Protest March in Detroit tonite

[ABetterDetroit]

Having demonstrations and protest marches when emotions are at the highest is exactly when we should have them. Having protest marches when nobody cares doesn't really accomplish anything, does it?

If the people in power are worried that public protestors might get unruly, then perhaps the people in power should pay attention to the public protestors. If a large number of people are willing to gather together in public protest, it makes me think that they probably have a legitimate complaint about an issue that needs to be addressed.

The alternative is to be scared and suppress the voice of the people, which is the classic strategy of dictators, despots, and tyrants.

I do not disagree with you but I do see some other risks involved with immediate not well planned protests.

As stated before I worry about senseless loss of human life. I also worry that knuckleheads throwing bottles or rocks will inspire arsonists. Another worry is that Detroit does not have the resources to repair and rebuild as quickly that Baltimore did and an event like that would be far more detrimental to Detroit. I worry that anything remotely considered civil unrest will harm the capital investment needed from the private sector to bring more jobs to the city. I always worry that the rest of this state will again use any excuse to turn their backs on Detroit and be dumb enough to think that there will be no collateral damage for having the most economically failed city in the nation within its borders. Maybe I worry too much but your concern for letting the door crack open for dictators, despots or tyrants is not on my list for the near future at least.

[Danny]

YAY Black Lives Matter

[noise]

I'm looking for respect for cops.

Why? As individuals or as members of a corrupt, historically oppressive, and systemically racist organization? They've chosen a job. A job that's problematic. A job that does much less to help and serve than they'd like you to believe. If respect is earned, what has been done to earn it?

[Wheels]

Why? As individuals or as members of a corrupt, historically oppressive, and systemically racist organization? They've chosen a job. A job that's problematic. A job that does much less to help and serve than they'd like you to believe. If respect is earned, what has been done to earn it?

if you really believe that, you are part of the problem!

[noise]

if you really believe that, you are part of the problem!

I haven't killed anyone or targeted them due to their race.

[Bham1982]

I haven't killed anyone or targeted them due to their race.

You don't need to target or kill someone to be part of the problem.

And the data re. police misconduct and shootings is fuzzy, at best. There is certainly police misconduct, but the degree of misconduct, and the extent to which race plays a role is not entirely clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/up...T.nav=top-news

[noise]

You don't need to target or kill someone to be part of the problem.

No, you just need to defend a system that supports it.

[Bham1982]

No, you just need to defend a system that supports it.

Except there is no evidence that there's a system defending targeting/killing of humans.

Police killings are quite rare, and massively declining over time. Whether there's systemmic bias in these rare cases isn't entirely clear.

[noise]

Except there is no evidence that there's a system defending targeting/killing of humans.

Police killings are quite rare, and massively declining over time.

Right, and I never said there's a system defending targeting/killing of humans. I said you're part of the problem if you defend a system that targets and/or kills humans due to race.

You realize the very article you cited has this title, right?

Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force...

No evidence. Not even surprising new evidence. Nothing to see here.

[Bham1982]

Right, and I never said there's a system defending targeting/killing of humans. I said you're part of the problem if you defend a system that targets and/or kills humans due to race.

So if you agree that there's no such system, what are you even talking about? We apparently both agree there is no such system.

You realize the very article you cited has this title, right?

Yeah, which is, in part, why I posted the article. It's exactly what I was talking about- ie there's no consensus among criminologists re. the degree to which bias affects police work.

Many of the "truths" that guide movements like BLM are outright lies [[which doesn't mean that there aren't issues with police misconduct). Same goes for the automatic cop defenders. But, like many movements on the Right or Left, there's little room for nuance.

Again, there are very few police killings, they're massively declining over time, and there doesn't appear to be race-related bias in police killings. There are serious issues with police misconduct which need to be addressed, but, like most things in life, it's a complicated issue where Trumpian soundbites are useless.

[noise]

So if you agree that there's no such system, what are you even talking about? We apparently both agree there is no such system.

Read slowly and read carefully.

Yeah, which is, in part, why I posted the article. It's exactly what I was talking about- ie there's no consensus among criminologists re. the degree to which bias affects police work.

Many of the "truths" that guide movements like BLM are outright lies [[which doesn't mean that there aren't issues with police misconduct). But, like many movements on the Right or Left, there's little room for nuance.

It's interesting [[perhaps telling?) that you choose to ignore the countless articles in scholarly criminal justice journals indicating bias, racial disparity, and disproportionate police work as it relates to race and repeat the lie that there's "no evidence". There's plenty of "evidence".

Again, there are very few police killings, they're massively declining over time, and there doesn't appear to be race-related bias in police killings. There are serious issues with police misconduct which need to be addressed, but, like most things in life, it's a complicated issue where Trumpian soundbites are useless.

What does "very few" mean? If by "massively declining over time," you mean to say, "massively declining since 2014," you'd be somewhat correct.

[Wesley Mouch]

Read slowly and read carefully.

It's interesting [[perhaps telling?) that you choose to ignore the countless articles in scholarly criminal justice journals indicating bias, racial disparity, and disproportionate police work as it relates to race and repeat the lie that there's "no evidence". There's plenty of "evidence".

What does "very few" mean? If by "massively declining over time," you mean to say, "massively declining since 2014," you'd be somewhat correct.

I don't see that either of you are right. What I've read is that we don't have good statistics on deaths resulting from policing. [[see ever-accurate wikipedia)

BLM is no doubt correct that there is police racism, brutality and deaths of blacks as a result. But I also suspect that this is a receding problem. IMO, you both are right.

We should be fighting bad policing -- but also recognizing that general violence in the black community is a far bigger problem.

So why is the focus so much on police brutality when that's a smaller problem?

1) Blacks say they feel victimized in non-trivial numbers.

2) Politicians feed on #1

3) Video technology now shows us things we never saw before

4) We don't see videos of the 'every 2 hours' shootings in Chicago' where a massive number of violent and senseless deaths just wash past us each day.

Perception is reality [[McLuhan?). So we think our biggest problem is the police. This is delusional. Its a problem -- but the real problem is that the massive violence occurring hourly is hidden from view. If we could watch criminals murdering innocent store clerks, children on the street -- see drug lords murdering family members of kids who try to go straight -- victims of domestic violence -- the perception would be quite different.

Police brutality is most certainly a major problem. Its worth fighting. Its worth protesting. But its a misguided fight against a police force that IMO is so much better than they have been. Its yesterday's fight. Look at the praise heaped on the Dallas PD for their recent reforms.

Our perception is accurate, but very incomplete.

[noise]

I don't see that either of you are right. What I've read is that we don't have good statistics on deaths resulting from policing. [[see ever-accurate wikipedia)

BLM is no doubt correct that there is police racism, brutality and deaths of blacks as a result. But I also suspect that this is a receding problem. IMO, you both are right.

We should be fighting bad policing -- but also recognizing that general violence in the black community is a far bigger problem.

So why is the focus so much on police brutality when that's a smaller problem?

1) Blacks say they feel victimized in non-trivial numbers.

2) Politicians feed on #1

3) Video technology now shows us things we never saw before

4) We don't see videos of the 'every 2 hours' shootings in Chicago' where a massive number of violent and senseless deaths just wash past us each day.

Perception is reality [[McLuhan?). So we think our biggest problem is the police. This is delusional. Its a problem -- but the real problem is that the massive violence occurring hourly is hidden from view. If we could watch criminals murdering innocent store clerks, children on the street -- see drug lords murdering family members of kids who try to go straight -- victims of domestic violence -- the perception would be quite different.

Police brutality is most certainly a major problem. Its worth fighting. Its worth protesting. But its a misguided fight against a police force that IMO is so much better than they have been. Its yesterday's fight. Look at the praise heaped on the Dallas PD for their recent reforms.

Our perception is accurate, but very incomplete.

So your response is to acknowledge a problem but since it's better than it used to be, suggest protesters should fight against something else?

[Bham1982]

So your response is to acknowledge a problem but since it's better than it used to be, suggest protesters should fight against something else?

I have no problem with BLM or protest in general. The issue is that the narrative, both on the Left and Right, has been seriously corrupted.

On the Left [[BLM) the narrative that there's an epidemic of racist killer cops is nonsense. There are very, very few cop killings, and a microscopic amount are found to be "racist cop killings". The issue is like 1/1000 as bad as claimed, and most of the [[in)famous cases [[Baltimore, Ferguson) were found to built on lies.

I'm also frustrated that both the Left and Right ignore the obvious issue in these cases- it isn't racism [[left excuse) or crime-inclined African Americans [[right excuse) it's the proliferation of weaponry in this country which makes even good cops ultra-paranoid at traffic stops [[as they probably should be).

Regulate guns, like normal countries, and wouldn't have these cop incidents, nor would we have the resulting idiocy like in Dallas.

[noise]

I have no problem with BLM or protest in general. The issue is that the narrative, both on the Left and Right, has been seriously corrupted.

On the Left [[BLM) the narrative that there's an epidemic of racist killer cops is nonsense. There are very, very few cop killings, and a microscopic amount are found to be "racist cop killings". The issue is like 1/1000 as bad as claimed, and most of the [[in)famous cases [[Baltimore, Ferguson) were found to built on lies.

I'm also frustrated that both the Left and Right ignore the obvious issue in these cases- it isn't racism [[left excuse) or crime-inclined African Americans [[right excuse) it's the proliferation of weaponry in this country which makes even good cops ultra-paranoid at traffic stops [[as they probably should be).

Regulate guns, like normal countries, and wouldn't have these cop incidents, nor would we have the resulting idiocy like in Dallas.

Well, right. When is the narrative in a partisan discussion ever completely accurate?

That said, I guess I've never noticed the narrative that there's an epidemic of racist killer cops. I've noticed the narrative that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned, arrested, stopped, etc. And that much has been proven as true.

Additionally, I disagree that the proliferation of weaponry in this country is the reason blacks are disproportionately targeted. Maybe killed, but not stopped in the first place.

[Wesley Mouch]

So your response is to acknowledge a problem but since it's better than it used to be, suggest protesters should fight against something else?

We are all free to protest whatever we want, but BLM puts disproportionate energy into fighting police racism [[which I believe is naturally diminish) vs. energy into fighting crime in ghettos [[which is currently dramatically increasing).

I encourage the fight against police brutality. I know cops -- am related to some. The issue is indeed serious. Its just nearly meaningless in comparison to urban crime.

And BLM's focus on reigning in cops is increasing black deaths, IMHO, favoring drama over results.

[1953]

You spelled tonight wrong.

[313WX]

You spelled tonight wrong.

The funny thing is I didn't even notice that until clicking in the thread to see your post.

[Wesley Mouch]

Well, right. When is the narrative in a partisan discussion ever completely accurate?

That said, I guess I've never noticed the narrative that there's an epidemic of racist killer cops. I've noticed the narrative that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned, arrested, stopped, etc. And that much has been proven as true.

Additionally, I disagree that the proliferation of weaponry in this country is the reason blacks are disproportionately targeted. Maybe killed, but not stopped in the first place.

Disproportionality is very subjective -- and depends on what's used as the denominator. Much in life is not in proportion. Sometimes it shouldn't be in proportion.

This isn't to say there isn't an issue. I think there absolutely is. But I'm tired this lazy excuse for policy. Its a mistake.

Example... should police spend their time equally with all citizens in all areas, or should they focus where crime can be shown to be disproportionate? In simpler terms, if we ask police to engage in high crime areas, we may expect some residents to run into more cops than others. Is that bad? Why?

[Canadian Visitor]

Regulate guns, like normal countries, and wouldn't have these cop incidents, nor would we have the resulting idiocy like in Dallas.

I would like to report my shock and awe and hell freezing over. Bham accidentally said something I agree with!

:O

[Canadian Visitor]

On a more in depth note, I believe there are valid points being raised here.

Both research and anecdote suggest that there is police bias, particularly in the U.S.; but also in Canada towards profiling and otherwise investigating young black men without any other supporting reason, and/or a reason that does not result in giving similar attention to more light-complexioned young men and/or women.

***

That, in and of itself, is objectionable. It also raises the issue of slightly skewed crime statistics, in so far as you would expect a more heavily policed group to turn up more charges, all other things being equal.

But this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle in that statistics support greater intervention, greater intervention reinforces the statistics and so on.

I suspect, based on the research I've seen that this issue is more severe at the 'minor' end of the spectrum [[a no-incident, no charge stop, or search) vs a shooting, or other fatality etc.

However, I certainly wouldn't want to be routinely followed by a cop for not fitting into a neighbourhood based on the colour of my skin, nor face inordinate searches of my bags as I leave a store, or board a plane.

These concerns alone, are serious, and merit attention. I hasten to add that even if race is less of an issue in the more serious cases of police use of force, there is little question in most peoples minds that police are too quick to use force, particularly of the lethal variety.

Yes, that does pale in comparison with civilian violence issues in many neighbourhoods, and that issue shouldn't be ignored either; but the fact that there are many aspects to these issues doesn't devalue the need to address each one.

***

Poverty is among those issues that contribute to crime and to feelings of hopelessness and/or discrimination; and therefore to conflicts w/police.

The reality is that crime and poverty do not have a purely causative relationship, but they do have a correlative one.

There is little question that while most low-income earners are not criminals, violent and/or street crime tends to be more common in poor areas, and amongst low-income earners.

That is one part of the issue, and that means tackling poverty, both absolute and relative.

That doesn't mean a radical socialist solution [[though that is a theoretical option), nor does it mean the current neo-conservative one of 'do nothing'.

It means some mix of measures that raise high school graduation rates, that increase employment among low-income earners and in low-income areas, reducing the worst effects of poverty, and instilling in people that there is hope for a better future for themselves and that there is something worth losing when considering committing a crime.

Pick and choose your options [[higher EITC, lower college tuition, various improvements to public education, etc. etc.)

But that does need to be part of a solution to America's 'race issues'.

***

Firearms control is also part of the solution. The idea that the second amendment as currently interpreted [[nonsensically) is inviolable in terms of implementing some common sense measures on gun control is utter drivel.

Simple notions like first allowing, then mandating biometric trigger locks [[the owner can fire at will, but if the gun is in someone else's hands it won't fire); the notion of requiring someone to pass a very basic target shooting test [[can't hit the bulls eye, no gun for you); complete no-loophole background checks, and reasonable limits on magazine sizes and the # of bullets you can buy at any one time would all do wonders.

No they wouldn't eliminate all crime or gun crime or 1/2 of it within 10 years, but by themselves, measures such as those would make getting a gun legally or otherwise just a bit harder, just a bit more time consuming and just a bit more expensive.

And those measures would cut the issue of violent, particularly gun crime over time. Which would in turn reduce the need for the volume and severity of police actions.

Which would help everyone, irrespective of background/colour etc. But would surely help those in the most challenged neighbourhoods the most.


****

My most common criticism of your fair country [[and it is a great one in many ways) is the current Can't-DO attitude in the public and as a result, the polity.

Endless excuses are heard about parties, politicians, the influence of money, or lobbies or gerrymandering. All of these are real obstacles to making positive change.

But just have a close look what Oregon, California and Washington have done, mostly via Ballot Initiative in the last few years [[along with Colorado)

Fully or partially legalized pot
Legalized Gay Marriage
Legalized Assisted Suicide
Raised the minimum wage either directly [[or by threat of initiative the polity acted)
Implemented Paid Sick Days

Change is possible.

People have to get off their couch and demand better.

Ideally, BLM will use its time in the spotlight to call for addressing some of these other issues. However, if the choose to focus on only one aspect of the problem that prevents no other person or group from focusing on the others.

[DeLemur]

Fairly civil debate, well done folks
I went to this protest Friday night. I've been at a fair number of protests for different causes and this one was the best by far. The energy was expressive, urgent, clear and united. Detroit should be proud of what it put on display. It really was moving, true and thoughtful.

[noise]

Disproportionality is very subjective -- and depends on what's used as the denominator. Much in life is not in proportion. Sometimes it shouldn't be in proportion.

Nonsense. You're just willing to bend over backwards to defend the indefensible.

[Wesley Mouch]

Nonsense. You're just willing to bend over backwards to defend the indefensible.

If you what believe it true, then is it indefensible. But I'd rather have a discussion that's open, rather than a conversation where some ideas are off-limits. This in fact is my single biggest criticism of BLM. They have chosen to demonize others and make generalizations. They are doing exactly what they accuse cops of doing.

Back to statistics and denominators... lots of press coverage in the last few days of a new Harvard Study [[see NYTimes or see Slate's knee-jerk denial). Headline: Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings

Now I deeply believe that trusting 'studies' is foolish, but its worth reading when even the loyal opposition finds one of BLM's basic premises unfounded -- at least until the next study.

I continue to believe that if you really want reform, you don't get it by 'noise' nor BLM calling others bad names.

[Ray1936]

Why is it that every time I see the initials 'BLM' my mind instantly registers "Bureau of Land Management"? Probably my western psyche.