Prejudice and Bigotry in Law Enforcement

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jun 23, 2020.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,906
    It seems, that that statement is most probably wrong.

    does "should" indicate a desire for an ex post facto regulation?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,323
    No, it indicates that police should simply fire any one who is known to be incapable of performing their job properly, which would include people who openly commit and promote hate crimes on social media. Legal penalties should only apply to people who subsequently lie or mislead in their applications when asked about their social views and social media accounts. Do you think such people should be allowed to keep their jobs with no indication of reformed attitudes?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,371
    Part of the problem with your manner of argument is how you come back with some arbitrary bit either ignoring or refusing what is already on record in the discussion:

    See #5↑:

    A police trainer and former federal prosecutor, Valerie Van Brocklin, "Most cops think that if they're off-duty and using their own computer, then they have their First Amendment rights."

    But it's not as simple as that, she said. Police departments have codes of conduct and ethics, and many have developed specific social media policies that employees must abide by, even when they're not working. It's all part of the long-standing concept of "conduct unbecoming a police officer," she said.

    Moreover, while it's a not quite coin toss between funny and disturbing that, say, former police officers dismissed from Wilmington (#9↑) don't deny their words but say they're not racist. But consider the retired Waynesboro cop (#16↑), who claimed he always treated people fairly in his police work. Even if he was asked that, and didn't just claim it as part of another point of discussion, something he didn't say was that the one has nothing to do with the other.

    And we all know it does. And if Claude Stevens Jr., the retired officer, finds it worth telling Muslims who "eat's [sic] dog shit and is a follower of Satan", there is also the working prison guard who needs to take the time to remind it is a "Known fact Jesus is better then [sic] goat FUCKER Muhammad".

    And if an attorney might be "horrified" at the circumstance; as Qasim Rashid put it, "These are law enforcement officers who are sworn to protect us. If a guy is in a group on Facebook called 'Death to Islam' or 'Purge Islam as a disease,' and they're patrolling our neighborhoods and streets, then who are they really protecting?" (Carless and Corey↱)

    Toward that point we might note Thursday last, because Tamir Rice would have turned eighteen years old. That is to say, the boy shot to death by a cop with a history still wouldn't be as old as the call to dispatch reporting the shooting described him. So maybe the prejudice about how black boys are perceived as looking older might be important. And maybe the prejudice about how scary black males are might be important, because, well, what are you supposed to do when you're a five year old trying to deal with a demon Hulk Hogan, such as the cop described Michael Brown, the overweight, slow-moving black man he gunned down.

    And then think, also, of the court of public opinion: We're not supposed to doubt that cop, or that tanked grand jury inquiry, and then look at what we have to accept on behalf of spoiled white brat who gets to sit on the Supreme Court. The tubby-assed black man is a demon Hulk Hogan? The scrawny black boy is a 20 year old scary black man? We're all supposed to forget the '80s, which means, for some of us, forsaking our own youths, on behalf of a clearly dishonest white guy. And even black people got to laugh at that pretense of stupidity, except, of course, for that comparative, by which many just don't find it funny. It wasn't just a cheap joke that black people wouldn't be allowed to threaten and harm police the way white people did when storming state houses to protest public health protocols. Listen to Elijah McClain begging, pleading, and then they kill him. There just isn't any way to say prejudice against the value of black lives in general doesn't affect policing. More generally, it is widely evident that many forms of prejudice affect policing; ask women↗. Anti-Muslim? Do we really need to recall the time they arrested the white guy on a false six-point fingerprint match? Would a Muslim caught planting explosives on federal land in an attempt to frame white Christians for terrorism have been allowed to plead guilty to "Attempt to Maliciously Damage Federal Property by Means of Explosives", or would he have been charged with terrorism? Prejudice affects the decisions that lead to disparate outcomes.

    There are reasons why police are expected to answer higher standards than civilians, and it really does seem strange how quickly and easily we are expected to set that aside.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Carless, Will and Michael Corey. "American cops have openly engaged in Islamophobia on Facebook, with no penalties". Reveal. 27 June 2019. RevealNews.org. 27 June 2020. https://bit.ly/3evARIz
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,350
    Nope.
    If that .06% includes officers in good standing, accepted by their fellow officers, patrolling the streets of an American city, statistical significance is immediate.
    You object to that assessment when it's of rightwing authoritarian politicians and their voters.
    If what they do on their own time interferes with the successful doing of some job - by them or anyone - (such as by making hostile opponents of people whose cooperation they need in the doing of that job), then they should not be employed in any capacity that increases the influence of their personal behavior on that job. They are not as well suited for it as many other people would be.

    And if they are unable to recognize when or why their behavior interferes with their job, they should be removed from that job immediately - they are a bad accident looking for a place to happen.
     
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    The problem with the current outrage is that it ignores larger problems. In a country with 350 million people I don't know that the cops are "out of control" based on a few of these cases.

    Certainly those particular cops appear to be out of control but as far whether it's happening more frequently than usual, probably not. Certainly there is little logical reason to protest and riot to the degree that has occurred. Several people have been killed and many businesses torched.

    It's selective outrage in that concern is giving to a few people unnecessarily getting killed while struggling with cops and no concern given to all the inner city shooting deaths (black on black) that occur every weekend (for example).

    At the heart of the police problem is just the nature of the job. Most police academy training is only about 6 months (I think). This is just glorified training of a security guard that is then placed in positions of too much power and authority.

    In some countries becoming a policeman is more like going to college. That's probably what is needed here.

    The appearance is that cops are out to get blacks but most of the people they are dealing with in most of these areas are black criminals. Even those that were potentially murdered (and therefore unlawful) where still people with long rap sheets and they were people struggling with the cops.

    It's a murky area that is being sensationalized to a degree.

    The bigger problem is the gun violence in this country and the shear number of guns. Cops shot about 3 people a day in this country. That would be a yearly total in many other guns where guns are as prevalent. No one is addressing that either.

    Politics by emotion isn't a particularly effective way to govern IMO.
     
    wegs and sculptor like this.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,371
    And when a white guy murdered nine people in a church for being black, cops bought him lunch.
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    Is this a statement based on your personal feeling or do you feel this is a big issue in America, speaking logically?

    Is this a common occurrence? If we are prioritizing things that are most needing to be addressed would this be toward the top of the list? Are cops in general out of control in the U.S.?
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,350
    The problem is that it does not appear to be more frequent than usual.
    This horrorshow appears to be the usual. That's the problem.
    So according to you the police are behaving much like a violent criminal gang, and we are supposed to assume that is normal and not deserving of greater outrage. That we are to think of the police as we think of any pack of armed and lawless and racially bigoted gangbangers, people we expect to support each other's criminal behavior and cover up for each other's crimes and terrorize the local civilian population.
    Which is why so many black people have been trying for so many decades to change the nature of the job - beginning by no longer allowing it to cover up racially disparate homicide and racially motivated abuse of American citizens.

    In other words: It's selective in that it concerns the police.
    The betrayal of trust and oath is much greater, and the greater consequences of that greater betrayal are much more significant, when that kind of behavior is tolerated among the police.
    White areas in the US often - usually - have more guns per capita than black areas. The shear number of guns is often negatively correlated with "gun violence" (except suicide).
    And "most" of the people they are "dealing with" in white areas are white criminals.
    They appear to deal with white criminals much differently than black criminals - as one can easily see, by perusing the statistics.
    They also appear to deal with white citizens in general much differently than black citizens in general - again, the statistical evidence is overwhelming.
    Nonsense. Many are trying to address it. Very many. They have been trying to address it for decades now, as loudly and publicly and visibly as they can.
    They are called "liberals" and "leftists" - you might have seen them around, although not so much in the major media.
    They are often abused by the police and other authorities for their attempts, excluded from public office by white people for their efforts , harassed and boycotted and persecuted by white people when identified, and so forth.
    Yes, yes, and yes.

    Ok: Now what?
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    These things are going to happen given the nature of the job. When they happen they should be prosecuted. The solution to reducing them is better police training, more selective recruitment and a greater awareness of how to respond when stopped by the police (don't fight them).

    In a country of 350,000,000 people, given that this is going to happen from time to time, when is it "out of control"? Is it happening now more than in the past or do we just know about every case now due to increased media?

    At lot of things are problems that need to be improved. Most things don't call for rioting as part of a solution.

    The comment about guns was to point out that police, in general, have to assume or at least take into consideration that the person they are arresting (and who might be struggling with them) might be armed.

    Were guns not so prevalent, they wouldn't be shooting.

    Where are the white "ghettos" where crime compares to the areas where most of these shootings occur? Whites do get shot by the police. More of them get shot by the police than blacks. Given the relative percentages that each make up of the total population blacks are over represented however they are also over represented in the commision of violate crimes.

    As you will recall, Minneapolis was the area that one of the last abuses occurred in. That's the same area when a white woman was shot while in her house coat trying to show the cops that she called where there was a possible sexual assault occurring in the alley beside her house.

    White people get shot too while doing nothing wrong. I guess you weren't quite as outraged by that one?
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,371
    The episode is emblematic of what you described as, "The appearance is that cops are out to get blacks".

    The one with prosecutors tanking a grand jury investigation↗ is a bit more complicated.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    Do you admit that "cops brought him lunch" is an emotional response on your part and not a pertinent point?
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,313
    The practical reason is that if this continues, businesses will put a huge amount of pressure on cops to not murder blacks.

    That is NOT the way the US should work. But if that's the only way it will work . . . .

    There's a difference between government sanctioned and protected murder and people killing each other.

    Yes, that's one of the problems. More training - and first responders who are not armed but trained in de-escalation and mental illness management - would help a lot.
    If the alternative is status quo it may be better than nothing.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,371
    It's a factual point.

    You need to start making sense: "Do you admit that 'cops brought him lunch' is an emotional response on your part"? What in the world do you think that means?
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    Yes, of course there is a distinction but the point was simply that some things that are much worse and should receive more attention don't. It's not really a logical response if you are genuinely concerned with black lives.
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    I know what it means. The problem is that it has nothing to do with the topic. Perhaps I should say, to wit, the the only they have to provide lunch to someone who is being arrested and to the other it's merely an emotional response.

    Have you weighted in as heavily on the white woman who was shot by the cops she called because of a possible sexual assault near her house? These things happen. Cops are arrested when it's a ridiculous response. This needs to happen less. No riots necessary. No Chaz or Chop zone required. Y'know...
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,371
    Clearly you don't know what you mean, because you can't explain it.

    Take your trolling elsewhere.

    If you want me to believe you're too damn stupid to follow yourself from one post to the next, fine, I will, but it is inherently disqualifying.

    Watching supremacists rush to disrupt discourse they can't otherwise cope with isn't exactly entertainment, and you're not exactly innovating, here.
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    You aren't exactly the poster child for clear communication. Why did you write that a white guy shot up a church and the cops bought him lunch?

    Is that clear enough for you? He shot up a church and was arrested. He didn't fight the cops and therefore he wasn't shot.

    There was a white lady who called the cops and was shot.

    This stuff happened in a country of 350,000,000. Why are you talking about it as if it's a pandemic. Why is anyone who doesn't buy into your train of thought a supremacist or a troll. Do you think that to be a satisfactory form of discourse?

    Let's face it, you've never really been interested in any kind of discussion here. This is your place to post like it's your personal blog and then the rest of us are supposed to decipher what you are talking about and what is bothering you at that moment. It's all lecture, blog and nothing else.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,313
    ?? I don't get this approach. More than half a million Americans die every year from heart disease. Does that mean if you are outspoken about the blacks killing blacks problem, you are engaging in selective outrage?
     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,034
    You can be outspoken about any subject that you are interested in but it's good to put in it some context.

    Black Lives Matter, as an organization and not as a message, isn't doing anything positive. Racism in the U.S. is currently as low as it's ever been. Most people aren't racist, the "government" isn't racist and a lot of people (black and white) are getting upset with little basis.

    As we've seen, if you state the obvious, you're now a racist or a white supremacist. Never mind that most of your neighbors and friends who are black feel the same way as I do.

    Those who seem to feel that there is still a high level of racism generally are those living in bad neighborhoods in the inner cities and typically they are also people who have made some bad decisions.

    In my neighborhood, those most upset are the white people (and I think Black Lives Matter is essentially a white organization) and it's the black people who disagree and who are actually worried that this is going to cause a "race war".
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,313
    I disagree there. More people than ever are talking about race and its implications for policing and social equality in the US. The protests - are working.
    Right - most people aren't racist. But that's like saying most men don't rape so rape isn't an issue.
    The government? We have a president who has said he doesn't want black people counting his money. We have endless studies that show when a job is applied for by two identical candidates - one black, one white - the white person gets the job more often. (Including government jobs.) So we still have an issue with racism.

    Is it better than it was 50 years ago? Absolutely. Are we therefore done? No. There is still a lot of work to do.
    Again, there is basis. You can think that heart disease is a bigger problem; that's fine. Go protest McDonald's.
    Uh - OK. I think if you think that whites are superior to blacks then you are a white supremacist. If that's "obvious" to someone, then they are still white supremacists.
    Right. So? Different people have different opinions.
     

Share This Page