Ferguson Effect?

[Honky Tonk]

What I think of this whole thing.

Ray, Don't be offended, though you have every right to be. A lot of this is coming from greenhorn kids that have plenty of book smarts but very little real-life experience. These same people will be high-tailing it back to the 'burbs the first time their car gets broken into, shrieking "where are the 'effin cops?" all the way. A lot of folks appreciate the work you and your homies do.

[mtburb]

Ray, Don't be offended, though you have every right to be. A lot of this is coming from greenhorn kids that have plenty of book smarts but very little real-life experience. These same people will be high-tailing it back to the 'burbs the first time their car gets broken into, shrieking "where are the 'effin cops?" all the way. A lot of folks appreciate the work you and your homies do.

The bad news is...they will still be at risk for having their car broken into even in the suburbs. Have you seen how much crime has spilled over into Lincoln Park, Ecorse, Southgate, Wyandotte, River Rouge, Taylor, Allen Park in recent years?

[Honky Tonk]

The bad news is...they will still be at risk for having their car broken into even in the suburbs. Have you seen how much crime has spilled over into Lincoln Park, Ecorse, Southgate, Wyandotte, River Rouge, Taylor, Allen Park in recent years?

That's why I'm in Detroit. [[it's coming back you know)

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...I'm not saying wait ten years for anything. I'm saying there's no more evidence for an impending national crime wave today than there was a decade ago, and banging the drum like there is doesn't help anything now, just as it didn't then....snip...What I dispute is a) that the cities that have seen large increases in violent crime are part of a broad nationwide trend, and b) that those increases can be reliably connected to changes in policing as a result of civil unrest, and not to deeper, more varied factors. I have yet to see compelling evidence of either. I'm all ears.

Glad that you are 'all ears'. Too many people close down opposing ideas without listening.

Waiting for more evidence is noble. Except that violent crime in our urban centers is an epidemic that is killing people in great numbers every day. When the NYTimes says 'watch out', we might have an unintended consequence to how we're tackling police brutality -- you should listen. Maybe its too early. Maybe we're wrong. But there's nothing wrong with a discussion about whether in our pursuit of bad cops that maybe we've gone too far.

I believe we owe our cities and their citizens safety from police brutality AND excellent, aggressive efforts to control urban crimes.

You may say the statistics aren't in -- or even that they are wrong. But if you care about black lives, getting policing right is important.

[LP_85]

Glad that you are 'all ears'. Too many people close down opposing ideas without listening.

Waiting for more evidence is noble.

I'm not just waiting for more evidence to emerge. I'm waiting for somebody to present it. If there was a broad, nationwide crime wave underway, the numbers we already have would indicate as much. They don't, as far as I can tell. What I'm asking is for you [[or somebody) to provide evidence to the contrary right now that shows the trends I've pointed out are wrong. It shouldn't be too hard.

Except that violent crime in our urban centers is an epidemic that is killing people in great numbers every day.

Talking about violent crime as "an epidemic" shows that you're still ignoring the fact that crime nationwide has been on a consistent downward trend for 30 years. Is violent crime still a problem in a lot of places? Absolutely, and it must not be ignored. We do that by actually drilling down into the numbers, see where crime is increasing and where it's not, looking at the multitude of contributing factors, and adopting practices which have been studied and scrutinized for their effectiveness, and tailored to each locale as needed.

We don't help anybody by making up explanations for "crime waves" that don't exist.

When the NYTimes says 'watch out', we might have an unintended consequence to how we're tackling police brutality -- you should listen.

But the Times article is actually being very careful not to say that. Look carefully at the language they're using. Even in the headline: "Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities". "Many" does not mean all or even most. The body of the article contains similar weasel words - "some officials say," without providing clear attribution, 30 cities with "increases in violence from a year ago," without qualifying just how much of an increase in many cases. They include New York in that increase, even when their own police department says that this summer was the safest in decades.

Any inference that we need to "watch out" for a Ferguson Effect is your own, and it's really not even strongly implied by that article. To their credit, they spend just as much time talking about other possible factors - things like poverty, joblessness, foreclosures, and housing inequality. All factors which have their own bodies of evidence. But you don't seem as interested in understanding those other factors as much.

Maybe its too early. Maybe we're wrong. But there's nothing wrong with a discussion about whether in our pursuit of bad cops that maybe we've gone too far.

There's plenty wrong with it when that discussion is based on little more than hunches and speculation. If you want to have a discussion about it, you need to show me more.

I believe we owe our cities and their citizens safety from police brutality AND excellent, aggressive efforts to control urban crimes.

Then you need to look into which policing methods work and which don't, and things like the connection between mass incarceration and high recidivism. All which are huge topics of research, with far more supporting evidence than any "Ferguson Effect"

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...18613&page=130
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...quotas/398165/

You may say the statistics aren't in -- or even that they are wrong.

I'm not saying either. The statistics are in. And they're right: violent crime nationwide is on the downswing. Maybe you should be just as curious about why that is.

But if you care about black lives, getting policing right is important.

It's absolutely important, which is why we need far more than baseless speculation in order to get it right.

[Jimaz]

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » Black Conservative Says Black Lives Matter Is a Hate Group!

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm not just waiting for more evidence to emerge. I'm waiting for somebody to present it. If there was a broad, nationwide crime wave underway, the numbers we already have would indicate as much. They don't, as far as I can tell. What I'm asking is for you [[or somebody) to provide evidence to the contrary right now that shows the trends I've pointed out are wrong. It shouldn't be too hard.



Talking about violent crime as "an epidemic" shows that you're still ignoring the fact that crime nationwide has been on a consistent downward trend for 30 years. Is violent crime still a problem in a lot of places? Absolutely, and it must not be ignored. We do that by actually drilling down into the numbers, see where crime is increasing and where it's not, looking at the multitude of contributing factors, and adopting practices which have been studied and scrutinized for their effectiveness, and tailored to each locale as needed.

We don't help anybody by making up explanations for "crime waves" that don't exist.

But the Times article is actually being very careful not to say that. Look carefully at the language they're using. Even in the headline: "Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities". "Many" does not mean all or even most. The body of the article contains similar weasel words - "some officials say," without providing clear attribution, 30 cities with "increases in violence from a year ago," without qualifying just how much of an increase in many cases. They include New York in that increase, even when their own police department says that this summer was the safest in decades.

Any inference that we need to "watch out" for a Ferguson Effect is your own, and it's really not even strongly implied by that article. To their credit, they spend just as much time talking about other possible factors - things like poverty, joblessness, foreclosures, and housing inequality. All factors which have their own bodies of evidence. But you don't seem as interested in understanding those other factors as much.

There's plenty wrong with it when that discussion is based on little more than hunches and speculation. If you want to have a discussion about it, you need to show me more.

Then you need to look into which policing methods work and which don't, and things like the connection between mass incarceration and high recidivism. All which are huge topics of research, with far more supporting evidence than any "Ferguson Effect"

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...18613&page=130
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...quotas/398165/

I'm not saying either. The statistics are in. And they're right: violent crime nationwide is on the downswing. Maybe you should be just as curious about why that is.

It's absolutely important, which is why we need far more than baseless speculation in order to get it right.

You think the NYTimes article is baseless, simply because you found stats that support your viewpoint?

Tell that to the 104 dead in Milwaukee.

Times:

MILWAUKEE — Cities across the nation are seeing a startling rise in murders after years of declines, and few places have witnessed a shift as precipitous as this city. With the summer not yet over, 104 people have been killed this year — after 86 homicides in all of 2014.

Yes, 'few places'. Ignore at your own peril.

What I really don't understand is why destroying any basis for even hints of a 'Ferguson Effect' is so necessary. Is the idea that police brutality so strong that everything else must be discounted?

Only time will tell if there's a Ferguson Effect. It would be better to respect the idea that policing is changing -- and we need to make sure that change doesn't harm urban citizens.

Or we can stick our head in the sand and just say that our stats don't support this, so let's just ignore the concerns of officials like the City and County police chiefs in St. Louis.

[Towne Cluber]

To me, it seems like it is BOTH. A crime rate that was previously rising in cities, exacerbated by a Ferguson Effect.

[lpg]

The bad news is...they will still be at risk for having their car broken into even in the suburbs. Have you seen how much crime has spilled over into Lincoln Park, Ecorse, Southgate, Wyandotte, River Rouge, Taylor, Allen Park in recent years?

Yep..Living in LP is not dull anymore..

[SWMAP]

From an article by Thomas Edsell in today's New York Times "Whose Neighborhood Is It Anyway?":
In the case of white suburban Detroit, Orfield, of the University of Minnesota, points out that just as racial integration was temporary in Detroit neighborhoods, so it appears to be in its suburbs. Half of the suburbs that were racially diverse in 2000 had become predominantly nonwhite in 2010, and most of the integrated suburbs in 2010 were in the process of resegregation.

Southfield, Mich., for example, which had been 0.7 percent black in 1970, by 2010 had become 70.3 percent black, and its schools nearly 95 percent black. Over the same time period, Ecorse, a suburb southwest of Detroit, went from 0.4 percent black to 44.5 percent, and its school system to 72 percent black; Oak Park from 0.6 to 57.4, and its school system to 95 percent black; Harper Woods from 0.3 to 45.6, and its school system to 88 percent black.

[bust]

From an article by Thomas Edsell in today's New York Times "Whose Neighborhood Is It Anyway?":
In the case of white suburban Detroit, Orfield, of the University of Minnesota, points out that just as racial integration was temporary in Detroit neighborhoods, so it appears to be in its suburbs. Half of the suburbs that were racially diverse in 2000 had become predominantly nonwhite in 2010, and most of the integrated suburbs in 2010 were in the process of resegregation.

Southfield, Mich., for example, which had been 0.7 percent black in 1970, by 2010 had become 70.3 percent black, and its schools nearly 95 percent black. Over the same time period, Ecorse, a suburb southwest of Detroit, went from 0.4 percent black to 44.5 percent, and its school system to 72 percent black; Oak Park from 0.6 to 57.4, and its school system to 95 percent black; Harper Woods from 0.3 to 45.6, and its school system to 88 percent black.

Since leaving Detroit it's been nice living places where people manage to integrate and don't run for the hills when a person of another color moves next door.

Meanwhile there has been a lot of recent coverage in the Times about Detroit. Besides the op-ed referenced above, there was a video feature two days ago, another op-ed today, even an article in their fashion magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...firstyear.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/op...roit.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/t-...roit-food.html

I take this outside interest as a good sign.

Coincidentally, the op-ed interviews the judge mentioned in the Livernois and McNichols thread yesterday.

[LP_85]

You think the NYTimes article is baseless, simply because you found stats that support your viewpoint?

No, the article is not baseless. Your own speculation based on the limited statistical information in the article is what's baseless. And it's even more baseless when those numbers are put into context.

Tell that to the 104 dead in Milwaukee.
...
Yes, 'few places'. Ignore at your own peril.

And it's a tragedy. In Milwaukee. I've never tried to claim otherwise. But you can't point to 104 killed in Milwaukee and call it a nationwide crime wave. You just can't. That's my whole point: some places are having big increases in crime. I've never, ever disputed that. What I dispute is that it's any part of a nationwide trend. If it was, the numbers would say exactly that. If there's a nationwide crime wave, show me the numbers that say so.

You're still hung up on that Times article, when we've moved on to a broader set of information, one that paints a clearer picture of what's happening across the country. It's like if you were to look out at the horizon and proclaim "Aha! The world is flat!" Then I show you a photo of earth from space and say, "No, you're not seeing the whole picture." Then you just point back at the horizon and say "But it is flat. See?"

You still haven't addressed any of the actual information that I've presented so far. Until you do that, we'll just keep talking in circles.

What I really don't understand is why destroying any basis for even hints of a 'Ferguson Effect' is so necessary. Is the idea that police brutality so strong that everything else must be discounted?

I've already addressed this. It's not about "destroying" anything. It's not about motives. It's about accurately portraying the story that the numbers are telling. Period. If you think the numbers tell a different story than what I've presented, show me how. With ​evidence.

Only time will tell if there's a Ferguson Effect. It would be better to respect the idea that policing is changing -- and we need to make sure that change doesn't harm urban citizens.

I'll respect the idea that policing is changing when you show me that it is. That's not a particularly high burden, I don't think.

Or we can stick our head in the sand and just say that our stats don't support this, so let's just ignore the concerns of officials like the City and County police chiefs in St. Louis.

Nobody's sticking their head in the sand. When we make decisions that impact people's lives, we need to do it in a way that reflects reality, by using real information and data to inform those decisions, not the gut feelings of individuals, even if they are important officials. The concerns of police in the City and County of St. Louis are not the same concerns as the police in New York, are not the same concerns as the police in New Orleans, are not the same concerns as the police in Washington. Are there some common issues? Of course. But every city is different, and has to deal with its problems in different ways.

[Wesley Mouch]

No, the article is not baseless. Your own speculation based on the limited statistical information in the article is what's baseless. And it's even more baseless when those numbers are put into [[LP's own) context.

And it's a tragedy. In Milwaukee. I've never tried to claim otherwise. But you can't point to 104 killed in Milwaukee and call it a nationwide crime wave [[not nationwide -- just here and there -- its early). You just can't. That's my whole point: some places are having big increases in crime. I've never, ever disputed that. What I dispute is that it's any part of a nationwide trend. If it was, the numbers would say exactly that. If there's a nationwide crime wave, show me the numbers that say so. [[not nationwide)

You're still hung up on that Times article, when we've moved on to a broader set of information, one that paints a clearer picture of what's happening across the country. It's like if you were to look out at the horizon and proclaim "Aha! The world is flat!" Then I show you a photo of earth from space and say, "No, you're not seeing the whole picture." Then you just point back at the horizon and say "But it is flat. See?" [[reverse this, and we see each other)

You still haven't addressed any of the actual information that I've presented so far. Until you do that, we'll just keep talking in circles. [[The information you're using to refute FE is just as weak as the supporting information, at best. That there was an uptick in the weeks before Ferguson does not disprove FE -- unless you really, really want it to)

I've already addressed this. It's not about "destroying" anything. It's not about motives. It's about accurately portraying the story that the numbers are telling. Period. If you think the numbers tell a different story than what I've presented, show me how. With ​evidence.

I'll respect the idea that policing is changing when you show me that it is. That's not a particularly high burden, I don't think. [[There is evidence that is so far inconclusive. I say be alarmed, but let's wait -- not dismiss just because we don't agree)

Nobody's sticking their head in the sand. When we make decisions that impact people's lives, we need to do it in a way that reflects reality, by using real information and data to inform those decisions, not the gut feelings of individuals, even if they are important officials. The concerns of police in the City and County of St. Louis are not the same concerns as the police in New York, are not the same concerns as the police in New Orleans, are not the same concerns as the police in Washington. Are there some common issues? Of course. But every city is different, and has to deal with its problems in different ways.

LP, its clear that we both see the same data -- and we have different opinions of what the statistics suggest to us. I don't see that changing. We each read into the facts in front of us. This is a problem not just for us, but for all of us today. Politicians and advocates are both finding the stats that support their POV, or they are interpreting them in the favor of their cause.

This isn't to me an argument about stats. The stats in some cases are for such low figures, that I think many of them fall within what might happen randomly. And that cuts both ways. It can support your position. Or mine.

The argument to me is about incentives. Do cops and robbers respond to changes in the relationship between each other? I think they do. You seem to not believe this.

I believe the stats are alarming, and confirm what to me is an unintended consequence of BLM. Their goals are noble. Their actions harm blacks disproportionately.

A 'nationwide crime spree' does not need to be proven to me. Cherry-picked examples showing urban crime upticks do.

That St. Louis crime spiked before the exact date of Ferguson means little to me. BLM didn't start at Ferguson:

Wikipedia: Black Lives Matter is an activist movement in the United States that began in the wake of the July 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Florida shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin.

Does that mean BLM caused in the increase in Wazooville, MT. Probably not.

Do criminals feel just a little emboldened when cops take it just a little easier? I think so.

Nevers and Budzen weren't nice guys. And I am not approving their behavior. But it probably did reduce urban crime -- at least in the short term. So did Stalin, Tito, and Lee Kuan Yew. When spitting in Singapore is a capital offense, civil society can benefit. But it does have a cost. I believe we need to find a way to control police abuses, yet support police in being aggressively going after bad behavior -- ignoring this absurd 'disparate impact' argument. I believe very strongly in 'broken windows' policing -- because I think we have too many broken windows -- and that criminals do respond to incentives -- and that this is a part of the crime reduction that we're tossing out the window at the altar of BLM -- and that its costing us black lives.

[CassTechGrad]

Wall Street journal: Jason L. Riley. Sept. 8, 2015

" The reality is that Michael Brown is dead because he robbed a convenience store, assaulted a uniformed officer and then made a move for the officer’s gun. The reality is that a cop is six times more likely to be killed by someone black than the reverse. The reality is that the Michael Browns are a much bigger threat to black lives than are the police. “Every year, the casualty count of black-on-black crime is twice that of the death toll of 9/11,” wrote former New York City police detective Edward Conlon in a Journal essay on Saturday. “I don’t understand how a movement called ‘Black Lives Matter’ can ignore the leading cause of death among young black men in the U.S., which is homicide by their peers.”

" Asked recently about the increase in violent crime, New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton said what precious few public officials and commentators have been willing to say. He stated the obvious. “We have, unfortunately, a very large population of many young people who have grown up in an environment in which the . . . traditional norms and values are not there,” Mr. Bratton told MSNBC. The commissioner added that Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report warning that the disintegration of the black family could lead to other social ills had proved prescient. “He was right on the money,” Mr. Bratton said, “the disintegration of family, the disintegration of values. There is something going on in our society and our inner cities.”

[Shai_Hulud]

Wall Street journal: Jason L. Riley. Sept. 8, 2015

" The reality is that Michael Brown is dead because he robbed a convenience store, assaulted a uniformed officer and then made a move for the officer’s gun. The reality is that a cop is six times more likely to be killed by someone black than the reverse. The reality is that the Michael Browns are a much bigger threat to black lives than are the police. “Every year, the casualty count of black-on-black crime is twice that of the death toll of 9/11,” wrote former New York City police detective Edward Conlon in a Journal essay on Saturday. “I don’t understand how a movement called ‘Black Lives Matter’ can ignore the leading cause of death among young black men in the U.S., which is homicide by their peers.”

Heart disease kills over 100,000 black people a year. The rate of diagnosis is higher, the age of diagnosis is younger and black people are far more likely to die from the disease than any other race.

I have yet to hear anyone say, "I don’t understand how a movement called ‘Black Lives Matter’ can ignore the leading cause of death black people in the U.S., which is heart disease."

Still fallacious, but it would be less condescending and would not implicitly blame the victims of police violence.

" Asked recently about the increase in violent crime, New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton said what precious few public officials and commentators have been willing to say. He stated the obvious. “We have, unfortunately, a very large population of many young people who have grown up in an environment in which the . . . traditional norms and values are not there,” Mr. Bratton told MSNBC. The commissioner added that Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report warning that the disintegration of the black family could lead to other social ills had proved prescient. “He was right on the money,” Mr. Bratton said, “the disintegration of family, the disintegration of values. There is something going on in our society and our inner cities.”

This I don't really disagree with. I would qualify it buy I don't have the much time at the moment.

[aj3647]

Meanwhile, in NYC, black ex-Tennis pro James Black got his ass kicked by a bunch of white NYPD officers outside his hotel. His crime? He "fit a description." He had committed no crime, was standing still and minding his own business, he offered no resistance to the police even after he suffered an unprovoked attack at their hands...basically he did all the things that white people say black people should do to avoid negative encounters with the police. And where did it get him? Bruised, battered, and handcuffed. Just for being black.

Police defenders...defend that. Go ahead. Tell us what James Blake should have done differently to avoid having white cops beat him for no reason. Tell us how the cops were just doing their jobs and shouldn't be punished for it. You want to know why BLM exists? THAT shit right there is why. Happens more often then you want to admit.

Meanwhile in Alabama, a white cop just got a mistrial for paralyzing a 58-year old Indian grandfather. The brave cop in question body-slammed an unarmed, 130-lb, 58-year old Indian man to the ground, causing permanent injuries. What was his crime? Walking while brown. A white citizen noticed him walking around the neighborhood and called the cops to report a "suspicious black man."

It doesn't matter if you obey every law. It doesn't matter if you are polite and courteous to the police. It doesn't matter that you're unarmed and not resisting. If the cops want to hurt you, they will. There's no shortage of examples. That what's white people can't comprehend, because we so rarely are the victims of this kind of thing at the hands of police. We can't even begin to imagine a cop literally BEATING us for no reason whatsoever, because it's not something that will ever happen to us. It's wrong, and that's why people are upset. Because they feel there's two systems of justice at work, one for people of color and one for whites.

[Wesley Mouch]

Meanwhile, in NYC, black ex-Tennis pro James Black got his ass kicked by a bunch of white NYPD officers outside his hotel. His crime? He "fit a description." He had committed no crime, was standing still and minding his own business, he offered no resistance to the police even after he suffered an unprovoked attack at their hands...basically he did all the things that white people say black people should do to avoid negative encounters with the police. And where did it get him? Bruised, battered, and handcuffed. Just for being black.

Police defenders...defend that. Go ahead. Tell us what James Blake should have done differently to avoid having white cops beat him for no reason. Tell us how the cops were just doing their jobs and shouldn't be punished for it. You want to know why BLM exists? THAT shit right there is why. Happens more often then you want to admit.

Meanwhile in Alabama, a white cop just got a mistrial for paralyzing a 58-year old Indian grandfather. The brave cop in question body-slammed an unarmed, 130-lb, 58-year old Indian man to the ground, causing permanent injuries. What was his crime? Walking while brown. A white citizen noticed him walking around the neighborhood and called the cops to report a "suspicious black man."

It doesn't matter if you obey every law. It doesn't matter if you are polite and courteous to the police. It doesn't matter that you're unarmed and not resisting. If the cops want to hurt you, they will. There's no shortage of examples. That what's white people can't comprehend, because we so rarely are the victims of this kind of thing at the hands of police. We can't even begin to imagine a cop literally BEATING us for no reason whatsoever, because it's not something that will ever happen to us. It's wrong, and that's why people are upset. Because they feel there's two systems of justice at work, one for people of color and one for whites.

I don't think I nor others have denied the problem of bad cops. Nothing wrong with focusing on police brutality. I couldn't find information on Mr. Black, but why would I defend brutality?

That doesn't mean, however, that the solution is to accuse all cops of being bad any more than assuming all blacks are bad. Mistaken generalizations. Wrong. More important, it doesn't mean that discouraging active policing in our cities is the right solution.

Police brutality is a problem. Urban crime is a much bigger problem. Let's fix police abuse while focusing on urban crime too.

P.S. I found the James Black arrest story in the Times. Little defense of police action here. They got the wrong guy. Here's Chief Bratton:

Mr. Bratton, in the NY1 interview, said: “We will very aggressively address it. I will not tolerate any type of excessive use of force on the part of my police. But as always, and we have that saying, ‘The first story is never the last story,’ so we’ll wait and see what we get for facts and circumstances and, hopefully, video.”

[DetroitBoy]

Meanwhile, in NYC, black ex-Tennis pro James Black got his ass kicked by a bunch of white NYPD officers outside his hotel. His crime? He "fit a description." He had committed no crime, was standing still and minding his own business, he offered no resistance to the police even after he suffered an unprovoked attack at their hands...basically he did all the things that white people say black people should do to avoid negative encounters with the police. And where did it get him? Bruised, battered, and handcuffed. Just for being black.

Police defenders...defend that. Go ahead. Tell us what James Blake should have done differently to avoid having white cops beat him for no reason. Tell us how the cops were just doing their jobs and shouldn't be punished for it. You want to know why BLM exists? THAT shit right there is why. Happens more often then you want to admit.

Meanwhile in Alabama, a white cop just got a mistrial for paralyzing a 58-year old Indian grandfather. The brave cop in question body-slammed an unarmed, 130-lb, 58-year old Indian man to the ground, causing permanent injuries. What was his crime? Walking while brown. A white citizen noticed him walking around the neighborhood and called the cops to report a "suspicious black man."

It doesn't matter if you obey every law. It doesn't matter if you are polite and courteous to the police. It doesn't matter that you're unarmed and not resisting. If the cops want to hurt you, they will. There's no shortage of examples. That what's white people can't comprehend, because we so rarely are the victims of this kind of thing at the hands of police. We can't even begin to imagine a cop literally BEATING us for no reason whatsoever, because it's not something that will ever happen to us. It's wrong, and that's why people are upset. Because they feel there's two systems of justice at work, one for people of color and one for whites.

Another typical rant ignoring and protecting the hoodlums who cause the majority of crime and fear both on other blacks and attack of police officers.

I would hardly say James Black appears African American. If anything, he looks Middle Eastern and there is an aggressive stance on these people particularly after 9/11 in NYC.

The area around the Grand Hyatt is heavily guarded with complete surveillance due to the adjacent Grand Central terminal. The police thought he was involved in an identity theft ring, of which, much of the terrorist activities use to plot attacks on the US. He did not have his 'ass kicked by a bunch of NYC police officers' nor was he 'bruised, battered and handcuffed just for being black' according to the surveillance video.

Quit spurting this race-baiting bullshit based on no facts. There were black men who walked by the scene of the arrest and we're not touched by the police. Most likely if James Black truly appeared African American, he would not have fit the description and would have had no problem.

[Bham1982]

Meanwhile, in NYC, black ex-Tennis pro James Black got his ass kicked by a bunch of white NYPD officers outside his hotel. His crime? He "fit a description." He had committed no crime, was standing still and minding his own business, he offered no resistance to the police even after he suffered an unprovoked attack at their hands...basically he did all the things that white people say black people should do to avoid negative encounters with the police. And where did it get him? Bruised, battered, and handcuffed. Just for being black.

And this is a great summary of why we have such race problems in the U.S. Blacks commit a wildly disproportionate proportion of crime, but it's everyone else's fault when law enforcement tries to control crime.

Even James Blake stated that the incident had zero to do with race, BTW. He looks exactly like the guy they were after. If there was improper police procedure, that's a different issue, but there's no indication it has anything to do with race [[and Blake is very light-skinned, and wouldn't even be thought of as black in NYC; he would probably pass for Hispanic).

[aj3647]

I don't think I nor others have denied the problem of bad cops. Nothing wrong with focusing on police brutality. I couldn't find information on Mr. Black, but why would I defend brutality?

That doesn't mean, however, that the solution is to accuse all cops of being bad any more than assuming all blacks are bad. Mistaken generalizations. Wrong. More important, it doesn't mean that discouraging active policing in our cities is the right solution.

Police brutality is a problem. Urban crime is a much bigger problem. Let's fix police abuse while focusing on urban crime too.

P.S. I found the James Black arrest story in the Times. Little defense of police action here. They got the wrong guy. Here's Chief Bratton:

I never said all cops are bad. That's not what people are upset about. They're upset because of the very real perception that the "bad" cops are allowed to get away with it. Like the example I cited in my post. A white cop in Alabama partially paralyzed an old Indian man who did nothing wrong...and wasn't convicted.

Now imagine that perspective from a person of color in this country. A white cop in the South brutalized a person of color, and a mostly white jury lets him get away with it. Doesn't that harken back to the days of Jim Crow when all-white juries and white judges and white cops allowed whites to brutalize blacks with impunity? It gives two distinct impressions:

1) That there's two forms of justice in this country: one for white people and one for everyone else.
2) That the police, as part of the criminal justice system, cannot and are not being held to the same standards of conduct as regular citizens by the same criminal justice system they are a part of. That the police are "above the law."

This about sums it up: If there was no video evidence of James Blake being attacked by the police and James Blake himself were not famous [[i.e. if he was just a regular black man in NYC), would ANYONE have cared about him being brutalized by the police? Would the officers who attacked him face any repercussions? I think the answer would be "no." I think if the cops beat the fuck out of an innocent black man and there was no video evidence of it, they would get away with it 99 times out of 100.

[aj3647]

Ah, and we get not one but TWO posters [[Detroitboy and Bham1982) coming up with flimsy justifications for the beating of an innocent man by the cops. You see, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime so the cops are right to just tackle random black men on the street! Also, he might have looked Arab, and you know...9/11, so the cops were justified!


Good jobs guys, I knew you wouldn't let me down. Thanks for 100% proving my point.

FYI, the suspect that James Blake was "mistaken" for...was also innocent. Imagine that. Furthermore, the suspect they were looking for was described as being black, so the cops knew they were looking for a black guy, so I don't buy any "he looks Hispanic or Arab" bullshit. The cops were specifically looking for a black male, and they tackled a black male. No mistake about it. Also, do you two troglodytes realize how incredibly fucking racist it sounds for two white men such as yourselves to say that race isn't a factor because his skin wasn't dark enough to meet YOUR criteria of what "black" looks like?

[DetroitBoy]

Ah, and we get not one but TWO posters [[Detroitboy and Bham1982) coming up with flimsy justifications for the beating of an innocent man by the cops. You see, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime so the cops are right to just tackle random black men on the street! Also, he might have looked Arab, and you know...9/11, so the cops were justified!


Good jobs guys, I knew you wouldn't let me down. Thanks for 100% proving my point.

FYI, the suspect that James Blake was "mistaken" for...was also innocent. Imagine that. Furthermore, the suspect they were looking for was described as being black, so the cops knew they were looking for a black guy, so I don't buy any "he looks Hispanic or Arab" bullshit. The cops were specifically looking for a black male, and they tackled a black male. No mistake about it. Also, do you two troglodytes realize how incredibly fucking racist it sounds for two white men such as yourselves to say that race isn't a factor because his skin wasn't dark enough to meet YOUR criteria of what "black" looks like?

I'd like to see what police information you're reading about that states what the suspect looked like. You're sensationalized description of the event shows how biased you are on race relations. As for the rest of your race baiting diatribe, I won't validate it with a response. Like most of the people like you who seek only to incite people on this topic, you are just like the rest who are willing to lie and make up the facts for your own personal gain. After all, if you can't prove police abuse, arent you immediately seeking a civil law suit to bilk anyone you can out of money? That's part of the hustle you and your ambulance chasing attorneys have learned when growing up in the ghetto trying to be slick instead of working for a living. That behavior is an insult to the African Americans who have done well for themselves and see through all this bullshit. There are plenty of people, white and black, who are tired of this song and dance. People like you are the first to be intolerant and oppress Hispanics, middle eastern, gay or other minority groups than yourself when given the opportunity.

Keep beating your drum. It isn't as if you have much else to offer. And you should be really careful about stating someone's race. You might be wrong and look like a fool. But wait, you already do.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'd like to see what police information you're reading about that states what the suspect looked like. You're sensationalized description of the event shows how biased you are on race relations. As for the rest of your race baiting diatribe, I won't validate it with a response. Like most of the people like you who seek only to incite people on this topic, you are just like the rest who are willing to lie and make up the facts for your own personal gain. After all, if you can't prove police abuse, arent you immediately seeking a civil law suit to bilk anyone you can out of money? That's part of the hustle you and your ambulance chasing attorneys have learned when growing up in the ghetto trying to be slick instead of working for a living. That behavior is an insult to the African Americans who have done well for themselves and see through all this bullshit. There are plenty of people, white and black, who are tired of this song and dance. People like you are the first to be intolerant and oppress Hispanics, middle eastern, gay or other minority groups than yourself when given the opportunity.

Keep beating your drum. It isn't as if you have much else to offer. And you should be really careful about stating someone's race. You might be wrong and look like a fool. But wait, you already do.

Here's the identification

NYTimes: The team of officers, looking for suspects in a credit card fraud ring, were relying on a courier who identified Mr. Blake as one of the buyers, the police said. The officers also had an Instagram photo of someone believed to be involved. That person, who Mr. Bratton said looked like Mr. Blake’s “twin brother,” turned out to have no role in the scheme.

The facts as reported by the Times do bear out that this was an incident where excessive force was used.

The actions of the officer, James Frascatore, were under review by internal affairs investigators and the Civilian Complaint Review Board. At least three force-related complaints, one of which was partially substantiated, were filed against Officer Frascatore, 38, with the review board in 2013, said a law enforcement official, who spoke anonymously because the police inquiry was continuing.

Blake wants appropriate action taken -- and does not attack all cops as bad:
[quote]I do think most cops are doing a great job keeping us safe, but when you police with reckless abandon, you need to be held accountable,” Mr. Blake, whose mother is white and whose father was black, said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

So we have an incident here where a cop acted badly. I'm sure it happens daily. And it needs to be addressed. Absolutely.

The police chief apologized. The civilian review boards suspended the officer. This incident is not cause for outrage. Its cause for celebration that NYPD handles problem cops well.

btw, did anyone notice that DiBlasio is 100% absent from this reporting. He can't even show up and be the mayor because he's likely afraid of BLM saying he's sympathetic to cops, too. What a leader.

[MSUguy]

Another typical rant ignoring and protecting the hoodlums who cause the majority of crime and fear both on other blacks and attack of police officers.

I would hardly say James Black appears African American. If anything, he looks Middle Eastern and there is an aggressive stance on these people particularly after 9/11 in NYC.

The area around the Grand Hyatt is heavily guarded with complete surveillance due to the adjacent Grand Central terminal. The police thought he was involved in an identity theft ring, of which, much of the terrorist activities use to plot attacks on the US. He did not have his 'ass kicked by a bunch of NYC police officers' nor was he 'bruised, battered and handcuffed just for being black' according to the surveillance video.

Quit spurting this race-baiting bullshit based on no facts. There were black men who walked by the scene of the arrest and we're not touched by the police. Most likely if James Black truly appeared African American, he would not have fit the description and would have had no problem.

What video were you watching? Mind you the officer never even identified himself before tackling Blake. There is absolutely no justification for what happened. The only race baiters are people like who continue to deny the disportionate level abuse of people of color by the police.

[Dumpling]

The police got the part about "probable cause" right. The Blake arrest was based on resemblance to the perp, who was not far away, as reported by someone familiar with
that person.

What should be banned is the practice of tackling young men preemptively just because
they are physically fit and therefore could cause more harm or run away. Tackling
young men can cause them harm. It can cause the rest of us harm because if the
arrestees really ought to contact the police at some point in the future, for some other matter, they won't, because they naturally will have formed an aversion to the police,
having been effectively mugged by them.

Just as a nurse should call for help when moving a heavy patient, a policeman should
enlist help when arresting persons with a greater potential to harm or flee.