Racial Profiling?

[jammindude]

I fail to see how that changes anything. All you're saying is that racist cops only have to say that they are looking for a black guy.

[hefdaddy42]

You don't see a difference between someone being detained for questioning who fit a known physical profile for a specific suspect of a specific crime and someone being detained "just because they look suspicious" and not for any specific incident?

[bosk1]

I don't mean to take sides, but I think Hef and Chino, you guys are missing the point of Jammin's post.  How I read it is that the cop sounded like he was giving a bogus excuse to stop him that only sounded legit on its face, just like a cop pulling over a Black driver might give a legit-sounding but obviously bogus excuse, which makes the two situations exactly parallel.  At least, that's what I took from it, if I am not giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

And again, not taking sides, but I think you guys are talking past each other.

[jammindude]

I don't mean to take sides, but I think Hef and Chino, you guys are missing the point of Jammin's post.  How I read it is that the cop sounded like he was giving a bogus excuse to stop him that only sounded legit on its face, just like a cop pulling over a Black driver might give a legit-sounding but obviously bogus excuse, which makes the two situations exactly parallel.  At least, that's what I took from it, if I am not giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

And again, not taking sides, but I think you guys are talking past each other.

THIS!  Thank you, my friend. 

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, but what you guys are missing is that the story given to jd doesn't match at all what we are discussing.  People who are racially profiled aren't given stories that specific.  We aren't talking past each other, we are talking apples and oranges.

[Stadler]

You don't see a difference between someone being detained for questioning who fit a known physical profile for a specific suspect of a specific crime and someone being detained "just because they look suspicious" and not for any specific incident?

With those two stark examples, sure I do.  But life is never that black and white.  Wow, pun not intended.  What if it isn't ONE specific incident, but a pattern of crime in recent history?   That's different again.   

And there is also the idea of "what is the police role"?   Reactionary crime investigation and apprehension, or crime prevention?  Or both?   Not going so far as a police state, but to el Barto's point about El Al not being targeted, if there is even one criminal that opts to either not commit the crime or relocate somewhere else to commit his/her crime because one time an officer asked one person for ID under the "suspicious look", don't we all win? 

And we're also ignoring the larger "science" (call me Jon Taffer) of crime prevention.   What's it called? The broken window theory?  Whereby you crack down harder on minor crimes and in a general sense it reduces all crimes.  What's wrong with that?  It sounds - at least in theory - that some of us here are saying to LEO, "Stand back, wait as long as you can and only step in when absolutely necessary, and only to the bare minimum necessary in that particular moment."   And meanwhile, like cockroaches with the lights out, at all other times crime runs rampant.

[hefdaddy42]

You don't see a difference between someone being detained for questioning who fit a known physical profile for a specific suspect of a specific crime and someone being detained "just because they look suspicious" and not for any specific incident?

With those two stark examples, sure I do.  But life is never that black and white. 

On the contrary, life is frequently that black and white.  And many times your viewpoint on the subject would depend on whether you are black or white.

(Not you, specifically - the generic "you")

[El Barto]

Not going so far as a police state, but to el Barto's point about El Al not being targeted, if there is even one criminal that opts to either not commit the crime or relocate somewhere else to commit his/her crime because one time an officer asked one person for ID under the "suspicious look", don't we all win? 

Ben Gurion is a police state. The difference is they're honest about it and not giving a damn. And once we get to a point where simply being alive makes you a suspected criminal then we all lose. Plain and simple.

With regards to the broken window theory I have no problem with proactive policing. However, the actual concept of proactive policing is quite different from pulling people over to see if they're up to no good.

[hefdaddy42]

I have no problem with proactive policing. However, the actual concept of proactive policing is quite different from pulling people over to see if they're up to no good.

Yep.

[jammindude]

I feel like people are completely glossing over how vague this officer was in asking for my ID. He never mentioned a specific event, all he said was I matched the description of someone they were looking for. That could have been anyone. It could have even been someone with a warrant from 5 years ago. No specific recent event was ever mentioned. You guys are reading that part into it.

[Scheavo]

I don't mean to take sides, but I think Hef and Chino, you guys are missing the point of Jammin's post.  How I read it is that the cop sounded like he was giving a bogus excuse to stop him that only sounded legit on its face, just like a cop pulling over a Black driver might give a legit-sounding but obviously bogus excuse, which makes the two situations exactly parallel.  At least, that's what I took from it, if I am not giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

And if Jammin was black, and he moved to quickly for his wallet, he might get shot for it. The fact that jammin says it doesn't bother him is in part due to how easy and well that interaction went. The argument against this is that if he was black, it could have been different, and good intentions may have gotten him shot. That would certainly color the event differently.

And the bigger point to my last point is that if you voluntarily choose to identify yourself with a criminal nitche of society, you are GOING to be profiled as a criminal.

But what makes something indicative of a "criminal niche of society"? I agree with you that there are indications which are more or less valid to go off of. I'm disagreeing with you on the exact specific things you listed, and why they should be considered indicative of a criminal niche of society. 

[hefdaddy42]

I feel like people are completely glossing over how vague this officer was in asking for my ID. He never mentioned a specific event, all he said was I matched the description of someone they were looking for. That could have been anyone. It could have even been someone with a warrant from 5 years ago. No specific recent event was ever mentioned. You guys are reading that part into it.

I'm not reading into it that he told you about a specific event.  But I am deducing that if they were actually looking for someone, that some specific event happened to cause them to look for someone of your description. 

Most people who are pulled over or otherwise detained for reason of racial profiling (which is the subject of the thread) aren't given such a reason.  That's why I mentioned apples and oranges.  Your experience doesn't match the experience that we are talking about.

[jammindude]

One cop hates black people, another hates long haired hippie teenage stoners who should get a job....tomato, tomato....

[Implode]

Well to be fair, hippie teenage stoners don't have a history of decades of oppression and institutionalized racism.

[jammindude]

Well to be fair, hippie teenage stoners don't have a history of decades of oppression and institutionalized racism.

To a degree, I concede the point...but I think you're entirely ignoring the 60's...five decades ago.  It's not a NON-issue.  8 students killed by police in Kent, and one of Neil Young's most famous songs written about the event.     No my friend...it may not be to the degree of black racism, but hatred of "peace loving, beatnick, tree-huggin, liberal hippies" is hardly to be completely swept under the rug so conviently.   

[El Barto]

I can certainly tell you that cops hate teenage stoners. However we were always considered harmless. Just annoying and deserving of great hassle. We weren't likely to get beaten or shot during a traffic stop. Just taken to jail for an expensive release and unpleasant phone call to the rents. It was more like bullying as opposed to oppression and hatred.

[Stadler]

On the contrary, life is frequently that black and white.  And many times your viewpoint on the subject would depend on whether you are black or white.

(Not you, specifically - the generic "you")

Yeah, I don't agree with that.  Or at least I would say "life is often black and white, but when it isn't, it REALLY isn't, and it does no one any good to pretend it is".    I think history is LITTERED with examples of colossal screw ups which started with the notion that "it's really this simple:...."   

[Stadler]

I don't mean to take sides, but I think Hef and Chino, you guys are missing the point of Jammin's post.  How I read it is that the cop sounded like he was giving a bogus excuse to stop him that only sounded legit on its face, just like a cop pulling over a Black driver might give a legit-sounding but obviously bogus excuse, which makes the two situations exactly parallel.  At least, that's what I took from it, if I am not giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

And if Jammin was black, and he moved to quickly for his wallet, he might get shot for it. The fact that jammin says it doesn't bother him is in part due to how easy and well that interaction went. The argument against this is that if he was black, it could have been different, and good intentions may have gotten him shot. That would certainly color the event differently.

And the bigger point to my last point is that if you voluntarily choose to identify yourself with a criminal nitche of society, you are GOING to be profiled as a criminal.

But what makes something indicative of a "criminal niche of society"? I agree with you that there are indications which are more or less valid to go off of. I'm disagreeing with you on the exact specific things you listed, and why they should be considered indicative of a criminal niche of society.

And my entire point is, you can't just throw the race card on this without some further information and analysis.  That cop above was CLEARLY wrong, and is being punished for it.  But there is not one shred of evidence in that entire exchange that points to race as being the determining factor.   That the perp was actually "black" isn't that "further information and analysis".   ALL the people we've talk about were male, too.  Why is the shooting not because they are male?   "DWM" in KNH's vernacular?   The evidence actually WOULD support that, since FEMALE drivers don't show the same racial bias and get pulled over less often than males. 

Actually, more specifically, my point is it is probably combination of factors, as opposed to one.   It just saddens me that no one cares to actually KNOW what is going on. 

[kirksnosehair]

That's DWB, not DWM


And it's not "MY" vernacular, either.  Unless you consider "American Contemporary Vernacular" to be mine.  I'm old, but I'm not that old.   


Gee, isn't that interesting?  The racial profiling issue has become a substantial enough problem in our society that our culture has actually come up with a specific phrase (which is a moderately clever reworking of DUI or DWI) has actually become a thing. 

[Stadler]

That's DWB, not DWM


And it's not "MY" vernacular, either.  Unless you consider "American Contemporary Vernacular" to be mine.  I'm old, but I'm not that old.   


Gee, isn't that interesting?  The racial profiling issue has become a substantial enough problem in our society that our culture has actually come up with a specific phrase (which is a moderately clever reworking of DUI or DWI) has actually become a thing.

No, I specifically meant "DWM"; I was making the reference to "driving while male", the stats of which probably DO prove causation, at least better than the DWB stats do.   

As for something being a "thing", well, "YOLO" and the pet rock were "things" too, but that doesn't give them any additional weight.

[Scheavo]

I don't mean to take sides, but I think Hef and Chino, you guys are missing the point of Jammin's post.  How I read it is that the cop sounded like he was giving a bogus excuse to stop him that only sounded legit on its face, just like a cop pulling over a Black driver might give a legit-sounding but obviously bogus excuse, which makes the two situations exactly parallel.  At least, that's what I took from it, if I am not giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

And if Jammin was black, and he moved to quickly for his wallet, he might get shot for it. The fact that jammin says it doesn't bother him is in part due to how easy and well that interaction went. The argument against this is that if he was black, it could have been different, and good intentions may have gotten him shot. That would certainly color the event differently.

And the bigger point to my last point is that if you voluntarily choose to identify yourself with a criminal nitche of society, you are GOING to be profiled as a criminal.

But what makes something indicative of a "criminal niche of society"? I agree with you that there are indications which are more or less valid to go off of. I'm disagreeing with you on the exact specific things you listed, and why they should be considered indicative of a criminal niche of society.

And my entire point is, you can't just throw the race card on this without some further information and analysis.  That cop above was CLEARLY wrong, and is being punished for it.  But there is not one shred of evidence in that entire exchange that points to race as being the determining factor.   That the perp was actually "black" isn't that "further information and analysis".   ALL the people we've talk about were male, too.  Why is the shooting not because they are male?   "DWM" in KNH's vernacular?   The evidence actually WOULD support that, since FEMALE drivers don't show the same racial bias and get pulled over less often than males. 

Actually, more specifically, my point is it is probably combination of factors, as opposed to one.   It just saddens me that no one cares to actually KNOW what is going on.

Eh, I know what's going on. I've read and know about enough psychology studies to know that black males are seen as more aggressive in the same situations where white males are not. This is a cultural stereotype and prejudice everyone in our society suffers from. This is an a priori substaniated fact. When I see something like the video in question, I know what's going on because there is no other rational or logical explanation that explains what happened. When I first saw the video, I was told before hand what happened: police officer pulls a guy over for a seat belt violation at a gas station, and the encounter ends up in a shooting. Even with that information before hand, I was SHOCKED by what actually happened. I can see the guy with a shock looked on his face for even seeing the sirens. I can see the guy promptly feel for his wallet when asked for his ID. I can see him realize it's in his car when he doesn't feel his wallet. I was stunned when he got shot when he did, as he did. I don't think I've ever seen a case that is so blatantly full of racism and prejudice. El Barto will attest that I am not one to make quick personal judgements about people. But in this case, I can wrack my brain for another explanation, and there's nothing which even comes close to explaining what happened nearly as well as racism, what racism is, and how it plays out.

If you have a theory, and that theory explains the events perfectly, then I don't see why I should question the theory that explain those events.

[Stadler]

Eh, I know what's going on.

and

When I see something like the video in question, I know what's going on because there is no other rational or logical explanation that explains what happened.

Of course you do.   That's the EXACT kind of thinking I am arguing against.  How do you know the guy didn't look like (or WAS) the guy the cop thought was banging his wife?   I'm being a little facetious there, but only a little; there is no difference between assuming the cop is racist and assuming the black guy did something wrong.   

If you have a theory, and that theory explains the events perfectly, then I don't see why I should question the theory that explain those events.

By that logic, the flat-earthers would still be writing our science texts. 

I've already given almost 10 things that would suggest this is NOT a racism case; if those "theories" explain the events perfectly, why are they being rejected?  Why are we questioning them?   

Your argument has a vested interest in seeing "racism" as the cause of this event, and so you see it.  That TOO is a well-documented psychological fact.  There is still not one objective, third-party, independent fact that substantiates this as "DWB" as opposed to "DWM" or "DWH(uman)".   I still think it is wrong what happened, and I still think the cop should be held accountable, and if a fact DOES emerge, you have it here in writing that I will acknowledge this as a notch on the "DWB" belt, but until then, I'm not resorting to bias, supposition, or theory. 

[Scheavo]

Of course you do.   That's the EXACT kind of thinking I am arguing against.  How do you know the guy didn't look like (or WAS) the guy the cop thought was banging his wife?   I'm being a little facetious there, but only a little; there is no difference between assuming the cop is racist and assuming the black guy did something wrong.   

Because I have seen the video, and I have seen what the black  guy did, and how the officer responded. The black guy did nothing wrong, he did what he was asked to do, in a manner which doesn't inspire anyone not filled with prejudicial thoughts that black men are more dangerous. There was a recording released yesterday that was the officers description of what happened. I don't doubt for a second that he describes what he thought was happening. But that's exactly what the issue is. I saw what happened, and I have what the officer thought happened. The theory that connects the two - and is independently verified - is racism.

By that logic, the flat-earthers would still be writing our science texts. 

How so? Flat earthers wouldn't be able to explain all the "events" in the debate, especially pictures of a spherical earth from space. Science accepts theories that explain more than other theories. Newtonian physics is great, but it doesn't mash up with quantum mechanics too well. Science is on the hunt for a theory that adaquately meshes the two, and that new theory would be accepted as more truthful.

I've already given almost 10 things that would suggest this is NOT a racism case; if those "theories" explain the events perfectly, why are they being rejected?  Why are we questioning them?

You just said it yourself, "IF" those theories explain the events perfectly. But we have the video, we have the context of what happened, and those theories you gave are not matching up to reality. I saw you give a list of 10 possible reasons, I did not see you give a list of 10 actual things. I sincerely apologize if I missed you doing so.

[Stadler]

Because I have seen the video, and I have seen what the black  guy did, and how the officer responded. The black guy did nothing wrong, he did what he was asked to do, in a manner which doesn't inspire anyone not filled with prejudicial thoughts that black men are more dangerous. There was a recording released yesterday that was the officers description of what happened. I don't doubt for a second that he describes what he thought was happening. But that's exactly what the issue is. I saw what happened, and I have what the officer thought happened. The theory that connects the two - and is independently verified - is racism.

THEORY.  Any of the theories I put forward are equally valid; that they may or may not translate to "video" is not the issue (and in fact is it's own issue, which we've also addressed; video is NOT the be-all and end-all that some think it is, because it does not present a complete picture of the total context).

You just said it yourself, "IF" those theories explain the events perfectly. But we have the video, we have the context of what happened, and those theories you gave are not matching up to reality. I saw you give a list of 10 possible reasons, I did not see you give a list of 10 actual things. I sincerely apologize if I missed you doing so.

Of course they are "possible" at this point, because the investigation is not complete.   "Racism" is one of those possible reasons as well, but it is just one of many.   There is nothing in that video that supports your theory other than the guy IS black, and that is a tautology of sorts.  I'm sorry, this is going to sound harsher than I mean it, but just because something bad happens to someone who is black doesn't mean it is because of racism.   Bad things happen to people every day, and while we don't want prejudice or discrimination, that doesn't mean we have to guarantee perfect outcomes for everyone.  It's still "life". 

[Scheavo]

Because I have seen the video, and I have seen what the black  guy did, and how the officer responded. The black guy did nothing wrong, he did what he was asked to do, in a manner which doesn't inspire anyone not filled with prejudicial thoughts that black men are more dangerous. There was a recording released yesterday that was the officers description of what happened. I don't doubt for a second that he describes what he thought was happening. But that's exactly what the issue is. I saw what happened, and I have what the officer thought happened. The theory that connects the two - and is independently verified - is racism.

THEORY.  Any of the theories I put forward are equally valid; that they may or may not translate to "video" is not the issue (and in fact is it's own issue, which we've also addressed; video is NOT the be-all and end-all that some think it is, because it does not present a complete picture of the total context).

You just said it yourself, "IF" those theories explain the events perfectly. But we have the video, we have the context of what happened, and those theories you gave are not matching up to reality. I saw you give a list of 10 possible reasons, I did not see you give a list of 10 actual things. I sincerely apologize if I missed you doing so.

Of course they are "possible" at this point, because the investigation is not complete.   "Racism" is one of those possible reasons as well, but it is just one of many.   There is nothing in that video that supports your theory other than the guy IS black, and that is a tautology of sorts.  I'm sorry, this is going to sound harsher than I mean it, but just because something bad happens to someone who is black doesn't mean it is because of racism.   Bad things happen to people every day, and while we don't want prejudice or discrimination, that doesn't mean we have to guarantee perfect outcomes for everyone.  It's still "life".

I apologize, as that last post I dropped the part where I referenced the fact that I was informed about the case before seeing the video. I am not drawing upon just the video, I am drawing upon the official story, what is reported to have happened by the police officer, what is seen happening in the video (which is very extensive in showing the incident), and accepted psychological theory. Furthermore, I would argue for using Occam's Razor, and argue that proposing the cop thought the guy looked like the guy banging his wife is like suggesting aliens build the pyramids. The explanation that is least complicated is the best explanation. I need evidence to believe something more bizarre than this, and all the evidence I see before me points the exact opposite way.

And the video tells us a LOT. It is not simply a visual recording of what happened. You can clearly hear what is going on, and you even hear Jones asking the cop why he was shot. The cop even gives his reasons! And the stated reasons he gives do not match up with what I can see before me, thanks to the video. He did not "dive" back into his vehicle.

I never said that this is racism because something bad happened. In the Michael Brown case, I refuse to take a position on the shooting, or say it was because of racism, despite something obviously bad happening. I think this is a very clear cut example of racism based upon all the actions of the police officer, what he claims to have seen, and the actions of Mr. Jones which I can clearly see in the video.

If you want to admit that some wild things are possible, I'll admit that. There are a great many things I can't actually prove or disprove, which are possible, but which I don't hold with much regard. I think getting stuck up in all the possibilities leads no where fruitful, and prefer to stick to practical and pragmatic issues.

[Stadler]

I apologize, as that last post I dropped the part where I referenced the fact that I was informed about the case before seeing the video. I am not drawing upon just the video, I am drawing upon the official story, what is reported to have happened by the police officer, what is seen happening in the video (which is very extensive in showing the incident), and accepted psychological theory. Furthermore, I would argue for using Occam's Razor, and argue that proposing the cop thought the guy looked like the guy banging his wife is like suggesting aliens build the pyramids. The explanation that is least complicated is the best explanation. I need evidence to believe something more bizarre than this, and all the evidence I see before me points the exact opposite way.

And the video tells us a LOT. It is not simply a visual recording of what happened. You can clearly hear what is going on, and you even hear Jones asking the cop why he was shot. The cop even gives his reasons! And the stated reasons he gives do not match up with what I can see before me, thanks to the video. He did not "dive" back into his vehicle.

I never said that this is racism because something bad happened. In the Michael Brown case, I refuse to take a position on the shooting, or say it was because of racism, despite something obviously bad happening. I think this is a very clear cut example of racism based upon all the actions of the police officer, what he claims to have seen, and the actions of Mr. Jones which I can clearly see in the video.

If you want to admit that some wild things are possible, I'll admit that. There are a great many things I can't actually prove or disprove, which are possible, but which I don't hold with much regard. I think getting stuck up in all the possibilities leads no where fruitful, and prefer to stick to practical and pragmatic issues.

You are, of course, entitled to have your opinions.   But that is all they are, opinions, and that is not a dig at you, it is a simple fact.  We all have our opinions.  Did he dive or not dive?   I don't doubt for a second that even though it is a "yes or no" question, you can have as many answers as there are people asked to give an answer.   

Interestingly, you bring up Occam's Razor, but it doesn't help the position that this is "racism".  Whether you use the common (but incorrect) interpretation, that the simplest solution is probably correct, or the less common (but correct) interpretation, that unless and until one is given more information, one uses the solution that requires the least amount of assumptions, it doesn't answer the question here.   The simplest solution is that the cop felt threatened; whether that was racism, or personal knowledge of the suspect, or something additional, are all equally plausible, and don't require any additional complexity.  So Occam's Razor doesn't get one who isn't predisposed to see racism to the racist conclusion.   The solution requiring the fewest assumptions doesn't get us there either, since there are many solutions that require one assumption; by the true reckoning of Occam's Razor, they are all equal. 

And at a fundamental level, I have issue with your premise that somehow that all people (except you and me, of course) are "systemically racist" is far less plausible, practical, or pragmatic than ANY of the premises that are situational and immediate. 

And MOST importantly, all of the things I am talking about are easily proved.  So why not take the extra 30 minutes or whatever it is to confirm those things first, rather than wallpaper that cop with what is proving to be the most scarlet of letters.  The LAST thing anyone wants to be labeled today is "racist".  It is as close to an unrecoverable sin as there is in a free society circa 2014.  Yet, we're throwing it around like confetti at a Kiss concert. 

[Scheavo]

And MOST importantly, all of the things I am talking about are easily proved

Why don't you share this easy proof with me? Why do you think I haven't researched this a little?

And at a fundamental level, I have issue with your premise that somehow that all people (except you and me, of course) are "systemically racist" is far less plausible, practical, or pragmatic than ANY of the premises that are situational and immediate. 

I gave a link to a study* in the other thread that gives scientific, data driven evidence for being true. I have come across many such studies over the years. I'd gladly listen and look at any studies you're willing to give that show this effect not to be true.

; whether that was racism, or personal knowledge of the suspect, or something additional, are all equally plausible,

I don't agree with this. Obviously. That you can't even name that "something additional" to me indicates just how less "plausible" it is. I've read up on this story a bit, and I haven't seen anywhere make mention of anything you want to mention. I also think the fact that he has actually been arrested and charged weighs heavily in this. If the officer had one of these great reasons you want to say he had, I'm fairly sure it would be making the news. I mean, with Michael Brown we got consistent leaks attempting to justify what happened.

I feel like you're giving a perfectly reasonable argument in a case where there isn't as much evidence available for us to see.


*odd, I know I pasted the link, but it seems I editted it out for some accidental reason:

https://ose.utsc.utoronto.ca/ose/story.php?id=2135

And this is not an isolated study. This study was done because of other studies showing the same overall thing.

[Chino]

By that logic, the flat-earthers would still be writing our science texts. 

How so? Flat earthers wouldn't be able to explain all the "events" in the debate, especially pictures of a spherical earth from space. Science accepts theories that explain more than other theories. Newtonian physics is great, but it doesn't mash up with quantum mechanics too well. Science is on the hunt for a theory that adaquately meshes the two, and that new theory would be accepted as more truthful.

www.theflateartsociety.org

Go nuts.

[Stadler]

And MOST importantly, all of the things I am talking about are easily proved

Why don't you share this easy proof with me? Why do you think I haven't researched this a little?

I don't know what you've researched, I can only draw assumptions based on what you are typing.  Your insistence that "EVERYONE IS INHERENTLY RACIST" might be backed up by general studies that IMPLY it, but findings the people think blacks are "more aggressive" do not directly answer the "DWB" phenomenon as well as simple data like "what is the percent of blacks pulled over versus the percentage of blacks that COULD be pulled over, as opposed to the percent of blacks in the general population."    There were traffic stop statistics cited here a couple pages ago; two pages of detailed numbers on stops, arrests, searches, etc. by race.    There was one line that indicated the general population breakdown by race, but not one - not ONE! - number that even remotely suggested any knowledge of traffic patters, traffic racial breakdowns, or any other stat that would serve as direct proof of causation.   

I gave a link to a study* in the other thread that gives scientific, data driven evidence for being true. I have come across many such studies over the years. I'd gladly listen and look at any studies you're willing to give that show this effect not to be true.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this:  I am familiar with several studies of the kind to which you refer.  Perhaps we are even familiar with some of the same studies.  NONE OF THOSE STUDIES WOULD BE PROOF IN A COURT OF LAW THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, IN THAT SITUATION, THAT PARTICULAR COP WAS ACTING ON RACE.  The only thing those studies do is suggest exactly what I am suggesting:  there are grounds for further investigation to determine if the general implication is in fact present in the specific instance.   

I don't agree with this. Obviously. That you can't even name that "something additional" to me indicates just how less "plausible" it is. I've read up on this story a bit, and I haven't seen anywhere make mention of anything you want to mention. I also think the fact that he has actually been arrested and charged weighs heavily in this. If the officer had one of these great reasons you want to say he had, I'm fairly sure it would be making the news. I mean, with Michael Brown we got consistent leaks attempting to justify what happened.

I feel like you're giving a perfectly reasonable argument in a case where there isn't as much evidence available for us to see.

I can, but why do I have to come up with something additional?   If you're going to allege something as serious as racism, YOU should have the burden of proof to prove it unequivocally and without general studies that don't in any way bear on the particulars at hand. 

Look, I've said it 100 ways to Sunday.  I can't say it any other way.   Your studies are fine as suggestions in the absence of specific information.  All I am saying is that in this instance, with charges of "racism" in the balance, you need more than suggestions.  You need the specific information.  If you disagree, fine, that is your prerogative; I hope you never find yourself on the other end of that stick, where someone wants to ruin your life and castigate your character because they are too f-ing lazy to actually do the work and collect the specific data. 

[Scheavo]

Your insistence that "EVERYONE IS INHERENTLY RACIST" might be backed up by general studies that IMPLY it, but findings the people think blacks are "more aggressive" do not directly answer the "DWB" phenomenon as well as simple data like "what is the percent of blacks pulled over versus the percentage of blacks that COULD be pulled over, as opposed to the percent of blacks in the general population."    There were traffic stop statistics cited here a couple pages ago; two pages of detailed numbers on stops, arrests, searches, etc. by race.    There was one line that indicated the general population breakdown by race, but not one - not ONE! - number that even remotely suggested any knowledge of traffic patters, traffic racial breakdowns, or any other stat that would serve as direct proof of causation.   

I don't believe I've really ever made much of a fuss about DWB. You're conflating me with KNH. I've countered some of your contentions about it, but really, the driving issue is such a minor point in everything that I've said that for you focus so much on it is weird to me. What about drug incarceration rates and the drug use rates of blacks? Or stop and frisk?

NONE OF THOSE STUDIES WOULD BE PROOF IN A COURT OF LAW THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, IN THAT SITUATION, THAT PARTICULAR COP WAS ACTING ON RACE. 

I guess this is from the other thread, but I'll just quote myself on this:

I think this is a good point in some contexts, and very important ones. In the actual prosecution of the crime. Hate crimes are bad laws, in my opinion, and we shouldn't try and prosecute people based upon what they believed or thought.

I tried to be clear here, but I guess I wasn't. I certainly never said it should be used in a court of law, so you are assuming that's what I meant.

I can, but why do I have to come up with something additional?   If you're going to allege something as serious as racism, YOU should have the burden of proof to prove it unequivocally and without general studies that don't in any way bear on the particulars at hand. 

Let's use that duck analogy: let's say we have an animal, and I say it's a duck. I say it's a duck beause of it's body shape, size, color, the sounds it makes, the group of other animals it hangs out with, it's feathers, it's DNA, etc, etc. If you want to say it's not a duck, but rather a rabbit in a duck costume, it is not upon me to disprove your theory. That's shifting the burden of proof and asking me to prove a negative. Rather, you need to come up with specific evidence to show that the animal in question is in fact a rabbit in a duck costume.

I've said it's racism, I've pointed and alluded to studies (which you know about, and agree with me on their conclusions) and have drawn connections between those theories, which are backed up by mounds of evidence, to the case directly in front of us. Analagous to it's a duck because of x, y and z and because a duck is x, y and z. If you want to suggest that there is something else at play, it is not upon me to disprove that something else is not at play. It is upon you to show how something else is in play. To show that the duck is in fact a rabbit in a costume.

Your studies are fine as suggestions in the absence of specific information. 

I've given specific information; namely, the actions of the black guy who got shot, and the actions and justifications of the police officer who did the shooting. It is not "well the guys black, so it must be racism!" It's "that guy did absolutely nothing threatening, he did was he was asked to do, and he got shot becuase the officer feared for his safety. From studies on racism, we know that black people are inherently seen as more threatening than whites, and that this inspires more fears for safety. Ergo, to fear for your safety in the given situation is to display racist tendancies and habits."

[Scheavo]

By that logic, the flat-earthers would still be writing our science texts. 

How so? Flat earthers wouldn't be able to explain all the "events" in the debate, especially pictures of a spherical earth from space. Science accepts theories that explain more than other theories. Newtonian physics is great, but it doesn't mash up with quantum mechanics too well. Science is on the hunt for a theory that adaquately meshes the two, and that new theory would be accepted as more truthful.

www.theflateartsociety.org

Go nuts.

And god am I glad that those people aren't a majority, or really even a significant minority.

[Stadler]

Let's use that duck analogy: let's say we have an animal, and I say it's a duck. I say it's a duck beause of it's body shape, size, color, the sounds it makes, the group of other animals it hangs out with, it's feathers, it's DNA, etc, etc. If you want to say it's not a duck, but rather a rabbit in a duck costume, it is not upon me to disprove your theory. That's shifting the burden of proof and asking me to prove a negative. Rather, you need to come up with specific evidence to show that the animal in question is in fact a rabbit in a duck costume.

Except for one thing; that's not a fair analogy.  Because you've loaded it with facts that aren't present in the current situation.   In your case (particularly with the DNA) you've got a mass of various sources of data that are widely accepted as the very means for proving your supposition. If I want to buck the established biological science community, yes, the burden is on me.   In the current case, though, we're not at that level.  We sort of at the "let's say we have a phenomenon, and I say it's racism.  I have a picture here (i.e. your studies) and someone else calls this racism".    And I'm saying "Hey, let's get the body shape, size, color, the sounds it makes, the group of other animals it hangs out with, it's feathers, it's DNA, etc, etc."   Let's get all - or even SOME - of that other information with which we can shift the burden.

I've said it's racism, I've pointed and alluded to studies (which you know about, and agree with me on their conclusions) and have drawn connections between those theories, which are backed up by mounds of evidence, to the case directly in front of us. Analagous to it's a duck because of x, y and z and because a duck is x, y and z. If you want to suggest that there is something else at play, it is not upon me to disprove that something else is not at play. It is upon you to show how something else is in play. To show that the duck is in fact a rabbit in a costume.

Yeah, but no, you haven't done that.  You're taking a lot of steps in your head on this one.   Show me one piece of evidence that CONCLUSIVELY proves that the cop was thinking race in that video. ONE PIECE.  Studies show that over 96% of the population is attracted to the opposite gender.  If I'm shown a video that shows a person who is CLEARLY male kissing another person who's gender is not clear, can I say anything other than "the likelihood is that the other person is a woman"?  I cannot say FOR CERTAIN that it is, and when you add to the equation that I could find out if that other person is a woman or not, why wouldn't I before casting aspersions on that male?   That's the part you seem to be ignoring; we CAN close the gap.  Why are you so obstinate about getting additional information before jumping to conclusions?

I've given specific information; namely, the actions of the black guy who got shot, and the actions and justifications of the police officer who did the shooting. It is not "well the guys black, so it must be racism!" It's "that guy did absolutely nothing threatening, he did was he was asked to do, and he got shot becuase the officer feared for his safety. From studies on racism, we know that black people are inherently seen as more threatening than whites, and that this inspires more fears for safety. Ergo, to fear for your safety in the given situation is to display racist tendancies and habits."

You're winding me up, right?  That may all be true in theory, and it may all be grounds for the hypothesis which you subsequently prove, but to act on that?   That is almost negligence.   That is abhorrent to me that you would suggest making decisions on that one persons' life and livelihood based on general theories and suppositions.   That is "witch hunt" territory.   GET THE DATA.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm starting to wonder what "THE DATA" would like to you, Stadler.  Does the cop have to turn to the camera and yell "I shot him because he's black!" ?  Just curious.


EDIT:  In re-reading that post, I realize it could come off harsher than I intended.  I meant it in a half-joking manner, and that may not come across like I meant.  Sorry if I caused any trouble there.

[Stadler]

I'm starting to wonder what "THE DATA" would like to you, Stadler.  Does the cop have to turn to the camera and yell "I shot him because he's black!" ?  Just curious.


EDIT:  In re-reading that post, I realize it could come off harsher than I intended.  I meant it in a half-joking manner, and that may not come across like I meant.  Sorry if I caused any trouble there.

hefdaddy42, don't apologize, I don't take it personally and it is certainly a very fair question that might move the conversation along.

In that video, it's tough, granted, but there has to be SOMETHING.   Interviews, past behavior, comments made by that cop under other circumstances, review of past calls (to see if there has been any bias, any indicative behavior, or any contact with this perp in particular)...  listen, I realize it sounds like I need a completed signed application to the Klan and a written confession under oath.   It really isn't.   I'm not diametrically opposed to anyone that thinks our cops should be perhaps a shade better than the average citizen.   But there has to be SOMETHING beyond a generic study and a statement that "I can tell".   I find it hard to believe that a model cop with no hints of racism in his past just woke up one morning and decided to shoot a black guy for sport (or, in anticipating Scheavo's insistence on "inherent racism", that this was the first time he had ever been in a danger situation, and all it took was a guy to lean back into his car).   

It seems as if we want to rely on certain aspects of human nature when it suits our world view, but not when it doesn't.  Which is partly why I keep screaming for "data".    What I mean is, we've cited the studies indicating the difference in terms of perceived aggression between blacks and whites, but there is no relativity in that.  Is the degree of difference slight or major?  Is it 8% as opposed to 6%, or is it 75% as opposed to 5%?   What about the general human tendency to NOT want to kill other humans (this is not in dispute; it is why many war tactics are designed to "overcome" the aversion to killing, either by dehumanizing the enemy, depersonalizing the enemy, or creating distance - physical or otherwise - from the enemy).  So are we saying that the difference in the level of aggression is just enough to overcome the killing aversion?  How do we know that?   

It's also worth noting that this bleeds into another conversation we've had about video:  it shows what it shows, but it doesn't show EVERYTHING, and there has to be some objective determination about what the limits of any given video might be. 

[Jaffa]

I've given specific information; namely, the actions of the black guy who got shot, and the actions and justifications of the police officer who did the shooting. It is not "well the guys black, so it must be racism!" It's "that guy did absolutely nothing threatening, he did was he was asked to do, and he got shot becuase the officer feared for his safety. From studies on racism, we know that black people are inherently seen as more threatening than whites, and that this inspires more fears for safety. Ergo, to fear for your safety in the given situation is to display racist tendancies and habits."

I think the assumption you're making is that the cop would have reacted differently if he had been dealing with a white guy.  What if this was just a case of an all-purpose indiscriminate asshole having a bad day and shooting somebody?  Loose cannon, hair trigger, yata yata yata.  Do you have any evidence to rule that out?

Thought experiment: if I'm nice to a white guy, does that make me a racist?  I mean, it's entirely possible that I'm only being nice to him because he's white, after all.  Maybe if he was black I would just punch him in the face.  Maybe that's my thing: I'm polite to white people, and I physically assault black people.  That's certainly a possibility.  But can you jump to that conclusion based on my being nice to a white guy?  Of course not.  It might be that I'm just a nice guy.  And if you see me punching a black guy in the face, it might be that I'm just a jerk who punches people.  You can't accuse me of racial bias based on any one isolated incident; you need context.  You need comparison. 

Of course, when the isolated incident is as extreme as a shooting, it's always tempting to jump to a more extreme conclusion.  But I think the actual logic is the same.  A white cop shooting a black guy is not automatically a racist.

That being said, I do believe racial profiling is a rampant problem.  I just don't think that means we need to jump to conclusions.  The fact that racism exists doesn't mean it is prudent to assume that race is a primary motivating factor in any given situation.