Current Events > Do you believe black people are unfairly targeted by police?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Patchwork posted...

Black people do have disproportionate contact with the police, since police patrols are more aggressive in urban areas and black folks make up a larger % of urban pops.

Yeah, if the people who use statistical racism would actually take this into account, they'd look a lot less racist. Instead, it's just an immediate rush to call black people a criminal element. Despite the leading indicator of crime/criminal activity being poverty.
---

Vicious_Dios posted...

No.

The Admiral posted...

GOATTHlEF posted...

i've had numerous conversations with black Americans online about it and yes, many of them do feel they get targeted by police. For example every white person I know gets stopped maybe once every three years of driving.
I've heard it averages about once every month or so for black people in America. That's insane manaphy.

Yes, your anecdotal experiences with people online is surely the definitive record of racism.

lol
---

CensorErik posted...

@ Kineth, I get your point, but you said you were pulled over twice on the same streets for the same reason. That means you made the mistake of continuing to drive with the same issue after you were warned.

I might not have stated it clearly. I was pulled over on the twice within a week of the headlight being out, but not on the same street. I had just got the car so I wasn't exactly sure how to change the headlights in that model so I just had the headlights within the door. I had also only had the car for 10 days at that point. It boggles my mind that my friend had that car for months prior and regularly drove up and down the roads around there in front of cops plenty of times with a busted headlight and did not get stopped.

I'm not saying it was explicitly a racial issue, but there's really not much difference to explain it other than "aww shucks, that's just how life goes."

That said, of course black people are more likely to be noticed by police. This is one of the most obvious things to anyone not blatantly wearing blinders. It's crappy and it's been this way forever.

Anyway, thanks for saying this, especially considering some of these mouthbreathers literally salivate at the opportunity to call a black person a criminal.
---

Kineth posted...

Patchwork posted...

Black people do have disproportionate contact with the police, since police patrols are more aggressive in urban areas and black folks make up a larger % of urban pops.

Yeah, if the people who use statistical racism would actually take this into account, they'd look a lot less racist. Instead, it's just an immediate rush to call black people a criminal element. Despite the leading indicator of crime/criminal activity being poverty.

Okay, what are you trying to argue? Are you trying to suggest that black people don't actually commit more violent crime than white people, despite white people outnumbering black people 5-to-1?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Kineth posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

@ Kineth, I get your point, but you said you were pulled over twice on the same streets for the same reason. That means you made the mistake of continuing to drive with the same issue after you were warned.

...yeah I don't think I made that post uleh......

Shit, I'm not sure why it put your name in there. I'll re-edit it
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Kineth posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

@ Kineth, I get your point, but you said you were pulled over twice on the same streets for the same reason. That means you made the mistake of continuing to drive with the same issue after you were warned.

...yeah I don't think I made that post uleh......

Fricking GFAQS, man.
---

I love(sarcastic) the logic people are using here. It is the same logic that terrorist use when they target innocent people for the actions of a nations government.
---

I'm African American and I can honestly say that I haven't been unjustly targeted by the Police. Haven't been stopped or have a reason to be targeted.
---

Yeah. The police have been unfairly targeting black, brown, and Native people for ~400 years.

If you behave a certain way for 400 years, it's gonna take some time to grow out of that behavior.

If the job of the police is to stop crime, why shouldn't they target the demographic that commits the most crime per capita, which is black people?
---

r4X0r posted...

If the job of the police is to stop crime, why shouldn't they target the demographic that commits the most crime per capita, which is black people?

Because they don't commit the most. They're just arrested more often
---

According to the FBI, they do, so no offense to you sir, but I believe them more than you.

This forum is always a surprise. You have people discussing current events who aren't even aware of the most basic statistical data on the topic they're trying to debate. OF COURSE black people commit crime at higher rates, that's the whole problem.
---

r4X0r posted...

If the job of the police is to stop crime, why shouldn't they target the demographic that commits the most crime per capita, which is black people?

"Discrimination is ok when black people are subjected to it"
---

If your job is arresting people who commit crime, given that black people commit more crime per capita, how's that "discrimination?"

If you get a report that there's a criminal escaping a crime scene in a red Honda Civic, is it "discrimination" if you stop the red Honda Civic instead of the silver Chevy Impala?

It's a simple fact that black people commit crime at higher rates than other races. It's not "discrimination" that they receive more police attention because of that.
---

I think cops look for a certain profile of person, whether it be black, white, or Hispanic. Would argue the only race cops don't exactly know what to do with (outside of a few population centers where they're a big demographic) are Asians if you're gonna try to break it down like that. If you look sketchy, cops are gonna be interested in you regardless of your race. White person driving around the ghetto somewhat aimlessly? Suspicious as hell. I do think that unfortunately a lot of African-American children are raised to be wary of the police or automatically distrustful of them. I mean, if you get raised like that, you're probably gonna assume that you're being unfairly targeted. Kind of like how most females are raised to be automatically wary of guys being faithful to them...even though you got statistics that show females are more likely to cheat in modern relationships.
---

r4X0r posted...

If your job is arresting people who commit crime, given that black people commit more crime per capita, how's that "discrimination?"

If you get a report that there's a criminal escaping a crime scene in a red Honda Civic, is it "discrimination" if you stop the red Honda Civic instead of the silver Chevy Impala?

So black people should be treated more harshly by the police for actions of other black people ?
---

cjsdowg posted...

So black people should be treated more harshly by the police for actions of other black people ?

Well no, and... they're not. Even left wing sources acknowledge this.

https://tinyurl.com/yalkpe67

a new study has found exactly the opposite: even with white officers who do have racial biases, officers are three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.


It is remarkable how uninformed the people who frequent this place are, especially for a forum called "Current Events." I never thought when I came to this place I would be having to point out basic statistics and what passes for COMMON KNOWLEDGE on real political forums.

Black people deal with the cops more because black people break the law more. .....why are so many of you incapable of processing this.
---

r4X0r posted...

If your job is arresting people who commit crime, given that black people commit more crime per capita, how's that "discrimination?"

If you get a report that there's a criminal escaping a crime scene in a red Honda Civic, is it "discrimination" if you stop the red Honda Civic instead of the silver Chevy Impala?

It's a simple fact that black people commit crime at higher rates than other races. It's not "discrimination" that they receive more police attention because of that.

Actually, it's poor people committing a majority of these crimes.

Highlights:

For the period 200812
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.82.5 per 1,000).
The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

Find a random crime on that list that black people don't commit at a higher rate than white people.

I'm really sorry to have to break it to you guys because a lot of you don't seem to be willing to accept it- black people commit crime at higher rates than other races. Again, you're just going to have to deal with that.
---

Using statistics about crimes by race to determine the guilt of individuals of that race.

But only when it suits you, of course.
---

The Admiral posted...

Kineth posted...

He had it for 3 months along with an expired registration IN A STOLEN CAR. AND YOU MOUTHBREATHERS ARE GETTING ON ME FOR A BUSTED HEADLIGHT.

What are you not understanding? Unless he had a sign that said "this car is stolen," there is no way the cops would know this or would have cause to pull him over. You, however, had a visible reason for the cops to pull you over, and they justifiably did.

This is such a large part of the problem with this issue. Kineth can't take any responsibility for what he did or admit that it was fair that he was pulled over. All he's doing is saying "that white guy wasn't pulled over for something totally different! Racism!! I'm a victim!!"

No, you're not.

keep in mind he thinks its justified to assault someone because they said a word that racist people think only black people can say
---

r4X0r posted...

Well no, and... they're not....

That study is flawed beyond belief. Using a video game to see people reaction compared to the real life. And the real words that police had said. Cops have been on record complaining that the people under then didn't arrest black people. And in real life we can see cases like John Crawford when black people were not given given 3 seconds to drop a gun.
---

r4X0r posted...

According to the FBI, they do, so no offense to you sir, but I believe them more than you.

Do you believe the FBI reports on the white supremacist presence in the police force?
---

cjsdowg posted...

cases like John Crawford when black people were not given given 3 seconds to drop a gun.

John Crawford isn't a good case for your cause.

The police dispatch told the cops that he was an active shooter. Thats why they were so aggressive.

Saying you want cops to hesitate on active shooters if they are black is the most racist stance your cause can take.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

cjsdowg posted...

cases like John Crawford when black people were not given given 3 seconds to drop a gun.

John Crawford isn't a good case for your cause.

The police dispatch told the cops that he was an active shooter. Thats why they were so aggressive.

Saying you want cops to hesitate on active shooters if they are black is the most racist stance your cause can take.

Except he wasn't an active shooter so they shouldn't have murdered him. They should always verify reports first
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

cjsdowg posted...

cases like John Crawford when black people were not given given 3 seconds to drop a gun.

John Crawford isn't a good case for your cause.

The police dispatch told the cops that he was an active shooter. Thats why they were so aggressive.

Saying you want cops to hesitate on active shooters if they are black is the most racist stance your cause can take.

Except he wasn't an active shooter so they shouldn't have murdered him. They should always verify reports first

"Cops shouldn't listen to dispatch and hestitate at mass shootings" is terrible advice.

Your complaint should be at the police dispatch, not the officers who shot John

The only reason you don't is because it kills your narrative to do so, and that open intellectual dishonesty is incredibly disrespectful to John and his family.
---

Those who believe people are specifically targeted by police over racial issues in every single part of this country every single day don't understand the laws of this country or how the justice department in general.

If you treat law enforcement like shit, they will return the favor.

If you run from law enforcement, they will take effective measures to bring you into custody.

If you respond to law enforcement with violent force, they will respond accordingly.

I find it very fucking ironic that people love to bitch at everything law enforcement does when law enforcement in this country pretty damn diverse when it comes to ethnicities and backgrounds.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"Cops shouldn't listen to dispatch and hestitate at mass shootings" is terrible advice.

Your complaint should be at the police dispatch, not the officers who shot John

The only reason you don't is because it kills your narrative to do so, and that open intellectual dishonesty is incredibly disrespectful to John and his family.

How am I being intellectually dishonest? I'd also be against police if they shot a white guy holding a toy gun and not using it to hurt anyone

Verify first, shoot second. If there was an active shooting going on, don't you think the people around him would have been screaming and running away, as opposed to minding their own business and shopping? What part of talking on the phone while holding a toy gun screams mass shooting to you? I mean, I'm no expert, but I think it's fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening

boxington posted...

"driving while black" is a thing where most black drivers are pulled over by the police for nothing.

I've been pulled over for walking twice (I don't drive)

Back when I worked at a pizza, a black college student who was a regular customer of ours was pulled over in our parking lot because he was black and it was late at night. He had ordered online and paid in advance, so the manager brought his food out to him while the cops were bothering him.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

boxington posted...

"driving while black" is a thing where most black drivers are pulled over by the police for nothing.

I've been pulled over for walking twice (I don't drive)

Back when I worked at a pizza, a black college student who was a regular customer of ours was pulled over in our parking lot because he was black and it was late at night. He had ordered online and paid in advance, so the manager brought his food out to him while the cops were bothering him.

One time some family friends of ours who lived two blocks away came over to our place right after a shooting happened up thr road because we are white passing and they're black. The cops double checked with my family to be sure we knew them and they were with us before the guns went off up the street.
---

No.
---

ITT: White people [who are not black] saying blacks are not unfairly targeted, despite never being black a single day in their lives. Another example of why America has awful race relations and will continue to have them, both sides are heavily biased.

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Verify first, shoot second. If there was an active shooting going on, don't you think the people around him would have been screaming and running away, as opposed to minding their own business and shopping? What part of talking on the phone while holding a toy gun screams mass shooting to you? I mean, I'm no expert, but I think it's fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening

The problem with "verify first, shoot second" is that innocent civilians and officers can get hurt or killed during step one. Yes, verifying the situation is a thing that police officers do when they arrive at the scene. But to what extent should they keep verifying when the person in question appears to have a gun? That's not to say there's a weak link in the police procedure chain, and it's possible that they could have handled it in a different way in hindsight. But to act like it should be "fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening" is just naive.
---

Maruame posted...

ITT: White people [who are not black] saying blacks are not unfairly targeted, despite never being black a single day in their lives. Another example of why America has awful race relations and will continue to have them, both sides are heavily biased.

So if someone isn't black they can't hold an opinion about something related to blacks?

I have to be a movie director to review or criticize a movie?
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

The problem with "verify first, shoot second" is that innocent civilians and officers can get hurt or killed during step one. Yes, verifying the situation is a thing that police officers do when they arrive at the scene. But to what extent should they keep verifying when the person in question appears to have a gun? That's not to say there's a weak link in the police procedure chain, and it's possible that they could have handled it in a different way in hindsight. But to act like it should be "fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening" is just naive.

People running away?
People lying dead on the ground?
Blood anywhere on the scene?
Bulletholes anywhere on the scene?
The sound of gunfire? Or screaming?
The gun actually being pointed at people?
The "shooter" attempting to hurt someone, rather than minding his own business and talking on the phone?

Yeah, no. You'd have to literally be wearing a blindfold and earplugs to miss the very obvious signs that a mass shooting is not happening

Kineth posted...

r4X0r posted...

According to the FBI, they do, so no offense to you sir, but I believe them more than you.

Do you believe the FBI reports on the white supremacist presence in the police force?

Given that the police aren't more likely to shoot black people, they're some pretty crappy white supremacists.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The problem with "verify first, shoot second" is that innocent civilians and officers can get hurt or killed during step one. Yes, verifying the situation is a thing that police officers do when they arrive at the scene. But to what extent should they keep verifying when the person in question appears to have a gun? That's not to say there's a weak link in the police procedure chain, and it's possible that they could have handled it in a different way in hindsight. But to act like it should be "fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening" is just naive.

People running away?
People lying dead on the ground?
Blood anywhere on the scene?
Bulletholes anywhere on the scene?
The sound of gunfire? Or screaming?
The gun actually being pointed at people?
The "shooter" attempting to hurt someone, rather than minding his own business and talking on the phone?

Yeah, no. You'd have to literally be wearing a blindfold and earplugs to miss the very obvious signs that a mass shooting is not happening

They don't know the present state of the situation. Just because things seem relatively calm now doesn't tell them anything about what might have been going on before.
---

r4X0r posted...

Kineth posted...

r4X0r posted...

According to the FBI, they do, so no offense to you sir, but I believe them more than you.

Do you believe the FBI reports on the white supremacist presence in the police force?

Given that the police aren't more likely to shoot black people, they're some pretty crappy white supremacists.

lolololol, I'll bet he actually expected you to answer the question.

how naive.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

r4X0r posted...

Kineth posted...

r4X0r posted...

According to the FBI, they do, so no offense to you sir, but I believe them more than you.

Do you believe the FBI reports on the white supremacist presence in the police force?

Given that the police aren't more likely to shoot black people, they're some pretty crappy white supremacists.

lolololol, I'll bet he actually expected you to answer the question.

how naive.

Lol, it's amazing how dumb these white supremacists are on this website. Like... how dumb do you have to be to not be able to answer a simple yes or no question?
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The problem with "verify first, shoot second" is that innocent civilians and officers can get hurt or killed during step one. Yes, verifying the situation is a thing that police officers do when they arrive at the scene. But to what extent should they keep verifying when the person in question appears to have a gun? That's not to say there's a weak link in the police procedure chain, and it's possible that they could have handled it in a different way in hindsight. But to act like it should be "fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening" is just naive.

People running away?
People lying dead on the ground?
Blood anywhere on the scene?
Bulletholes anywhere on the scene?
The sound of gunfire? Or screaming?
The gun actually being pointed at people?
The "shooter" attempting to hurt someone, rather than minding his own business and talking on the phone?

Yeah, no. You'd have to literally be wearing a blindfold and earplugs to miss the very obvious signs that a mass shooting is not happening

Again if the police are told there is an active shooter they cannot think like that.

Your agenda is getting in the way of logic
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The problem with "verify first, shoot second" is that innocent civilians and officers can get hurt or killed during step one. Yes, verifying the situation is a thing that police officers do when they arrive at the scene. But to what extent should they keep verifying when the person in question appears to have a gun? That's not to say there's a weak link in the police procedure chain, and it's possible that they could have handled it in a different way in hindsight. But to act like it should be "fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening" is just naive.

People running away?
People lying dead on the ground?
Blood anywhere on the scene?
Bulletholes anywhere on the scene?
The sound of gunfire? Or screaming?
The gun actually being pointed at people?
The "shooter" attempting to hurt someone, rather than minding his own business and talking on the phone?

Yeah, no. You'd have to literally be wearing a blindfold and earplugs to miss the very obvious signs that a mass shooting is not happening

Again if the police are told there is an active shooter they cannot think like that.

Your agenda is getting in the way of logic

I don't wanna live in a world where police are drones that can't evaluate the situation on their own.

This is the same reason Tamir Rice was killed. Cops were told the 12 year old child was pointing a gun at people, they show up and kill him in seconds despite the toy gun not being drawn.

Why are you fine with people being killed because a wrong report was made?

If not killing people is an "agenda", I don't mind it showing. Your agenda of valuing cop lives over innocents is definitely on full display.

Dragonblade01 posted...

They don't know the present state of the situation. Just because things seem relatively calm now doesn't tell them anything about what might have been going on before.

Which is why they *EXAMINE* the present state of the situation, rather than gunning down an innocent man

Darklit_Minuet posted...

I don't wanna live in a world where police are drones that can't evaluate the situation on their own.

Oh bullshit.

If some white guy shot up a black school because the police hestitated and the police said "Well we didn't give a shit what dispatch said, he wanted to evulate the situation on our own." You'd be crying about how wrong and stupid they are.

You just want to live in a world where no matter what your tribe suffers injustice that you can whine about.

About you don't mind or lying or disrespecting the dead to do so.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

If some white guy shot up a black school because the police hestitated and the police said "Well we didn't give a shit what dispatch said, he wanted to evulate the situation on our own." You'd be crying about how wrong and stupid they are.

No, I believe *actual* shooters should be shot. Not people who are standing around not harming anyone

UnfairRepresent posted...

You just want to live in a world where no matter what your tribe suffers injustice that you can whine about.

I'm white though, and I don't think white people who aren't harming anyone should be shot either.

UnfairRepresent posted...

About you don't mind or lying or disrespecting the dead to do so.

Says the person literally disrespecting the dead by saying their murders were justified

Your tribe doesn't mean people who look like you it means your group

John wasn't murdered not was his death justified.

And that's the point. You should be angry at the dispatch not angry at the cops who shot John.

But that doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore that and use johns corpse as a bludgeoningweapon upon enemies who don't exist to fuel your own ego
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The problem with "verify first, shoot second" is that innocent civilians and officers can get hurt or killed during step one. Yes, verifying the situation is a thing that police officers do when they arrive at the scene. But to what extent should they keep verifying when the person in question appears to have a gun? That's not to say there's a weak link in the police procedure chain, and it's possible that they could have handled it in a different way in hindsight. But to act like it should be "fairly easy to tell when a mass shooting isn't happening" is just naive.

People running away?
People lying dead on the ground?
Blood anywhere on the scene?
Bulletholes anywhere on the scene?
The sound of gunfire? Or screaming?
The gun actually being pointed at people?
The "shooter" attempting to hurt someone, rather than minding his own business and talking on the phone?

Yeah, no. You'd have to literally be wearing a blindfold and earplugs to miss the very obvious signs that a mass shooting is not happening

Again if the police are told there is an active shooter they cannot think like that.

Your agenda is getting in the way of logic

The officer was just following the information given by dispatch. It may have been a hairbrained decision to act so quickly, but in an active shooter situation it is completely justified to shoot first and ask questions later, by law.
---

On the whole, no. Not at all. There are of course incidents, but most officers aren't "out to get" black people.
---