Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

NBC News - U.S. Finds Pattern of Biased Policing in Ferguson


The Evil Genius

Recommended Posts

I would like to be shocked by this. But, sadly, I don't know if this is any different than a lot of cities.

 

I can still be saddened by it all, though.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/u-s-finds-pattern-biased-policing-ferguson-n316586

U.S. Finds Pattern of Biased Policing in Ferguson

 

 

Clouded by racial bias and a narrow-minded drive for municipal court revenue, police in Ferguson, Missouri have habitually violated citizens' civil rights, with black residents bearing the brunt, a U.S. Justice Department investigation has found.

 

The probe, prompted by the shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white Ferguson police officer last August, uncovered a pattern of unfair traffic stops, questionable arrests, unreasonable use of force and interference with free speech, according to information provided to NBC News by a Justice Department official.

 

The result of all this, Justice Department officials said, was a profound erosion of trust between police and the public, particularly blacks. Critics have pointed to that lack of trust as one of the conditions that fueled the rioting and violent demonstrations following the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown, 18, by officer Darren Wilson. A grand jury declined to indict Wilson in November,touching off another wave of unrest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who is getting charged, fired, or otherwise meaningfully held accountable? When will changes be made to ensure this stops, never happens again, and that those behind it are completely removed from positions of trust and power?

Right. Without that step this is basically this:

"Here's how we're screwing you. lol

- law enforcement"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article in the OP: 

 

The charge that the city relied on more than any other was "failure to appear," meaning the person didn't show up for a scheduled court date. In 2013 alone, the court collected $442,901 in fines for that offense. That accounted for a quarter of the municipal court's entire revenue that year. The "failure to appear" charge was dropped by the city in September.

 

 

I think, back during the riots and things, somebody claimed that one of the things Ferguson did, to their citizens, was: 

 

1) Every traffic citation said that your court appearance was at 8:00 (This is actually a pretty standard practice, as I understand it.) 

 

2)  Court actually started at 7:30.

 

3)  At 8:05, they would lock the courthouse doors, so that, if you were six minutes late, then you couldn't get in, even if your case didn't come up till Noon

 

4)  If you didn't answer when your name was called, then they assessed a fine, and issued a warrant.  I think the claim was that the court, at one time, had one outstanding warrant for like every 1.4 citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would love to know the parameters for "unfair"

Seeing as how the current AG is on record saying he wants the burden of proof to be lower in racial crimes, I'm extremely skeptical of their methods and parameters.

 

Did you read the article?  Or just come in here to tell us how much you don't like this administration? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-review-finds-pattern-of-racial-bias-among-ferguson-police/2015/03/03/27535390-c1c7-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html?tid=HP_more?tid=HP_more


 


 


The Justice Department plans to release evidence this week of racial bias found in e-mails written by Ferguson police and municipal court officials. A November 2008 e-mail, for instance, stated that President Obama could not be president for very long because “what black man holds a steady job for four years.”


 


The Justice Department did not identify who wrote this and other racist e-mails and whom they were sent to. Officials at the department spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the review and its findings before a planned release this week.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would love to know the parameters for "unfair"

Seeing as how the current AG is on record saying he wants the burden of proof to be lower in racial crimes, I'm extremely skeptical of their methods and parameters.

Quoted from the article linked above...

 

 

The Justice Department examination found that Ferguson's black citizens, who make up about 67 percent of the city's 21,000 residents, were subject to 85 percent of traffic stops, and 93 percent of all arrests from 2012 to 2014. Black drivers were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched during traffic stops, but were less likely to be found holding anything illegal. Blacks were also the focus of 88 percent of instances in which police used force to subdue someone.

A similar pattern emerged inside Ferguson's municipal court, where data indicated that the town targeted blacks for arrests on outstanding warrants, the Justice Department said. From October 2012 to October 2014, 96 percent of those arrested during traffic stops solely because of an outstanding warrant were black, investigators found.

Blacks were also far more likely to be hit with petty offenses like jaywalking, disturbing the peace and "failure to comply," according to investigators. From 2011 to 2013, blacks accounted for 92 percent or more of people who faced such charges.

Blacks were also 68 percent less likely than people of other races to have their cases dismissed, the investigators found.

So do you think that qualifies?

 

What of the oft repeated mantra that "But it's not all of them, just an isolated bad apple." Well, do you think a few isolated bad apples were able to ne responsible for numbers like those? And what about the non-spoiled apples? Why didn't they do a whistleblower routine on this? As I've said before, 99% of cops are bad because the ones that aren't bad cover for the ones that are. 

 

As Destino pointed out, my first thought was OK, who's going down for this? From what I heard on the radio the worst that will happen is some training and cumbya nonsense but no real accountability. Feh. Yep, that's our "justice" system for ya!

 

Yet again, if this kind of thing were happening in White people's neighborhoods, rich or poor, there would be a lot of talk of 2nd amendment solutions going on.... and maybe more than talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"96 percent of those arrested during traffic stops solely because of an outstanding warrant were black, investigators found."

 

How many of the other races were let go in that situation?

 

Were failure to appear fines waived for other races?

 

of the cases dismissed, ....which had lawyers and not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted from the article linked above...

So do you think that qualifies?

What of the oft repeated mantra that "But it's not all of them, just an isolated bad apple." Well, do you think a few isolated bad apples were able to ne responsible for numbers like those? And what about the non-spoiled apples? Why didn't they do a whistleblower routine on this? As I've said before, 99% of cops are bad because the ones that aren't bad cover for the ones that are.

As Destino pointed out, my first thought was OK, who's going down for this? From what I heard on the radio the worst that will happen is some training and cumbya nonsense but no real accountability. Feh. Yep, that's our "justice" system for ya!

Yet again, if this kind of thing were happening in White people's neighborhoods, rich or poor, there would be a lot of talk of 2nd amendment solutions going on.... and maybe more than talk.

If I replace black with poor, how much do the numbers change?

All of those numbers can be explained by an increased police presence in certain areas. Yes, those areas are largely occupied by black people. But do you really think some head cop said, "Hey we gotta put all our cops where the blacks are." Or is it more likely that the police tracked the locations of crimes, noticed a trend, and proactively adjusted their deployment accordingly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"96 percent of those arrested during traffic stops solely because of an outstanding warrant were black, investigators found."

 

How many of the other races were let go in that situation?

 

Were failure to appear fines waived for other races?

 

of the cases dismissed, ....which had lawyers and not?

We'll have to wait for the release of the full report for that kind of detail. However if one thinks about it even with your level of skepticism it's pretty damning stuff. A couple of questions. If these numbers were reversed, say in an urban setting with a majority Black police force, would you consider it reverse racism? And what if racist anti-White emails were found to have been exchanged by police officers and some in the court system. Would you say that had no bearing whatsoever on the data presented and that those officers didn't take any of those attitudes out on the street with them and thus, it's all just a funny coninkydink? You know, just boys being boys, funnin' around an awl.

If I replace black with poor, how much do the numbers change?

So what you're saying is, it's OK to discriminate against poor people as long as you don't discriminate based on race? I guess being wealthy should put one above being prosecuted for traffic violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no statistics in that article that directly support discrimination. There is nothing that shows that they are being arrested or ticketed because they are black, nor because they are poor.

 

They are being arrested and ticketed because the police are THERE. They aren't on the other side of town because no one calls them to stabbings, muggings, gang shootings, and robberies over there. It would be stupid and wasteful for them to concentrate their assets on the nice part of town because they'll simply end up driving over to where the crimes are committed, or rolling over to cover the beats of those cops responding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I see Slateman. Statistics mean nothing. If they don't have video evidence of the cop admitting that s/he's only stopping/arresting/brutalizing someone because they're Black in every single incident, then the overall pattern means nothing. Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: 

 

In your opinion, does racism account for zero percent of those statistical disparities? 

Unknown, but highly unlikely. The only thing that those statistics support is that if you are arrested in Ferguson, there is a high probability that you are black. That's it.

 

It doesn't answer why the police were there, why they arrested you, what the probability of you actually committing a crime was, the probability of the police being racist, nor a host of other things.

 

Until they are willing to conduct a detailed, color blind examination of the evidence presented, this study is useless. It's a biased study initiated by an biased executive who wants the standard of proof lowered for racial cases and believes that prosecuting people is "keeping your eye on the prize."

Oh, I see Slateman. Statistics mean nothing. If they don't have video evidence of the cop admitting that s/he's only stopping/arresting/brutalizing someone because they're Black in every single incident, then the overall pattern means nothing. Gotcha.

Statistics can mean whatever I want them to. If 93% of all arrests were men, does that mean that Ferguson police are also gender biased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did I know your response was going to be the old figures can lie and liars can figure routine? I pity your ignorance.

I never said they lie. I said they can be manipulated and interpreted to mean whatever you want. Just like DoJ did by saying their is a bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown, but highly unlikely. The only thing that those statistics support is that if you are arrested in Ferguson, there is a high probability that you are black. That's it.

Utter horse poop.

Those statistics absolutely prove, for example, that if you are black, then you are more likely to be arrested than if you are white.

 

This one's particularly good: 

 

Black drivers were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched during traffic stops, but were less likely to be found holding anything illegal.

 

 

Searched more than twice as often, despite being less likely to actually be carrying anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utter horse poop.

Those statistics absolutely prove, for example, that if you are black, then you are more likely to be arrested than if you are white.

 

No, they don't. It mentions NOTHING about white arrests. In order to prove your statement, or show a significant correlation, you would have to show how many black people got arrested for Crime X vs. how many white people were arrested for Crime X. And that would assume that both were caught doing Crime X.

 

For example:

 

If Black Person is caught robbing a liquor store, 99.9% of the time that person is arrested. If White Person is caught robbing a liquore store, 98.2% of the time that person is arrested. Then the statement, "If you are black, then you are more likely to be arrested than if you are white," would have credence.

 

The cold hard truth that no one wants to admit is that certain communities are committing crime and getting caught, largely because the police are actually there. If the police stopped being there, the arrests would decrease but the crime rate would continue.

 

This one's particularly good: 

 

 

Searched more than twice as often, despite being less likely to actually be carrying anything. 

That's actually the only legit piece of evidence and even it is dodgy at best. It doesn't account for the location of where the searches are made. Cops are going to be more likely to conduct searches in areas where crimes are reported. While legal, it is certainly morally questionable. But if you have a problem with it, it should be at the legislative/judiciary level for allowing these searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no statistics in that article that directly support discrimination. There is nothing that shows that they are being arrested or ticketed because they are black, nor because they are poor.

 

They are being arrested and ticketed because the police are THERE. They aren't on the other side of town because no one calls them to stabbings, muggings, gang shootings, and robberies over there. It would be stupid and wasteful for them to concentrate their assets on the nice part of town because they'll simply end up driving over to where the crimes are committed, or rolling over to cover the beats of those cops responding.

 

 

Unknown, but highly unlikely. The only thing that those statistics support is that if you are arrested in Ferguson, there is a high probability that you are black. That's it.

 

It doesn't answer why the police were there, why they arrested you, what the probability of you actually committing a crime was, the probability of the police being racist, nor a host of other things.

 

Until they are willing to conduct a detailed, color blind examination of the evidence presented, this study is useless. It's a biased study initiated by an biased executive who wants the standard of proof lowered for racial cases and believes that prosecuting people is "keeping your eye on the prize."

Statistics can mean whatever I want them to. If 93% of all arrests were men, does that mean that Ferguson police are also gender biased?

 

 

I never said they lie. I said they can be manipulated and interpreted to mean whatever you want. Just like DoJ did by saying their is a bias.

 

 

Why are you assuming all this?   Are you really that invested in the unassailable integrity and professionalism of the Ferguson, Missouri police department that you will assume, without reading the study or any analysis of the study, that the whole thing is fake and biased?   It's weird.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I'm bored, I'm tired of people not understanding the basics of statistics, and I'm extremely skeptical of DoJ and their motives. I dont believe it's fake. But I do believe that DoJ is finding the answers they want and not conducting an actual analysis. They found the evidence that simply affirmed their previous beliefs.

And as for professionalism, pot calling the kettle black. DoJ has lost assault rifles to a drug cartel that were used to kill a Border Agent, tried to railroad others for political reasons, wants to change the Constitutionally protected standard for being charged with a crime, and worked diligently to erode the civil rights of hundreds of millions of Americans, in the name of safety and security.

But we'll just take them at their word that Ferguson police are racist jerks without even a thought as to motive or their level of competence to make such an assertation.

EDIT - And I am reading the article along with parts of the study. Nothing I've read convinces me that DoJ isn't looking for confirmation bias. Want to impress me, study Chicago PD, NYPD, or LAPD. Far larger pool of data. Oh and not a bastion of your political adversary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I'm boring, I'm tired of people not understanding the basics of statistics, and I'm extremely skeptical of DoJ and their motives. I dont believe it's fake. But I do believe that DoJ is finding the answers they want and not conducting an actual analysis. They found the evidence that simply affirmed their previous beliefs.

 

 

My irony meter just exploded.   That is exactly what you are doing, right now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...