Most violence is committed by people you're around, and in an intensely segregated country, that will usually be people that are the same race as you. It's a complete digression from the actual conversation here, which is about agents of the state, entrusted to act as enforcers of the state's monopoly on violence, abusing that trust and meting out violence to people who have done nothing wrong.
It is a tactic commonly used as you say. It's also a relevant statistic here, although all race on black violence would have been even better. It still serves to support the point quite clearly that police are not to be feared as much as criminals, even if you're black.
Having said that, a lot of criminal violence happens if you're mixed up in that world or frequenting a bad area as opposed to just random violence. There's something different about police violence where it has that random quality and can affect you anywhere, sometimes just minding your own business.
Plus it's doubly egregious because the police are supposed to protect you, not hurt you. Even before this became an issue, and as a white person, I get nervous with police interactions. You just don't know what kind of mood they're in or how they're interpreting the situation.
It is completely irrelevant. It's like responding to "It's raining today" with "It was sunny last week". At best, it's a non-sequitur, at worst it's an active attempt to distract from the conversation at hand. And it ignores the facts that A) black-on-black crime does not happen at a substantially higher rate than white-on-white crime, B) the explanation for why most crime is intra-racial in a segregated country is pretty straightforwardly obvious, and C) Black people actually are attacked and killed by police at wildly disproportionate rates, which is why the subject of police violence against Black people is a valid topic of conversation, whereas "black-on-black crime" is a pointless or hostile digression.
It's irrelevant to the real issue, but not to the upthread claim that blacks view police as the greatest threat. In the latter context, it is not irrelevant to point out that such a view does not seem to be in line with the evidence.
"Blacks view police as the biggest threat" seems to be perfectly in line with what Black people are and have been saying for decades if not centuries.
If only folks would listen to Black voices, they wouldn't be gumming up the conversation with irrelevance.
White on white crime is also much more prevalent than crime across racial boundaries. A priori you are much more likely to be a victim of crime by someone you know or in your immediate community. Because America is so segregated still, the conclusion follows pretty immediately.
It's in line with what people have been saying, but as parent observed, it's not in line with risks. But this is nothing new for people in general; we spend way more newspaper inches worrying about terrorism (which kills a fraction of people) than traffic fatalities (which is 8th leading cause of death globally).
This is, of course, as true as it is irrelevant. Because police can be 1/7th as likely to kill black people as non-police, and that's still far, far too many and a completely different category of murder (because the murderers are rarely punished, and are protected by the power of the state). Even if cops were 1/70th as likely to be the murderer of a black person, it's too many.
Some kinds of death are both avoidable and morally reprehensible for a society to allow or condone.
Sure. You're correct. But it's such a frequently deployed concern troll that it's challenging to assume good intent. Like many, pjc50 is just trying to articulate, organize some thoughts on a very tough topic. Does every. single. statement. have. to. be. pendanted. and. relitigated. every. with. the. same. tired. talking. points. every. single. time?
You completely missed the point. It's relevant to this thread that blacks should fear the police more than criminal violence. Well sorry, that's not born out by the statistics, so it's an irrational belief.
You are saying "violence", but the statistics cited in this thread are myopically focused on murder. Non–lethal violence, racial profiling, disproportionate sentencing, etc, are all forms of physical and judicial violence that might justify Black people fearing the police more than criminals.
>It still serves to support the point quite clearly that police are not to be feared as much as criminals, even if you're black.
As you point out yourself, it doesn't necessarily if you consider the average black person. The average black person is not a gang member, not a criminal and doesn't hang out with those groups. It may very well be that for such a person the police are a bigger risk than criminals. It's simply that the massively higher violence amongst criminals shifts the overall numbers.
I have a co-worker, middle class white collar living in a good neighborhood. Walking home with his kid from school. Stopped by police with hands on holsters and told to turn around slowly. Was afraid for his life. Talk to most any black person in the US and they have a similar story.
Resisting arrest should not lead to death. There is no urgency to shoot someone who is drunk in the back as he is fleeing when you have his car in your possession.
Polices are using unnecessarily lethal force indiscriminately for offenses and in situations that don't require in the least. They have been getting positive reinforcement by being not prosecuted and being protected by their force and the system in general.
> They have been getting positive reinforcement by being not prosecuted and being protected by their force and the system in general.
Also, a number of cases have come out recently of police were disciplined, including dismissals, for reporting or intervening against excessive use of force by other cops, so there is negative reinforcement for good cops as well as positive reinforcement for the bad ones.
"Positive" and "negative" in reinforcement don't mean "good, pleasant, desired" and "bad, unpleasant, not desired". They mean "something was added" and "something was taken away". Better names would be "additive" and "subtractive".
The term for "good, pleasant, desired" is "reinforcement", for "bad, unpleasant, not desired" is punishment.
So:
Positive reinforcement --> Behaviour leads to addition of pleasurable stimulus. Eg. Press button, receive food.
Negative reinforcement --> Behaviour leads to removal of unpleasant stimulus. Eg. Press button, persistent loud noise is muted.
Positive punishment --> Behaviour leads to addition of unpleasant stimulus. Eg. Press button, loud noise begins.
Negative punishment --> Behaviour leads to removal of pleasant stimulus. Eg. Press button, food is taken away.
We’ve also seen the last month that police will lie to cover their backsides. Resisting arrest without video evidence to prove it just means they needed a retroactive excuse.
Exactly this. The force used should always match the situation. Deadly force should not be used ever on an unarmed individual. Police should have to face trial if a prosecutor believes a case can be made that the force used was inappropriate - no special protections.
That does not remove the logical fallacy of implying that because police are (wrongly, as you say) a mortal threat to those who resist arrests, therefore police are one of the biggest threats (if not the threat) in an average black persons life. The recent two cases do not offer convincing evidence for the latter (although other cases may do so).
Of course this (particular topic) isn't really a place for arguing for an argument's sake. Rather, it's for showing your compassion.
I think you're correct. They're likely not the biggest threat. That's probably heart disease, cancer, or diabetes in the US. Violence of any kind is way down the list for most people.
I don't think they have to be the biggest threat to acknowledge that the police are out of control and above the law. Fix them, or abolish them and recreate them if they can't be fixed.
This issue goes well beyond racism. Blacks feel it the most, but this problem affects everybody. Nobody wants police that can steal from you (civil forfeiture) or assault or even kill you without sufficient reason or consequences.
Societies aren't judged on how they treat their average members of society alone; also how they treat the outliers.
The US treats its outliers poorly. We have the highest rate of incarceration and a disquieting likelihood of police interactions ending in violence against suspects relative to other countries.
Not sure what "walking catalogue of locally available illicit substances" is a reference to, as that describes none of the recent police murders AFAIK.
Also FYI, in the case of Rayshard Brooks (the victim who took the officer's Taser), the District Attorney said that the Taser "had already been fired twice and was thus empty and no longer a threat". https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-atlanta-ra...
That's misleading to the point of lying. The "already" here means the split second between Brooks firing it at the officer and the officer shooting him.
I’ll point out, by the way, that a taser is one of these “non-lethal” weapons with which we should be fine with cops firing at groups of protesters indiscriminately. But apparently when someone uses one against a cop it’s worth the immediate death penalty. I wonder what’d happen if a protester shot a cop with a rubber bullet?
Split second? The officer hadn't even drawn his gun when Brooks fired the Taser. He made the decision to draw his gun in the first place already knowing that the Taser Brooks held was depleted.
Are you serious? It's clearly true. The officer's gun remains in its holster until after Brooks fires the Taser — you can tell because his right arm is still vertical. The NYT has a good breakdown: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/videos-rayshard-brooks...
And regardless, let's not move the goalposts to consider only the time after Brooks fired the Taser. After all, it's not like that was the first opportunity the officer had to calculate how many shots it had left.
>He made the decision to draw his gun in the first place already knowing
Which is different from the gun being drawn. You can clearly see the officer pass his tazer from his right to left hand and then reach for his gun prior to the tazer shot.
>And regardless, it's not like the moment that Brooks fired the Taser was the first opportunity the officer had to calculate how many shots it had left.
Having a second potentially valid argument doesn't change the accuracy of the one made.
> You can clearly see the officer pass his tazer from his right to left hand and then reach for his gun prior to the tazer shot.
Reaching for a holstered handgun and deciding to draw it are two separate things.
> Having a second potentially valid argument doesn't change the accuracy of the one made.
I'm making exactly one argument: the officer who killed Rayshard Brooks did so knowing that the Taser in his hand was useless. You've yet to offer any evidence to the contrary.
No. Also, among other things you might in bad faith argue that I imply – but I do not – is that even if that was the case, killing him would've been OK.
What I actually implied was that I hardly think these two are very good examples of “average” persons, or “average” black persons, which should be taken into consideration in parent's logic.
You seem to be effectively saying that your average black person is a criminal because they see extrajudicial murder as being a bad thing, which is a remarkably racist thing to argue for. Not to mention your incredibly disingenuous takes on the situations that occurred and the reason why people are angry.
He definitely should not have brought up "black-on-black" crime. The statement he was trying to refute was that blacks are more likely to die from police than from random criminals.
To evaluate whether or not that is true, we just need two numbers: (1) how many black people a year are killed by the police, and (2) how many black people a year are killed by random criminals.
It's hard to think of a good reason one would narrow #2 to just "black-on-black" crime if the goal is to show that the original statement is wrong.
It's also kind of irrelevant in another sense. People have been working on stopping crime for millennia and are still nowhere near figuring it out.
Police killings are something we might actually be able to do something about, so it makes sense to concentrate on them even if they are not actually the biggest immediate danger to individuals.
Right, a more clear number would have been total murders.
The race of the murderer was irrelevant to my point, and the difference between police killing versus getting murdered would have been even more pronounced had I included all murders.
I'm a little confused about your point about stopping crime. Surely it can't be stopped completely, but just as surely, some policies are more effective than others. For instance, ending the war on drugs would likely dry up funding for gangs.
It's a relevant statistic for this discussion, which is not a discussion about generic police brutality. Retracting from "Black Live Matters" to "we're discussing police brutality here" is a common mote-and-bailey tactic that isn't a valid argument.
Moat-and-bailey is perfectly valid if it's used to indicate how failure of the argument to address the more-defensible position implies the argument fails on the less-defensible position (as a general comment on rhetorical process, not a comment on Black Lives Matter or police brutality).
I don't know if this is valid or true, but I sometimes think that the 1990s through early 2000s pop culture depiction of black culture embedded itself strongly in the psyche of many white Americans. It sounds silly to say that gangster rap, and The Wire, and such things are responsible for racial stereotypes, but for many of my white friends, I think this is absolutely true. One sad part of this is that some of the most well-known, financially successful black Americans came out of this environment, either real, or pretended in order to sell entertainment (and make a lot of money).
> I sometimes think that the 1990s through early 2000s pop culture depiction of black culture embedded itself strongly in the psyche of many white Americans
The portrayal of black people as prone to violence and incorrigibly dangerous goes beyond fiction and well into the past to the founding of the United States.
For one example, consider the United States' nominal newspaper of record, the New York Times.
Do an internet search using the following terms (no quotes) "NYTimes Giant Negro".
Stereotypes of blacks as intimidating and dangerous go beyond fiction and the end of the Twentieth Century into the domain of "reported facts" and well into the past.
I live in the USA, and I've mainly heard "blacks" used by older people, or casually racist people who have had bad experiences with black people. For example, my father and grandfather both say it, and they're both working class white people who've had some bad experiences living and working in lower income areas just outside Baltimore. It's not the kind of thing someone would get fired over, but it's a pretty good indication of their mindset towards minorities.
The relevant stereotypes are older than independence and deeply embedded in American culture, they don't stem from 1990s to early 2000s popular culture.
I agree there are stereotypes much, much older than this, of course - and 90s pop culture does not explain away the longer term discrimination. Still, if the question is about how white Americans perceive black Americans as a group, especially those white Americans who do not know many black Americans personally, I think you have to consider portrayals in pop culture as a factor. At least, that is my perception, as a white American who has only a handful of black friends, but who has a number of white friends who are/were into this kind of pop culture. At the least, it reinforces any existing fears that might have been initially planted by other sources (e.g. racist family members).
> I think you have to consider portrayals in pop culture as a factor.
Sure, but pop culture in large part expresses and transmits preexisting stereotypes (and even when it doesn’t, it is perceived through the lens of those stereotypes.)
I'm not saying it's not involved, just that it's not the source.
I agree. I guess the part I'm trying to explore is, when given a stereotype, whether the group that is the target of that stereotype seeks to try and change the stereotype, or exploit the stereotype for personal gain. It seems that a lot of white Americans, and (likely) a smaller number of black Americans, made a lot of money in the 90s (and probably today) exploiting the stereotype of urban black communities having a lot of violence. That is not to say that the violence was not already there, whether police violence, or gang violence, or violence of some other form - simply that this portrayal of black Americans became pretty common in the 90s. Contrast this with earlier shows like the Jeffersons, Sanford and Sons, Cosby Show, Benson, etc. Maybe it was a necessary step to go through in exposing real issues, but the way it was presented (I think) established a new stereotype that many young, black American men are armed. I think this stereotype is likely a factor in the way some police officers behave - fearfully, and full of adrenaline - which too often leads to unwarranted and unacceptable violence.
True. And looking at their comment history, this "What about black-on-black crime?!" seems to be a recurring bit over the last few weeks whenever people here talk about police brutality. Still, I think it's worthwhile to name and push back on this tactic when we see it, because it's pretty commonly used when people want to minimize or ignore police violence.
Are you suggesting that the user chose their username in honor of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States? I suppose it's possible, but it's patently absurd to assume that is the only (or even most likely) reason for their name or explanation of their intentions.
It's relevent because you need to compare the costs of police (e.g. police violence) to the scale of problem that is supposedly being solved (e.g. murders).
You can choose to fear who you want to fear, I guess. But the numbers seem to suggest pretty much everyone should be more concerned about being murdered than being killed by police.
Being killed by police is more of a betrayal, for sure. For that reason it might be worse in some sense. But I'm not sure why that should result in disproportionate fear on the order of 20X.
Also, I should say that it's much harder to pin down how many murders police prevent.
Because if you successfully defend yourself from a murderer you have a rightful plea to self defense.
If you successfully defend yourself from a cop trying to murder you. You will be lucky with life without the possibility of parole. There is an implicit cannot flee cannot fight in an interaction with a law enforcement officer. So pretty much your natural fight or flight is neutralized and that is a hell of a situation to be in.
Murder is an understood societal outlier that society doesn't tolerate.
Society is disquietingly tolerant of murder when the murderer is wearing a badge and executing a suspect "In the line of duty."
If not for the nationwide protests, it is extremely likely the murderers of George Floyd would still be employed by their police departments, forget arrested.
"Society is disquietingly tolerant of murder when the murderer is wearing a badge"
I agree.
But the original post seemed to be saying that it was rational for blacks to be carefree about criminals and afraid of police, which just doesn't seem in line with the data.
And it's also disquieting how little people seem to care about murder victims, who are much more numerous and also disproportionately black (by a greater factor than the disproportionate killings by police). Those black lives matter, too.
Criminals don't wear uniforms, you can't tell them apart from regular people when you see them in public. Regular people who mean you no harm outnumber criminals significantly and it would be absurd to fear them.
Police officers are instantly recognizable. If you're statistically more likely to be harmed by the police than by a regular person then it is completely rational to be concerned when you see one.
>Bringing up "black-on-black crime" is a common disingenuous tactic to distract from conversations about police brutality.
It's part of the story, though. The incident in the linked article started because a group of teens jumped another and stole his phone. If that's happening 10x as often then innocent kids in that neighborhood are going to be 10x as likely to be swept up in police action.
When people ask "why isn't anyone talking about black on black crime?" or why aren't "we" in the black community talking about it, my response is usually to start by asking "Who is 'we'"?[0] and then to retort that "'We' are, 'we' have been" and several black authors have written and are writing about it.
- "Locking Up Our Own", James Foreman, an analysis by a black attorney discussing black crime, black recidivism and black involvement as attorneys and judges in the criminal justice system
- "In Contempt", Christopher Darden, an autobiography written by one of the attorneys in the OJ Simpson trial where swaths of the book are dedicated to Darner's views and interactions with other attorneys who tackled "black on black crime" in LA during the 90's prior to his time as a District Attorney
- "The Man Not" (the most recent publication in this non-exhaustive list), Tommy Curry, explorations on the victimization of black men by their black guardians, with some focus on sexual abuse and exploitation of their bodies as the lens through which Curry focuses a larger critique
- "Negroland", Margo Jefferson, a memoir of the black elite class of Chicago and ramifications of black success experienced sometimes at the expense of lower-class black Americans, perpetuated sometimes by upper-class black Americans
I'm a bit fatigued by the insinuation that black America is shirking a responsibility to tackle these in-group issues, because it's not as if there's a lack of poignant critical theory emerging from our group on the topic. It's all there and readily available, and the names and reference content I provided here isn't an exhaustive list either.
I don't see anything in there to refute what I said. In fact, he seems to agree with my numbers at least. He admits that Blacks are roughly 10x as likely to commit murder. If we agree with that and agree that is some rough proxy for criminality why wouldn't we expect about 10 times as much police violence against Black people?
If we agree with that and agree that is some rough proxy for criminality why wouldn't we expect about 10 times as much police violence against Black people?
Caveat lector: If we agree.
I don't agree with this idea that the statistics of criminality in the black community is a proxy for anything, and more that it is a result of multiple compounding issues that snowballed throughout generations of peoples bringing us to where we are today. In your mind what is this a proxy for? I'd like to hear this notion unpacked.
Those questions are varied and nuanced and their answers are equally varied and nuanced, and against the backdrop of exactly how certain members of the constabulary execute (pun most certainly and deliberately intended) violence in response to violence are people like me trying to desperately point at as this the topic we want to discuss when we say "Black Lives Matter", yet time and time again we have to stop and have the "black people commit more crimes" discussion with people who are focused on the math of crimes committed while black at the expense of just about any other valid variable in the equation.
So if we take the "black people commit more crimes" framework on its face, does that mean they deserve to die for all of them? Did Sandra Bland really need to be shot because she didn't want to put out a cigarette at a traffic stop or could the officer have written her the moving citation she probably actually deserved, and gone about his policing elsewhere?[0] Did Eric Garner need asphyxiation for a civil citation when he was stopped for selling illegal cigarettes? Did George Floyd need to have a knee on his neck for nearly 10 minutes for a counterfeit $20?
I challenge us all to think beyond just "well they committed a crime" and start asking some hard goddamn questions about what we're saying if that's going to be the response to critical theories of criminal justice-because many (not all) of the names commonly shouted out in discussion about police brutality committed petty offenses that should have received citations but instead received death sentences; highlighting a severely disproportionate view of policing scofflaws that breaks "well they broke the law" down into "contempt of cop"[1].
I don't see anywhere in your post where you actually addressed the point I made. Again, that is if Black people commit X times as many crimes we should expect X times as many negative police interactions. Whether that be excessive violence or innocents being swept up in police action or anything else.
I addressed it by disagreeing with and refuting it. You assumed there was a consensus and agreement on the merits, there is no such consensus; criminality cannot be a proxy for criminality-at least I don't believe that to be the case.
From this, allow me to make my position more clear:
No, we shouldn't "expect" an increase in police violence in response to black criminality, because it assumes violence is the appropriate and proportionate State response to deviant criminal behavior when often it is neither appropriate nor proportionate nor even necessary. Again, Sandra Bland: died during a traffic stop; George Floyd and Eric Garner died during Terry[0] stops. Breonna Taylor died while she was asleep. Cite for me the case law that admonishes an escalation of physical force to issue civil citations and I will consider the point earnestly and openly.
Furthermore, we need to narrow the scope and find an actionable definition for "officer safety" as many LEOs use as a defense against misconduct charges.
Resisting arrest should not be a death sentence, officers should be trained better and dealt with far more swiftly (it took nearly three months for an officer who blind-fired into Breonna Taylor's house to even be disciplined by his precinct and still has not faced charges[1]). If I blind fired my weapon onto the streets and bullets went into someone's home, I'd be arrested and charged. If I blind fired my weapon unprovoked as a member of the armed services, as I formerly was, I'd be court marshaled faster than the SR-71 can fly for failure to follow rules of engagement.
Public peace officers shouldn't be held to any lesser of a standard.
Your premise is therefore addressed, but rejected on merits.
It's hard to debate someone that doesn't understand basic concepts like this. Good luck to you.
I understand the concepts well, I just disagree with the premise as you've framed it, and I'd like to think I've done as much without making any insinuations about your intellect or ability to comprehend them or resorting any other form of red-herring personal attack.
Black on black crime should be really labeled poor on poor crime. Also there is something unqiue about the US experience, black people in the UK commit crime at a much lower rate than white people in the US.
That's because no one outside of the Black community listens to Black voices about Black social issues unless (1) it's positive attention to a rich Black person blaming the the moral failings of Blacks for the problems of Black communities and absolving White and wealthy society, or (2) it's attention (usually, historically, negative, but there are moments when that flips on one issue or another) to Black people questioning a trusted (by Whites) social institution and it's contribution to Black social problems.
Everything else is beneath notice of the wider society. It's talked about, but no one outside of the community is listening. Which is fine, except when they base their response to the issues on which they do pay a little attention to assumption that what they aren't hearing on other issues is because it's not being talked about.
That's disingenuous. Police brutality almost always comes up in the context of BLM and in this specific case the article made it a racial issue. You can't do that and then say "why are we talking about race" when (the general) you started the conversation talking about race.
Or we can acknowledge that discussions oriented around in-group violence perpetuated by members of said group (which isn't novel nor unique to the black community) do not obviate discussions of police misconduct and issues apparent in the criminal justice system perpetrated by a powerful and state-operated out-group, Mr. Davis.
For my part, I have not made such a claim nor do I hold such a position that fact-checking is not allowed-I'd encourage asking someone who actually said this.
The narrative you are suggesting is unequivocally false and has been for a while. While the black on black crime rate is at 89% the white on white crime rate is at 83%, not far off and receives very little relative attention.
In addition, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics, while blacks in the absolute cause 50% of the violent crime, when you control for income (white people have 10x the wealth) and location (rural, suburban, urban, etc) white people actually commit about 5% more violent crime i.e. poor urban white people commit more violent crime than poor urban black people.
People need to start understanding these facts, remove old narratives and realize there's more interesting things to focus on than race its self.
Quote from the link you use as a source in your original post
> Although half of the people shot and killed by police are white, black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate. They account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population, but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white Americans
Pointing out that the point is the frequency and not absolute numbers. Yes, of course, murders by people within one's own community are most common (for people in any community). Domestic murders in particular are by far the most common. Does this make the police murder rate acceptable?
It also doesn't make fear of police in any way misplaced when the rate is more than twice the rate for black than for white (stat also taken from the source you provided).
"but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white Americans"
That's a slightly confusing wording. More whites are killed by police than blacks, but due to the difference in the general population, the proportion of blacks killed by police is about 2-3X.
Nothing makes a police murder rate "acceptable" in the abstract, we should always try to improve on it, assuming we don't make something else worse. For instance, if we eliminate police, we will eliminate murders by police. But murders by others might increase by even more (I say "might" because it's hard to get exact numbers, so I'm just speculating), which would be a net loss.
The point about domestic murders is a good one, but I'm not sure if that applies to high-crime areas very well. For instance, over 100 people were shot in Chicago last weekend, and 14 died.
So, let’s look at the numbers. What’s the ratio of people to police? I would bet that it’s a lot higher than 20:1. In other words, a black person meeting a polic officer is a whole lot more likely to get killed than a black person meeting another black person. That’s why fear of police is perfectly rational for blacks.
But the point is about whether you are afraid to go outside or not, and if so, is it because of criminals or police. Before you leave, you don't know how many criminals or police you are going to encounter.
Even if tigers are really scary when you meet one, I am not afraid to go outside because I might get eaten by a tiger.
I guess we could do a lot of subgroup analysis here and try to figure out based on day of the week and the route you are taking how much of your fear should be allotted to police versus allotted to criminals. But you start with the big, easy-to-find numbers and do a basic sanity check. I don't think being carefree about criminals and afraid of police is rational in very many situations.
Honestly, as someone who hangs around “criminals”... as long as you actually pay your drug dealer nothing that will ever be reported as a crime is going to happen. Most crime that would be perpetrated against a stranger is property crime, and poor individuals by and large aren’t the target of it. If you’re a shopkeeper, sure.
On the other hand, I’ve seen more than enough people being arrested for nonsense, having done nothing but tick an officer off in some apparently random way - and these people will always be released immediately before the police would have to explain to a judge why they had arrested this person. Being detained is plenty scary enough, and could cost you your job.
The difference is in the forward probabilities. Most people who are murdered by criminals are socially connected to their murderers, e.g. they are in gangs. People who are killed by police are killed without that connection, and there's little they could have done about it.
But interactions with police are less likely to go smoothly if you're black, and you're more likely to have those interactions, so the perceived threat is real, it's like being into extreme sports.
So I guess that is my assessment of black life in America...it's an "extreme sport" and it shouldn't be.
How familiar are you with the bail and plea bargain system?
Police regularly get no punishments for murdering civilians, as they are trained to give the "I was fearing for my life" line in courts.
Whereas if I'm a Black individual, especially in a poor area that's over policed, I won't be able to pay for bail, and won't be able to afford a good lawyer if I'm pinned for murder. Over 90% of cases are settled by plea bargains, where the defendant will take a guilty sentence if it results in less jail time.
If people only knew how many cases are closed with incarcerating innocent people who were at the wrong time in the wrong place ... And being black qualifies them to be guilty. It’s so sad, it’s not only police but a whole system form police to prosecutors to judges... We need reform!!
Definitely, it's also why seeing "data-driven policing" makes my spider sense go off, since the "data" in this case has been tainted by decades of racist policing and policy.
This is a great rebuttal twitter thread, so thanks for posting it. But you should really add text to give the link some context. People are more likely to click on it if they know what it is first.
This figure is rarely brought up in good faith, but if you're curious, it mainly consists of inter-gang violence, i.e. turf wars. Which is not generally something regular people are exposed to all that much. It also asumes death could be the only negative outcome of interacting with police.
It is also something exacerbated by the war on drugs, the criminal justice system and deap-seated discrimination. Police seems like a pretty good place to start fighting.
I want to apologize for this thread. I can't reply to my own comment or edit it now, so I'm replying to your comment which was a reasonable reply. I realize probably nobody will read this old thread, but I wanted to write this as a way to think through what I could have done better.
On complex topics is when it's most important to be clear about a point, rather than just throwing out a few data points and simplistic conclusions.
My point was that misplaced fear (e.g. not supported by data) has its own risks, and fear is probably not the right emotion for injustice anyway (anger makes more sense). The point may be right or wrong when the totality of the data is examined.
On HN, this could have been a productive discussion but my comment was a distraction. Next time I'll ask a question instead.
I've looked at and seen similar data. It's a problem too. However, let's put the data aside for a second and look at the perception of these scenarios.
In one example, you can fight back legally and protect yourself. You can be confident if found they'll go to jail. You can be confident that they have to hide who they are.
In another example you may not fight back legally and protect yourself. They will likely not go to jail. You know exactly who they are and they keep coming around your neighborhood.
We need systems in place to make people safe because of and from the people who police our streets.
What about non–lethal violence? What about racial profiling, e.g. "stop and frisk" and "driving while black"? What about bail and sentencing disparities? The fear of the police extends far beyond murder.
Most violence perpetrated by criminals is against other criminals, so that doesn't necessarily have much to do with the fears of law abiding mothers for their law abiding children.
This comment is frustrating for all the reasons pointed out, as well as another:
Cops do their crimes with impunity. If a non-cop harms you or kills someone, it is at least possible for them to be caught, then brought to justice.
Depending on circumstance, one can combat or run away from a non-cop threat without being hunted down and kidnapped. Hell, even a non-cop street gang would have to recognize you and have the energy to come after you, vs. the cops that have the full force of government behind them.
