The Relationship Between Police and Minorities

[WinePusher]

Michael Brown, an unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a police officer in the town of Ferguson. Previously Travyon Martin, another unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watchmen. In light of these two stories the public discussion has also been focused on the militarization of local police forces and the existence of white privilege.

In my opinion there are valid points on both sides of the ideological aisle, and I'll name a few:

Some valid conservative points include the fact that the primary culprit for most African American homicides are African Americans themselves, not the police and not white people. Some valid liberal points include the fact that African Americans are disproportionately singled out by police, and are disproportionately incarcerated for offenses that white people commit to a greater extent (pot usage for example). However, in the case of Ferguson no one knows what really happened, and no one will know until the investigation and trial have run their course.

Question: What do you make of the shooting of Michael Brown?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

I don't really think with regards to Micheal Brown it matters if your liberal or conservative.

Here is what I know
_________________________________________________________

3 eye witnesses testified that ( with some differences in details but these are the commonalities between the 3 testimonies)

a. The officer attempted to get Brown in the car

b. a shot was fired near the car

c. Brown ran

d. an additional shot was fired that caused Brown to turn around(likely did not hit brown but we don't know if it grazed his clothes as the examination of the clothes has not been released to the public or provided to 3rd party examiner)

e. Brown attempted to notify the officer that he was unarmed and surrendering at which point the fatal shots were fired
____________________________________________________________________



1 testimony( non eye witness. The friend of a significant other of the officer. I could be wrong but the testimony is at least twice removed)

more or less the same as the first 3 but instead of surrendering the 4th testimony
claims brown charged the officer.

This is likely the officers testimony through a third party

____________________________________________________________________

Brown was very likely to be involved in a shoplifting incident in which he assaulted a clerk in an attempt to run away.

____________________________________________________________________

The officer had some swelling in the face.

_______________________________________________________

The autopsy revealed Brown was shot at least 6 times possibly 8(likely 2 re-entry wounds).

Marijuana was in his system(anywhere between 1 and 40 days).

No physical marks to suggest he fought back( if he punched it would have showed up on his fists with bruising).

Brown was 2-35 feet away when the fatal shots were fired

________________________________________________________

Police statements said Brown was 30 feet from the patrol vehicle

_______________________________________________________




Given the evidence it does not appear good for the officer involved. I won't rule out that the officer perceived a threat even if there was no threat (adrenaline can play tricks on perception) It is also not clear if the officer involved was aware of the robbery which further complicates.

From what has been made available Brown was being arrested for jay-walking not the shoplifting incident.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

I really think we should hold our law enforcement more accountable. We need law enforcement to keep law and order and not having people taking law into their own hands (like the Trayvon Martin incident) They are trained professionals and we put the public trust in their hands. That being said there comes a point where the authority we have placed within their hands becomes almost an oppressive police state with no real consequences for their actions. It is extremely hard to prosecute police officers whether it is justified or not.

The status quo is not cutting it. The Ferguson PD also does not have a good track record with regards to the african american community(last year an individual was mercilessly beaten in his cell while handcuffed. He had not committed a crime but fit a profile. He was charged with destruction of public property because he bled on the officers beating him) So the Ferguson PD really does not have the benefit of the doubt nor does the Prosecutors office.

[99percentatheism]

Michael Brown, an unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a police officer in the town of Ferguson. Previously Travyon Martin, another unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watchmen. In light of these two stories the public discussion has also been focused on the militarization of local police forces and the existence of white privilege.

In my opinion there are valid points on both sides of the ideological aisle, and I'll name a few:

Some valid conservative points include the fact that the primary culprit for most African American homicides are African Americans themselves, not the police and not white people. Some valid liberal points include the fact that African Americans are disproportionately singled out by police, and are disproportionately incarcerated for offenses that white people commit to a greater extent (pot usage for example). However, in the case of Ferguson no one knows what really happened, and no one will know until the investigation and trial have run their course.

Question: What do you make of the shooting of Michael Brown?

Since there are millions of interactions yearly between white cops and black citizens, the fomenting of discord between the races has to be held suspect. It certainly only promotes one political party over another.

Be that fact as it may, why not employ the exact same logic towards the "white" cop like is demanded for any and all black people accused of a crime . . . and not rush to judgment?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 2 by DanieltheDragon]

Update: audio recording of the incident has been authenticated. At least 10 shots were fired.

[Darias]

I really think we should hold our law enforcement more accountable.

There exists no mechanism to do so, as long as the fact remains that you cannot opt out of funding these organizations. These groups do not depend on customer service to get by, as their salaries are effectively guaranteed. In order to secure even more capital from the federal government, they must meet quotas enforcing irrational laws. This reality creates powerful behavioral incentives that do nothing to protect or serve the public -- which by the way is only a slogan, not a Constitutional guarantee (if Constitutional guarantees even had any substance to begin with).

We need law enforcement to keep law and order and not having people taking law into their own hands (like the Trayvon Martin incident).

This is like saying we need centralized farming, otherwise everyone will have a garden -- and some gardeners might poison the food supply.

No one here is arguing that we don't need ways to mitigate crime. No one here is arguing that every grandma needs an AK.

Also it is a bit unfair to take one example of a town watchman and compare it to police brutality and call it even, even implicitly so. Obviously the latter is more of an issue.

They are trained professionals... .

Well, no. Many police departments are getting military grade equipment from the federal government and they are not very well trained at all. We have police officers aiming their lethal weapons at crowds -- this is a no-no by any disciplined standard, and I'm not even a gun owner.

and we put the public trust in their hands.

Foolishly so. Again, that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of well-intensioned cops, or that there aren't a lot of friendly cops. There are.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that their profession exists because we have to pay for it whether we approve of their actions or not. Imagine if Walmart worked that way -- it wouldn't matter how awesome their stuff was if you had to pay dues regardless. Would they care about low prices or customer service if their profits were assured? No.

Apparently, for police, poor public perception to the point of rioting doesn't matter because they all still have jobs -- and most won't face criminal charges.

That being said there comes a point where the authority we have placed within their hands becomes almost an oppressive police state with no real consequences for their actions. It is extremely hard to prosecute police officers whether it is justified or not.

That point has come and gone. The problem is that there are a significant number of people who believe that only cops and military should have guns -- that wearing a uniform magically makes one trained and restrained. There are countless people who believe that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force and they are the reason why we have the problem we have today. They tolerate and apologize for the police state in hopes of an impossible reform -- a "solution" that flies in the face of basic incentives and common sense. These utopic dreams people have create a living nightmare for those who aren't still sleeping.

The status quo is not cutting it. The Ferguson PD also does not have a good track record with regards to the african american community(last year an individual was mercilessly beaten in his cell while handcuffed. He had not committed a crime but fit a profile. He was charged with destruction of public property because he bled on the officers beating him) So the Ferguson PD really does not have the benefit of the doubt nor does the Prosecutors office.

You could say the same of the LAPD. The fact is corruption and abuse are givens when there are no incentives to curb such behavior.

Society needs private and voluntary alternatives and private law to boot. There is not much good to having a security business (such as private prisons) if they make money from enforcing primitive state laws that would not exist in a free market. That's essentially fascism.

For example, the drug war, the reason why we have so many prisons and swat raids--the war that is so unpopular and counter-productive--that would not exist to the extent that it does (if at all) were it not for the state that makes us pay for it. If you had the choice to contribute your hard-earned dollars to imprison others for owning various vegetation, you'd likely not make that decision.

The biggest problem to this end is that people have an irrational idolization of men in uniform, combined with an entrenched, instilled fear of a world without them -- all thanks to indoctrination at home and in public schools. They assume that something out of The Purge would destroy civilization without public law enforcement. They do not understand basic economics like supply and demand; for example, security tends to be in very high demand, and letting criminals run amok is bad for business, even when the victims do not subscribe to your services.

When there is a free market and multiple security services are all fighting for your subscriptions, prices are lowered. Community watch is always an option for the poorest people, but it's not like our present system best "serves" them when feeding the homeless is a crime and when the poor tend to be subject to home invasions as they are now.

[center][yt][/yt][/center]

[center][yt][/yt][/center]

[WinePusher]

I really think we should hold our law enforcement more accountable.

There exists no mechanism to do so, as long as the fact remains that you cannot opt out of funding these organizations. These groups do not depend on customer service to get by, as their salaries are effectively guaranteed. In order to secure even more capital from the federal government, they must meet quotas enforcing irrational laws. This reality creates powerful behavioral incentives that do nothing to protect or serve the public -- which by the way is only a slogan, not a Constitutional guarantee (if Constitutional guarantees even had any substance to begin with).

Maybe you missed the fact that occupations in law enforcement are totally different from most other occupations. You aren't putting your life directly on the line when you show up for work in a comfortable little office. On the other hand, as a cop your safety and your life is almost always at risk. So, how exactly would you like to hold these people accountable? Actually, what gives you the right to judge and second guess the police?

But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that their profession exists because we have to pay for it whether we approve of their actions or not.

You see Darias, it's this kind of stuff that is killing the libertarian movement that you claim to support. You wanna know why their profession exists? It exists because society needs law and order, both of which would not exist without a government and without law enforcement. You really need to stop equating libertarianism with anarchism.

Imagine if Walmart worked that way -- it wouldn't matter how awesome their stuff was if you had to pay dues regardless. Would they care about low prices or customer service if their profits were assured? No.

Walmart and the police force aren't the same.

The biggest problem to this end is that people have an irrational idolization of men in uniform, combined with an entrenched, instilled fear of a world without them -- all thanks to indoctrination at home and in public schools. They assume that something out of The Purge would destroy civilization without public law enforcement. They do not understand basic economics like supply and demand; for example, security tends to be in very high demand, and letting criminals run amok is bad for business, even when the victims do not subscribe to your services.

Yes, economics provides useful analytical tools that shed light on this issue. For example, I hope you know what a public good is? I hope you know that in a pure market economy public goods would be non existent, and I hope you know that this is a bad thing. Literally no one, no economist no sociologist no public policy expert would support replacing the police with multiple, private protection agencies because such a proposal would be prima facie absurd. Seriously, if you think corruption and police brutality is a problem imagine how much worse it would get under your scheme.

When there is a free market and multiple security services are all fighting for your subscriptions, prices are lowered. Community watch is always an option for the poorest people, but it's not like our present system best "serves" them when feeding the homeless is a crime and when the poor tend to be subject to home invasions as they are now.

Uh, first of all prices aren't even a problem now because police services are funded by taxes. Second of all, having multiple private police forces is unworkable. Do I really need to explain why?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by WinePusher]

I have every right as a citizen of the United States of America to judge them. Just because you put your life on the line does not put you above the law. This is not Judge Dredd, this is real life and people are not perfect. If someone makes a mistake or perpetrated a crime they should be held responsible regardless of position. I can understand a certain level of leeway given their occupation, but this does not mean we grant them free reign to do as they please.

I am not going to say the officer is guilty I wasn't there I can't speak to the matter. Let's let the evidence speak for itself. However, if we sit idly by and not hold those accountable for our health and safety, we are creating a system ripe for abuse.

This is really an issue of how much of your rights do you cede to the government in exchange for public safety. This really should be a conservative issue. More power to the government does not solve everything.

[WinePusher]

I have every right as a citizen of the United States of America to judge them.

Sure, theoretically you have the right to do just about anything you want. But what you don't have is the knowledge, experience, wisdom and training to judge the actions taken by the police unless you yourself are or have been a police officer.

Just because you put your life on the line does not put you above the law. This is not Judge Dredd, this is real life and people are not perfect. If someone makes a mistake or perpetrated a crime they should be held responsible regardless of position. I can understand a certain level of leeway given their occupation, but this does not mean we grant them free reign to do as they please.

Right, and I never said they were above the law. My post was aimed at Darias's comments regarding the privatization of police services and his insinuation that we should treat cops just like how we treat sales clerks at Walmart.

I am not going to say the officer is guilty I wasn't there I can't speak to the matter.

Good, to bad Al Sharpton and his crew aren't following your lead.

Let's let the evidence speak for itself. However, if we sit idly by and not hold those accountable for our health and safety, we are creating a system ripe for abuse.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold cops accountable, cause we should. Police brutality is a real thing that needs to be dealt with. The problem is that in this case we have a group of people who have already convicted the officer who shot Michael Brown as a racist murderer simply because he's white and Brown was black. Additionally, they've attempted to smear the police department of Ferguson and how they handled the Ferguson riots.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 9 by WinePusher]

Darias put forth the claim that no mechanism exists to hold cops accountable, due to a lack of option in the funding of that system.

You responded by saying cops should be held accountable. You also reprimanded his post for other reasons, though I'm now curious about the following:

What, in your opinion, would be an effective mechanism to hold cops accountable for transgressions?