• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Too Much Policing in Black Neighborhoods

Police "intruding" and "harassing" is your emotional subjective feelings about their actions they take because they care about and trying to prevent future criminal harm done in black communities and against black people.

The drug war is an inherent intrusion.

It is intruding into people's personal business. Something the government has no business intruding in.

It is intrusion to prevent people from taking something they want to take.

You cannot catch or prevent criminal shootings without "intruding into lives", "pulling vehicles over" and "searching" suspects, and generally doing things that those having it done to them might call "harassment".

Looking at the rates of the police actually catching violent criminals shows this to be nonsense.

They are not intruding to help anybody. Their goal is to put as many young black men into prison as possible. The modern vestige of slavery. They are despised by the communities they harass.

Not only that, but if they know who the suspects are, then the obvious answer is to *actually do police work* instead of running drag-nets. Drag nets that as often cause problems for those old ladies (and old men) previously mentioned. The problem is only exacerbated by police unions (particularly in my city and neighborhood) who virulently oppose drug policy reform which would serve to break the backs of criminal gangs in my area.
 
First you have to have caring people. Community policing would work, if the community cared.
 
Let me make it plain as to my own views: cops need to stop patrolling and enforcing petty laws such as drug possession or use, jaywalking, and minor vehicle problems and start actually looking out for the well-being of residents in ways those residents actually purport to need help.

No. Police need to continue enforcing the laws as they are written. That is their job - that is their function within a government that separates the people who make the laws from the people who enforce them.

If you don't want police enforcing the things you mentioned, then the only appropriate way to bring about that change is to vote in a legislature that will take those laws off the books.
 
To much policing when it comes to intrusion into lives and harassment and assault. Pulling people over and using lies to search their vehicles. Digging into people's pockets and arresting them for "illegal drugs". To much policing in terms of putting people disproportionately into prison.

As far as caring about crimes carried out against blacks.

As we see the police don't care that much.

Police "intruding" and "harassing" is your emotional subjective feelings about their actions they take because they care about and trying to prevent future criminal harm done in black communities and against black people.

You cannot catch or prevent criminal shootings without "intruding into lives", "pulling vehicles over" and "searching" suspects, and generally doing things that those having it done to them might call "harassment".

If you didn't try to equate these essential policing actions with "assault" and "using lies", you'd have more credibility. And it might help to show a shred of evidence that the degree to which these essential actions devolve into such criminal actions by cops is notably higher when the suspect is black (warning: all such data claimed as "evidence" for this presented on this board to date fails to show any such thing, and only shows that cops engages in policing actions in general in black areas due to the many fold higher crime rates of every type, including shootings.

When a person was just shot down the street, cops are more likely to lower their bar for probable cause to search a vehicle filled with young men. Every relevant piece of data confirms that such shootings are far more likely to occur in mostly black neighborhoods and the shooter and the victim are likely to be black, making it more likely that being stopped down the street from a shooting is far more likely to entail a carload of black men than white men due entirely to where people live. IOW, because blacks are far more likely to live near violent criminals, they are more likely to experience "intrusions into their lives" and getting "harassed" by the cops as they investigate those violent crimes. The actions that innocent members of the community experience as such harassment are the same actions that increase the probability that the criminals are found and thus reduce the likelihood those innocent community members are harmed by those criminals in the future. There is always a difficult balance between protecting the public from real threats and having those protective actions being an intrusion and harassment. The harassment of innocent blacks by cops is greater because the threat to blacks by criminals in their neighborhoods are greater.

Obviously there are lousy cops or even honest errors in judgment that lead cops to sometimes "harass" well beyond what is useful in enforcing violations of the law, and that occurs no matter the race of the suspect. The evidence is weak as to whether such incidents are notably more common against blacks, not in raw frequency, but relative to the much higher frequency with which cops need to "intrude" in response to much higher frequency of actual criminal activity.
Some degree of racist-based additional level of excessive harassment likely exists and just be hard to document with systematic data. However, the evidence supports that extra incidents of harassment of blacks can be almost entirely accounted for by extra incidents of legit response to crime, with the normal average rate of excess and error in the application of those responses. Thus, whatever added racism-based harassment exists is only a fraction of the harassment being complained about. So, any massive reduction in such "intrusions" can only come with a notable reduction in protecting blacks against the far far more probable threat to their property and lives posed by their neighbors.

I second that
 
That when residents don't talk to the police this leads to low % of crime solved is racist? Damn, everything is racist, ain't it? What isn't racist anymore. Anything?

IF low arrest rate is a result of non-cooperation from citizens as opposed to apathy and non-action of the part of police - a claim that you have utterly failed to substantiate so we are speaking strictly hypothetically here...

IF the low arrest rate is due to non-cooperation from people in the community, how much of that is due to a very justified mistrust of police?

If the cops don't promptly catch (or at least identify, although perhaps not by name) the suspect it's probably only solved by someone talking. No talking = those crimes don't get solved.

And it's not so much a matter of distrust of the police as fear of the criminals. Talking is a good way for bad things to happen to you.
 
Police "intruding" and "harassing" is your emotional subjective feelings about their actions they take because they care about and trying to prevent future criminal harm done in black communities and against black people.

The drug war is an inherent intrusion.

It is intruding into people's personal business. Something the government has no business intruding in.
So selling crack is people's personal business?
 
The drug war is an inherent intrusion.

It is intruding into people's personal business. Something the government has no business intruding in.
So selling crack is people's personal business?

Buying crack and using it should be. Selling it should merely be a matter of good old fashioned *normal* business.
 
Police "intruding" and "harassing" is your emotional subjective feelings about their actions they take because they care about and trying to prevent future criminal harm done in black communities and against black people.

The drug war is an inherent intrusion.

The drug war is not the fault of the police or too much policing. It is the fault of the legislators who determine what laws the police are sworn to enforce. Also, most of the "intrusion" the police are forced to engage in related to the drug war is not because of illegal drugs per se, but because of the murderous actions that young black men choose to engage in while trying to take advantage of the black market drug laws create. News flash: A person is not compelled to kill other people and shoot kids during drive-bys just because their government is dumb enough to make drug use a crime.

Illegal drugs are an intrusion into all lives of all colors. Those who respond to the illegality of drugs by engaging in violent crime to try and make a buck off the illegal market are creating the need exponentially more intrusion into their and their communities lives than the drug laws themselves.
People in mostly white communities are also using illegal drugs, but they experience less intrusions from the police because they aren't going around their block murdering their neighbors to eliminate competition for customers.

We can discuss (though sadly, probably not rationally) the varied reasons, including centuries of slavery and racism, why blacks are so much more likely get involved in violent crime surrounding illegal drugs, but that has no relevance to what cops need to and should be doing in response to that violent crime when it occurs.


You cannot catch or prevent criminal shootings without "intruding into lives", "pulling vehicles over" and "searching" suspects, and generally doing things that those having it done to them might call "harassment".

Looking at the rates of the police actually catching violent criminals shows this to be nonsense.

No, that just shows just how insanely criminal and violent black neighborhoods are, such that without massive increase in policing there is no possibility to apprehend most perpetrators. Also, it doesn't help when the members of those communities withhold information from police because they care more about "protecting their own" even when "their own" are murderers gunning their kids down in the streets.
Also, their is an understandable generational distrust of law enforcement that would exist no matter how reasonable current cops did their job. It has become part of a cultural ideology that shapes the interpretation of every police action to try and find violent criminals as an act of nothing but "intrusion" and "harassment".
That contributes to the obstacles cops face trying to find suspects or get people to testify against them.
 
The drug war is an inherent intrusion.

It is intruding into people's personal business. Something the government has no business intruding in.
So selling crack is people's personal business?

What is the difference between selling crack and selling a cigarette?

Oh yeah, crack causes exponentially less harm.
 
So selling crack is people's personal business?

Buying crack and using it should be. Selling it should merely be a matter of good old fashioned *normal* business.

But murdering your business competitors is nor "normal" business and is the primary reason for most police intrusions surrounding drugs in black communities. Contrary to the racist view that blacks have no capacity to choose their actions, nothing about drugs use or dealing being illegal requires anyone to commit violent crimes.
 
What is the difference between selling crack and selling a cigarette?

Oh yeah, crack causes exponentially less harm.
Really? Care to back that up with sources? Also, it is meaningless and absurd to use "exponentially" to compare two data points.
 
So selling crack is people's personal business?

Buying crack and using it should be. Selling it should merely be a matter of good old fashioned *normal* business.

Do you feel the same about sex work? I have found that many so-called liberals and progressives who want to legalize drugs want to keep sex work illegal.
 
What is the difference between selling crack and selling a cigarette?

Oh yeah, crack causes exponentially less harm.
Really? Care to back that up with sources? Also, it is meaningless and absurd to use "exponentially" to compare two data points.

You are unaware of the number of people who die and who have serious illness directly related to smoking, even second hand?

If so you have no business discussing this issue.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think so. But I am all for banning tobacco. So this particular argument does not work on me.

You don't think so based on what?
 
Buying crack and using it should be. Selling it should merely be a matter of good old fashioned *normal* business.

But murdering your business competitors is nor "normal" business and is the primary reason for most police intrusions surrounding drugs in black communities. Contrary to the racist view that blacks have no capacity to choose their actions, nothing about drugs use or dealing being illegal requires anyone to commit violent crimes.

This is the product of the phenomena where, by declaring a thing to be a sin and using violence to push it out of normal society, people lose the power to use normal channels to settle disputes.

What is the difference between selling crack and selling a cigarette?

Oh yeah, crack causes exponentially less harm.
I don't think so. But I am all for banning tobacco. So this particular argument does not work on me.

Tobacco, or nicotine in general? You would tell others how they may and may not live their lives, wherein they do not harm others? I fully support taxing nicotine use to the extent that those taxes are devoted to an insurance pool to treat the long term health effects of nicotine use, and different taxes on various RoA based on their disparate health impacts.

But by what right do you claim the ethical grounds to ban any particular drug, particularly when all costs for the drug are paid up front?

Buying crack and using it should be. Selling it should merely be a matter of good old fashioned *normal* business.

Do you feel the same about sex work? I have found that many so-called liberals and progressives who want to legalize drugs want to keep sex work illegal.

Sex work is a complex question, largely because while I think it CAN be ethical, the current organization of the sex industry is hopelessly terrible, as is the abomination which is neo-victorian sexual mores. I would fully support full legalization IFF we could develop a system of oversight and support which would enable people doing the work to receive all the profit, however I am hopeful of a near future where questions of the ethics of sex work are sidestepped by clever applications of science and engineering.
 
You don't think so based on what?
Based on reality.

I don't think you know what that word means.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

Oxycodone is a far more serious problem than cocaine.
 
Based on reality.

I don't think you know what that word means.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

Oxycodone is a far more serious problem than cocaine.

What I find most disappointing about that problem is that it is entirely legal, and not only is it legal, it's fucking dirt cheap if you have health insurance through your employer and can thus afford to get a doctor who prescribes it. That shit costs FAR less than crack, even shitty crack, on a per-dose basis. It costs about 3 dollars to get high on oxy, even uninsured. At lest on cocaine (crack or blow) you wanna actually do shit. Even with nicotine there's a general social aspect to it, everyone relaxing and chatting while they smoke/vape/whatever. Oxy, though, is just fucking pointless. It numbs you, and while it can feel good to be numb, it's just a fucking trap. One that I think people have a right to jump into, but to also be educated about before they do.
 
Back
Top Bottom