1850
1851

Giuliani: 'Black lives matter' is racist (mercurynews.com)

theflamingskull[🍰] が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Eldarion_Telcontar 157ポイント158ポイント  (183子コメント)

Blacks in NYC commit 30x the white rate of shootings. That is astonishing. They absolutely are the criminals in NYC and targeting them saves BLACK LIVES most of all. If black lives matter, black people must be profiled to save them.

[–]Narian 260ポイント261ポイント  (94子コメント)

Problem is that even knowing that doesn't make being randomly frisked and searched while being a completely law-abiding citizen any better.

[–]citizenkane86 103ポイント104ポイント  (78子コメント)

Yeah people never seem to get that part. If 99% of a group of people did something and you were part of the 1% that didn't you'd be pretty pissed your freedoms were being eroded because of it.

[–]mcotter12 213ポイント214ポイント  (15子コメント)

154 black people arrested for shootings in NYC. Two million black people living in NYC.

This is a case is a fraction of a percent doing something, and the whole group being profiled for it.

[–]midnightketoker 61ポイント62ポイント  (9子コメント)

I remember reading about how at its height, stop and frisk would often target the same black people, basically harassing them multiple times a month. This is the policework of a dictatorship.

[–]indianapolis_cults 35ポイント36ポイント  (5子コメント)

The united states has 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners, we have a higher incarceration rate than russia, china, iran, and saudi arabia. Did you think this wasn't a policed state?

[–]midnightketoker 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's one end on a continuum between extremes. Those countries are also pretty damn corrupt and the things that can land you in jail there are more likely politically motivated. The answer is reform, and we will literally never get there without an organized political movement.

[–]Papichulando 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Policed state and police state just don't sound like the same thing

[–]Takonite [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

maybe if the negros weren't so uppity

[–]aKrobar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But how many more do they kill instead of imprisoning?

[–]TacoPilotTrader 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We also have laws and everyone in one of those prisons broke one of them at some point. It's pretty cause and effect

[–]ThisLookInfectedToYa 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I remember a video a kid recorded of the second or third time that he was stopped and frisked that day.

[–]ninja_jedi 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Almost like the police knew who some of the gang members were, and were actively trying to catch them before they did something horrible...

That being said, I don't agree with the violation of rights that is "stop and frisk".

[–]midnightketoker 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah my main problem with it is giving law enforcement that kind of discretion is completely unwarranted and inconsistent with democratic values, pure and simple

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

154 black people arrested for shootings in NYC. Two million black people living in NYC.

This is a case is a fraction of a percent doing something, and the whole group being profiled for it.

So many things wrong with such a short post.

Black people weren't only profiled for shootings. The example of them having 30x higher rate of shootings (which is completely insane) was just one of the examples of them committing crimes at a much higher rate.

Also it's not the whole two million group being profiled. It's mainly poor, young, black males. The police weren't more likely to stop and frisk an old, rich black woman than a young, poor white guy.

To be honest more police attention needs to be paid to young, black males because even with this profiling they still have a much higher crime rate. Think about how bad it would be if we didn't profile.

People are fine with profiling based on gender and age. Race should be treated similarly if there is a huge difference in crime rates.

[–]mcotter12 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

84% of those stopped and frisked were black. 88% percent of that group had no contraband, warrants, or any reason for the cops to detaining them.

Who is fine with profiling based on gender and age?

[–]PunishedAgenda 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mass shooting isnt the extent of criminality

[–]ninja_jedi -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

More like, if you look like a gang member you get stopped and frisked...

Don't paint it with such a broad brush.

[–]mcotter12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope, the NYPD stop and frisk program was explicitly targeting people based on race. Not some vague ideal of gang memberness.

[–]disposable_me_0001 96ポイント97ポイント  (12子コメント)

99% of the financial fraud is commited by white males. We need to look into all the bank accounts and tax records of that demographic to root out the bad elements.

[–]Fenstick 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Works for me

Signed,

White male (probably) not committing fraud.

[–]cynnicalbrit 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Bank accounts aren't distinguished by race, people on the street are.

[–]misterjay26 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Okay then, so we just need the IRS to audit all white males.

[–]ghsghsghs -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

White males do get audited more than black males or females so you already have your profiling wish.

Not every black person was stopped so no reason to audit every white person

[–]cynnicalbrit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not sure how it works in the US, but the government don't know your race in my country.

[–]karmasink -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is meaningless.

[–]cynnicalbrit -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's pretty much the heart of the issue. Saying it's "meaningless" shows how little a grasp you have.

[–]karmasink [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

In either case, the decision to distinguish by race is entirely up to the investigators. There is no difference.

[–]cynnicalbrit [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Except in aiding in the solving of fucking crimes? Are you retarded? If it's statistically likely that purple people commit street crimes more than anyone else, you're going to focus on them when you're on the street because you can see that they're purple and they're you're statistically likely person.

If purple people are more likely to be involved in bank fraud this DOESN'T HELP YOUR INVESTIGATION BECAUSE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE FUCKING NUMBERS ON A SCREEN.

The end / done. Over. Finished. You are beyond wrong on this.

Yeah, it sucks for black people, but you have two choices:

  1. Try to solve crimes by narrowing down your potential perpetrators as much as possible using whatever means you have or
  2. Solve crimes less efficiently because people have a cry over statistics.

Do american police have a lot to answer for? Yes. Are many of them racist? Probably. Can you argue with statistical methods and facts. No. Don't be a dumbass.

[–]apartobothends 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, I was not aware of that. Tried to find more info myself, but it seems my google skills are weak. What source(s) are you pulling from?

[–]solumized 22ポイント23ポイント  (27子コメント)

Talk to any progun person, where it was the 0.003% of people doing something bad that the 99.997% of people are constantly being harassed and threatened to have their freedoms eroded away because of it. That is also a very conservative number as well.

[–]citizenkane86 22ポイント23ポイント  (15子コメント)

Police harass you as a gun owner? Have you contacted the aclu or NRA? Or do people just say mean things in the media

Edit: also under Obama please specifically show me which freedoms were eroded.

You're extremely tone deaf if you think frisking all black people because they're black and politicians saying they want to look at assault rifles are the same level of "oppression".

[–]solumized 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was, like /u/bgt1989 mentioned, using it as another example, but just flipping the percentages and it's the first one that came to mind with roughly that same percentage.

It's not just "assault rifles." There are politicians out there that want a complete ban. People look at me like a criminal and scum just because I enjoy guns. Using rhetoric to try to make me feel like I'm person that is pulling the trigger after every shooting.

I am a normal US citizen. Work a standard 9-5 job, lower-middle class, never been in trouble with the law (don't even have a single traffic ticket) and some of the bills that have been brought before the house would make me a criminal overnight, where I wasn't one before.

If that doesn't make you feel that people are trying erode away your freedoms, I don't know what else will.

Now I can't come close to know what it feels like to be profiled, randomly stopped and frisked, and having my personal being getting that violated, but I can understand at least a fraction of what they are going through enough to sympathize and side with them.

[–]Noblesseux -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Having a few politicians that want something does not a trend make. I think the point is that most people aren't really arguing all or nothing, but the loud voices on either side tend to be the most extreme. I'm not a pro gun person tbh, but I generally think that if you're not insane or out in public in a scenario where you don't need it, go nuts.

[–]KaseyKasem 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

You're extremely tone deaf if you think frisking all black people because they're black and politicians saying they want to look at assault rifles are the same level of "oppression".

Did anyone say it was the SAME level of oppression? No. Only that the left is fine with one kind, and finds the other to be a travesty.

[–]solumized 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thanks for understanding /u/KaseyKasem.

[–]KaseyKasem 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I try. The whole anti-gun bit on Reddit is the same thing, over, and over again, every day. The same thing.

It's making me lose my sanity.

[–]solumized 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Understandable. But that is pretty much all political issues with me. The whole "you are either with me, or against me" views.

[–]bgt1989 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's not saying that freedoms are actively being eroded in regards to the second amendment. But the idea is the same.

[–]diablo_man 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Edit: also under Obama please specifically show me which freedoms were eroded.

Do they get credit for trying to do so and failing?

[–]LargeDan 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

What did he try to do and fail?

[–]solumized 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The AWB of 2013 for one. As well as the AWB of 2015. Them trying to close to so called "gun-show loopholes" and the "Charleston Loophole." (Remember, today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole.) All the executive actions that Obama tried to pass but were shot down. All of the new gun-control bills that have recently been passed in California that will do jack-nothing to prevent anything. The NY-Safe act which has seen unremarkable civil disobedience when it comes to having to register their "assault weapons." Magazine size restrictions in California, NY, NJ, & MD. Dianne Feinstein wanting every American to turn in every single gun. Should I keep going?

[–]diablo_man 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I said "they" because most legislation is done by politicians, not the actual president, though he can do stuff like show support for things, stump speeches, veto laws, etc.

There has been several federal laws proposed that Obama heavily supported, including multiple attempts at assault weapons bans, bans on private sales, allowing suing manufacturers for actions of third parties etc. There has also been lots more state level stuff that did often pass, such as the NY Safe act. Some of the gun related executive orders from the president would count as well.

Obama regularly calls for more gun laws, throws support behind lots of it, and has done some on his own toward that end. It would be silly to pretend that this wasn't his goal, just as prochoice people don't give GW Bush and republicans a pass on trying to ban and restrict abortion just because they havent succeeded at repealing Roe v Wade.

[–]LargeDan 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

When did he try to "ban private sales" of guns?

[–]diablo_man 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Again "he" didn't, that was the Manchin Toomey background check bill, though he did support it.

It basically removed a prior compromise(that was new sales, out of state private sales, internet/mail order sales were required to have a background check, in return private sales within the same state, face to face could continue being sold like any other good if there was no reason to suspect the buyer is prohibited) that allowed the existing background checks to be passed in the first place.

The way this particular bill worked was requiring all private sales to be taken to a FFL and officially transferred, background checked, etc and subject to a fee. In other words, not really private at all.

It was pretty strict, even passing a shotgun to a gun owning friend of yours, while out target shooting on your farm, or hunting would count as an illegal transfer if you didn't take it to a gun shop to do it. Just one example of many issues with the particular bill in question. Other attempts at expanding background checks to include private sales have had quite the same problematic aspects, but they weren't good enough, and we're allowed to die.

[–]KaseyKasem 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

AWB, "no fly no buy", etc and so forth.

[–]daksols 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

Yep, and of that .003%, .00001% are legal gun owners.

-source, a biased, salty gun owner who has many semi automatic rifles that the very biased media makes everyone think they are machine guns....

[–]Bigred2989 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

"Biased" is putting it nicely. CBS News basically claimed that the SKS rifle used in Dallas is so old you don't need a background check to get one. So much shit like this is published by journalists like this, it's borderline slander!

[–]daksols 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

yea...

I have 2 100 year old guns, a M1911, used in ww1, and a P08 Luger, used in WW1.

Background check for both.

[–]batmansascientician 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not following, what's the bias? Who is being slandered?

[–]daksols 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

The media is hella biased, to a ridiculous point. They don't even report the law correctly, they just push their narrative.

[–]batmansascientician 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wasn't saying it wasn't. I just wasn't clear what was the bias about the gun in the article.

[–]daksols [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ah, fair enough. basicly, the SKS rifle is just an old surplus rifle, like the M1 grand and many other semi autos from the same time period (the SKS is more of a 50s rifle, before the russians started giving all their soldiers AK's. however lots of countries used the SKS's and some even do today. Its closer to a intermittent cartridge SVT40 rifle from WW2).

The age of a firearm has nothing to do with if it needs a background check, just the point of sale.

If it is sold from a private party, then there is no background check required. This was a compromise the left made to get the brady laws passed.

If this rifle was sold by an FFL (IE gun shop, a gun dealer at a gun show, or even out of the back of a FFL's truck), then it requires a background check. I have many firearms that are much, much older than the SKS that I have had background checks to buy and similar aged weapons that I did not because I got them from private sellers.

The report he linked says the rifle is old enough that it does not need a check, but that is only for antique firearms that do not fire a modern cartridge (IE black powder muzzle loading rifle, wich is not technically a firearm according to the law, or somthing like a old .45-70 trapdoor from the spanish american war, though that one is debatable because some companies still make that ammo)

The media has been pushing the 'gun show loophole' quite a bit lately, and that is exactly what they are doing here. However that loophole was a compromise and is the very reason we gun owners no longer trust the left when they want more laws passed. Yesterdays compromise is today's loophole.

Otherwise, you could legaly buy a M1911, made in 1917 (one I own personally) wich is functionally identical to a modern made 1911 style pistol without a check from a FFL, and that is a plane lie.

[–]Bigred2989 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The article I linked is a great example. The author claims that a firearm considered a Curio & Relic (C&R) doesn't require a background check to purchase and can be shipped directly to your home. That's bullshit because you need a license for that to happen, one that requires almost the same amount of effort to acquire to become a license firearms dealer (FFL). The only firearms that can be shipped directly to a person's home are guns purchased through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (but that's after not only a background check, but a myriad of other requirements), and if the firearm is so old (think mid-1800's and older) it's not even considered a firearm by the BATFE.

[–]citizenkane86 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

How often do the police pull you over because you look like a gun owner

[–]daksols -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

can't equate that at all..... but good strawman. How often do you get pulled over for looking like a drug user?

[–]Noblesseux 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a black man who is too OCD about law breaking to even j walk, I concur here. It gets annoying to have cops look at me weird when I've most likely broken less laws than many of them have.

[–]Banziman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So who are you going to be mad at the cops or the 99%?

[–]Calgs 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

What about car insurance then? Just because I am a male aged 18-24 my insurance is considerably higher than someone older. But no one complains about that?

[–]citizenkane86 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Lots of people complain about that with insurance rates. The difference is insurance is a private company for an arguably unnecessary product (driving). No court has yet to buy that driving is a constitutional right.

You have to understand businesses get a lot wider range to discriminate then the state does.

Also federal age discrimination only applies to those 40 and over I believe.

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

State institutions (universities) discriminate on the basis of race all the time by taking in less qualified black applicants.

Somehow the same people who are against police profiling by race are fine with education profiling by race because it goes in their favor.

For example let's look at med schools:

https://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

The same group that is firmly against one kind of racial profiling invites the second kind.

[–]rayray2kbdp [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So what? your emotions don't mean anything in terms of justice.

[–]nothinbuttherain -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If 99% of fat middle aged IT workers were committing violent crimes on a daily basis, I'd sure as hell expect to get some extra police attention as a result, and I'd understand.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that 99% of any particular group is up to no good, but there has to come a point, a line in the sand, where even as a member of that group you "get" why people who don't know you are a little worried when you show up.

[–]feeltheslipstream -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You'll also be super naive if you didn't think that was how things work.

And an impediment to safety if you insisted your group of people not be profiled.

[–]zjaffee -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Of course it doesn't, and in turn, the broken window policies set by Giuliani and Bloomberg have been revoked recently.

But just watch, crime and the visibility of homelessness will spike in NYC due to this.

[–]ib_thinkin 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

the visibility of homelessness

Because god forbid we be confronted by evidence of our failure as a civilized society?

[–]Udonwithgarlicsauce 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

My friends and I were really tired of getting stopped and frisked. We're all Latino law abiding citizens living in Gentrifying Brooklyn. We have all been stopped at least twice for matching a description. God forbid we hang out in a group. None of us have a criminal record. Most of the stops happen when we're on bikes or going to the store for a midnight snack. It's fucking bullshit. Why should I sacrifice my rights for your false sense of security?

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is it false? Most of New York is much safer now than it was when I was a child

[–]Buscat 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Spoken like someone who has the luxury of not bearing any responsibility.

[–]zcbmxvnmnb 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a straight fucking answer tho, how often do you get that?

[–]alistermackenzie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Kind of off topic, but if we're not talking about gun violence, related to gangs, related to petty, largely economic crime (we're not talking about homicidal maniacs, most people know the people that killed them), but were talking about banking fraud, which arguably impacts society as a whole more than shootings over $8 worth of crack in Queens, could we profile bankers and say that they should all be profiled, phone tapped, transactions monitored because they've committed all financial crimes? People want what they call "rights", but other people don't feel all people are entitled to them.

[–]PunishedAgenda 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You people just love sneering at those who guard you in your sleep

[–]Eldarion_Telcontar -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yea it does if it saves your life. How you act, talk and dress can make you a lot less suspicious too.

[–]ervine3 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

So just like the responsible gun owners?

[–]Reddisaurusrekts -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure it does - in lots of states drivers can be pulled over for breath tests because there's a valid public policy purpose in conducting random breath tests. Same here.

[–]mcotter12 35ポイント36ポイント  (35子コメント)

154 black people arrested for shootings in NYC. Two million black people living in NYC.

[–]EspadaNumberNine -2ポイント-1ポイント  (20子コメント)

That sounds bad until you realize 70% of the crime is being caused by 23% of the population black perpetrators*. That warrants attention.

[–]mcotter12 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

That sounds bad until you realize saying that 23% of the population is causing 70% of the crime means you think all black people are criminals.

[–]FuzzyNutt 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

More like 6% because it's mainly young men in the 15-30 age group.

[–]MARXISM_DETECTOR 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

"Not all" is not an argument. Can you stop? Literally nobody says that all black people are criminals.

[–]mcotter12 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Saying "70% of crime is caused by 23% of the population" like the poster I responded to says exactly that.

[–]dinosaurs_quietly 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

It was worded unfortunately and you are latching onto his poor writing instead of debating his actual point.

[–]mcotter12 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

All I have to go on are his words. That very unfortunate wording implies something that needs to be pointed out.

However, to debate his actual point; he has his facts backwards. 70% of crimes are committed by whites (I assume this included Hispanics)

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

So going by your link, you tell us, who has the highest crime RATE among blacks, whites and (just for fun) asians?

[–]mcotter12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Going by my link its impossible to tell because it doesn't have general population statistics, but I am feeling indulgent. Using the 2010 population data, and the FBI data from 2011 that I link, 3% of the white population was arrested for a crime that year, and 7% of the Black population. If you look at just Violent and Property crimes, the crimes with victims, .5% of the white population was arrested, and 1.3% of the black population.

[–]MARXISM_DETECTOR 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Mmmm, no it doesn't. It says that this demographic is causing a wildly high amount of crime in proportion to its population. Not that every member of that demographic is a criminal. If you can't understand that, you might be very unintelligent.

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mmmm, no it doesn't. It says that this demographic is causing a wildly high amount of crime in proportion to its population. Not that every member of that demographic is a criminal. If you can't understand that, you might be very unintelligent.

No one actually thinks every member of the demographic is a criminal. If you can't understand that, you might be very unintelligent.

[–]mcotter12 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

First, those numbers are backwards. As of 2011 according to the FBI, 70% of people arrested for crimes were white offenders. Second there is a massive difference in saying that 70% of crimes are committed by whites, and that whites are causing 70% of all crimes. The second statement puts the responsibility for those crimes on the entire ethnicity. People might say it because they are lazy, and they expect others to untangle the statement, but it is racist and it is wrong.

[–]MARXISM_DETECTOR 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

  1. He's talking about New York in particular, not the whole country
  2. Your FBI link does not differentiate between Hispanic White and non-Hispanic White
  3. His statement was not racist, and you chose to interpret it as such just so you could try to shut him up. No one that wants a serious conversation respects that.

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

23% of the population isn't causing 70% of the crime. You might mean to say something else, but the statistical claim you're employing literally accuses 23% of the population of criminal conduct.

[–]EspadaNumberNine 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'd say statistics say 70% of the crime is perpetrated by black people. But then I'm somehow a racist. I've had this conversation before. So I'm a little wary when it comes to saying black.

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's a different statement. Compare:

A) 70% of violent criminals in New York City are black.

B) 23% of the population is committing 70% of the violent crime in New York City.

Do you see the difference? 23% of the population of New York City is 1.96 million people. You're literally ascribing responsibility for 70% of violent crime in New York City to 1.96 million people.

You might be a racist, or you might not. But this claim that you're making about "23% of the population" is both racially charged and patently false.

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Every other person who read his post knew what he meant

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, really? Are you all in a big room together or something?

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just saw your edit, whereby you struck "23% of the population" and wrote "black people." That's an improvement, but you're still going to run into resistance because "black people" can be read more broadly than "black perpetrators."

Here's the claim you should be making: 70% of convicted criminals in New York City are black.

It's not sexy, but it's accurate. People will still suspect as to your motives in pointing out this fact, but let them suspect. Be responsible, truthful, and avoid cherry-picking data to fit a narrative in your commentary, and they will forget their misgivings. Plus, you'll have the added benefit of being right.

The reason you're getting called a racist is because the criticism isn't that people shouldn't be arrested or investigated without regard to their criminality; it's that the police are letting racial biases influence whether they find a person on the street to be suspicious.

[–]RedCpt -4ポイント-3ポイント  (5子コメント)

You can turn that logic right around. Two million blacks live in NYC, how many get frisked randomly? I doubt it's two million.

[–]mcotter12 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

In 2014 it was almost 600 thousand, but that number includes each frisking so one person getting perpetually harassed by the police would inflate it.

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Source for that? And how many white people were stopped? How many Asians?

If it includes repeats like you suggest then that number isnt really that high for a year considering one person could be stopped multiple times per day.

[–]ib_thinkin 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

But probably a lot larger than 154, right?

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well of course. If they knew exactly which 154 would be shooters they would just go stop those 154 people.

Also are we only trying to stop shootings? There are other crimes that blacks disproportionately commit that I would like to be stopped too

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And the statistics aren't great on that for police, either. Though they search whites at lower rates, they find guns and contraband at a higher rate. Why's that?

[–]Flowah 61ポイント62ポイント  (28子コメント)

And yet the NYPD's own statistics showed that 80%+ of minorities that were stopped and frisked were let go with not even a citation and that whites that were stopped and frisked were 2-3x more likely to be found with contraband and firearms.

So maybe they should stop wasting time searching largely innocent people and in such disproportionate racial numbers that it produces the above results.

Or keep being racist I guess. That's cool too.

[–]vikinick 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

My guess is that there were way more liberal with choosing black people they frisked than with choosing white people they frisked.

Oh hey that's the definition of discrimination.

[–]SyrupLicker 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't doubt this, but do you happen to have a link?

[–]Sregor_Nevets 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Aside from going to "because they are racist" can you think of other possibilities why those numbers are true? I work with numbers daily they often have multiple reasons for them being the way they are.

[–]Proe24 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm going to go ahead and guess that these white people likely aren't your casual office wear type.

But at the same time you have to question of they are targeting the same category of black people or just any of them.

[–]Sregor_Nevets 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not determined either way. Your two scenarios are just as valid and unmeasured making a determination of the cause of the results difficult to understand. I'm not sold that we know for certain what is going on.

[–]ib_thinkin -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't have the numbers handy, but generally the idea is this:

The barrier for police S&F of a white person is higher than that of a black person.

Put another way: police writ large require more suspicious conduct of white targets than non-white targets, and thus have fewer false-positives.

Put yet another way: black people doing the same things as white people look inherently more suspicious to police.

[–]co99950 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

In all fairness it's possible for the numbers to be off because they targeted blacks more. If they're targeting all blacks but only targeting whites that they have reason to target than it would make whites have a higher percentage chance to get caught with something even if overall they have a lower rate.

[–]tenebrar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In all fairness that's the definition of discrimination, and they should only be targeting people they have a reason to target.

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

In all fairness it's possible for the numbers to be off because they targeted blacks more.

That's precisely what's happening, and it's not a great defense. It means police see black people as inherently suspicious, even when they're doing the same things as the white people around them.

[–]ghsghsghs 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

They aren't just doing the same things. They are thought to be more dangerous because they have a much higher crime rate (which keeps getting conveniently ignored)

Why do we have to pretend it's just random that officers think a young black male is more dangerous than an old Asian female?

It would be like suggesting the NBA is racist for being 70% black.

Some racial imbalances are earned.

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It would be like suggesting the NBA is racist for being 70% black.

No, it would be like going into black neighbourhoods and pulling young men aside to ask them their free-throw rate.

What you're doing is wrong, and I suspect you don't even see it. Think of it as a Venn Diagram. There's a big circle that's "black people" and there's a small circle that's "criminals." Even if the small circle is mostly covered by the big circle, the big circle is still mostly uncovered by the small circle.

"Being black" is not an attribute which reasonably gives rise to suspicion, no matter what percentage of criminals are black. To take your analogy, it would be like searching crowds of black people for professional basketball players because most professional bastketball players are black.

I don't think you're racist. I just think you don't understand statistics nearly as well as you think you do.

Some racial imbalances are earned.

Possibly, but in light of the fact that police find guns and contraband at a higher rate on white folks they stop and search, probably this one isn't.

[–]Flowah -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow well when you put it that way that's the definition of discrimination.

So in fairness to who exactly? In what world did you think that would excuse the police's behavior? All you've done is explain how it's racist. Congratulations?

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure it's discrimination in the same way if my neighbor's six year old daughter goes missing the cops will have more suspicion towards me compared to my other neighbor's eight year old daughter.

They would be discriminating against me based on age and gender and it makes perfect sense.

[–]ghsghsghs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

1/5 is a much higher success rate than I thought it would be. If they are finding people with stuff 1/5 times they should keep doing it

[–]tenebrar -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's almost like if you mostly just stop black people, you also mostly just end up convicting black people of crimes. Makes statistics super fun.

[–]SpartanNitro1 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you were the black guy minding his own business and being constantly harassed every fucking day by cops, you would not be singing that tune.

[–]ghsghsghs -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are there examples of black that were harassed every day who weren't criminals? I can't seem find any

[–]2ndperson2 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you ever considered improving the social situation of minorities might be somewhat more humane than racial profiling?

[–]tortillasandfrijoles 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, you say this until your neckbeard ass becomes on the receiving end of it

[–]Intortoise 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hm yes systemically targeting them with hostile policies surely will fix and in no way caused this problem

[–]Eldarion_Telcontar -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes it will. Its called imposing order, its how you teach people to be civil.

[–]Intortoise 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah you're right systemic descrimination probably has no effect on peoplease after a few dozen generations. Thanks for the dope red pillz

[–]vikinick 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Men commit a ton more shootings than women and usually against men, but would you like to be stopped and frisked just because you're a man?

[–]Eldarion_Telcontar -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I should be profiled for being a man of course

[–]1511272422 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, keep that stupid ideology to yourself. I'm a man who doesn't want to be profiled just for the circumstances of my birth.

[–]Get_Junked [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Or they could target the system that keeps blacks in poverty since they were freed as slaves but locking people up is cool too.

[–]JakeofNewYork [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Europe made up of arabs and africans will be like any other arab or african country. Civilization will die." - Eldarion_Telcontar

[–]disposable_me_0001 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

1 stat does not rebut the preponderance of evidence of racism in the justice system.

[–]r0b0d0c 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

From whose ass did you pull that statistic? The article you linked doesn't support it.

[–]garboblaggar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

~ .0077% of black people in New York city are arrested for gun violence each year.

The policy has horrible precision (the fraction of people who are stopped that are actually violent criminals) and horrible recall (the fraction of violent criminals that are intercepted). It's just dumb.