Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Civil Wrongs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    Your example involves those not directly involved in BLM, either on the protest side (an athlete) or the critic (media dude). How does this "disgrace" the civil rights movement? People who are not members of a political or social movement jam feet into mouth on a regular basis, when commenting on said movements. Your example is misdirected.
    The exchange I am commenting on is the result of where the civil rights movement has lead us. Colin Kaepernick's actions, Rodney Harrison's critique, and then Harrison's subsequent apology are all results of modern culture created by three decades of misdirected 'civil rights' leaders.

    Colin believing that police are shooting young black males specifically due to skin color and then getting paid leave as a reward is not supported by a single fact available. This does not stop the civil rights leaders from claiming so. Harrison essentially told Colin to mind his own business because he thought he was white - and this is perfectly acceptable to say to a white man because the modern civil rights movement pushes separatism. Once finding out Colin is mixed race Harrison immediately had to apologize - because words acceptable to speak about a white man can get you fired when spoken about a black man.

    It is a disgrace that the civil rights movement has led us to a place where we must inquire the Ancestry DNA results of an individual to determine if his/her words are offensive. Quite a deviation from MLK's 'content of character' dream, wouldn't you say?

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    You might be looking for a scorecard. In that case, provide a positive vs. negative count on BLM's leadership. IOW, the police they properly identified as rogue (positive count), vs. police who were improperly accused of race bias and/or improper procedure (negative count).
    Ignoring crime rates and extenuating circumstances - I will offer analysis on a purely statistical basis. In 2015, 102 unarmed blacks were killed by police. The total number of all races was 276. Translating the 13% black population one would only expect 36 victims. That is a total count of 66 black lives lost over statistical average. Yes, every life matters - but the numbers simply do not justify the hysteria.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Sure, a white guy should protest, then simply tell an indignant non-white person to honor their right to protest. Doesn't matter if the white person is advocating for an issue that affects mostly non-white people. That being the general rule, the person sticking his foot in his mouth was a member of the media, not a representative of BLM. So, no, this doesn't represent "the civil rights movement". It represents people who stick their feet in their mouths, when talking about an issue they hadn't thought much about.

      The ratio of unarmed black people killed by police action is statistically at about 37%, vs black people being 13% of the population. I understand your point, though. BLM leadership would do better using all police arrest and district attorney prosecution stats, rather than dealing exclusively with deadly force. It would give them a much higher case number to deal with, identify bias in other aspects of law enforcement, and provide living witnesses. The purpose should be to correct police and DA bias first, before getting press coverage. IOW, they should be doing state-by-state reforms, working thru the ACLU and other legal organizations.

      More boring that police shootings, but that would get better results in the longer run.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        Sure, a white guy should protest, then simply tell an indignant non-white person to honor their right to protest. Doesn't matter if the white person is advocating for an issue that affects mostly non-white people. That being the general rule, the person sticking his foot in his mouth was a member of the media, not a representative of BLM. So, no, this doesn't represent "the civil rights movement". It represents people who stick their feet in their mouths, when talking about an issue they hadn't thought much about.
        I am not sure I can explain it more directly than I already have:
        It is a disgrace that the civil rights movement has led us to a place where we must inquire the Ancestry DNA results of an individual to determine if his/her words are offensive. Quite a deviation from MLK's 'content of character' dream, wouldn't you say?
        The civil rights movement of the 50's, 60's, and 70's eliminated state sponsored segregation and took the first great steps toward integrating culture and neighborhoods across this nation. Then the civil rights baton was handed off to the Reverends (Jackson and Sharpton) who have systematically used their influence to stir up emotions and re-divide Americans upon racial lines. They have allowed two generations of young African-Americans to believe whitey is the enemy and owes them a debt. It is this ridiculous notion which has led to two distinctive set of rules for appropriate speech - depending on the color of ones skin and/or the color of those which you speak of.

        Rodney Harrison made the point that Kaepernick probably has not faced the same types of blatant discrimination as blacks - as he does not appear to be black. After all, how can a police officer pull you over for being black if you appear to be white? Even though Harrison was wrong - as Colin does have a one black parent - his observation would not require a public apology if it were not for the insane level of racial sensitivity the Reverends have forced upon this nation. But Harrison did have to apologize immediately - or his career at NBC could come to immediate end.

        It should not require a DNA test to determine limitations of appropriate speech.


        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        The ratio of unarmed black people killed by police action is statistically at about 37%, vs black people being 13% of the population. I understand your point, though. BLM leadership would do better using all police arrest and district attorney prosecution stats, rather than dealing exclusively with deadly force. It would give them a much higher case number to deal with, identify bias in other aspects of law enforcement, and provide living witnesses. The purpose should be to correct police and DA bias first, before getting press coverage. IOW, they should be doing state-by-state reforms, working thru the ACLU and other legal organizations.

        More boring that police shootings, but that would get better results in the longer run.
        I completely agree that police departments should be judged on a more local basis. We cannot put this in the hands of bureaucracies with a political agenda like the Obama DOJ. You know, the report that determined a culture of racism in the Ferguson PD regardless of a complete lack of evidence. This was done to cover up the misdirected hysteria amplified by the Obama administration in relation to the Michael Brown case. The DOJ report was entirely based on one statistic - 67% of the population represented 87% of all vehicle stops. But there are hundreds of other variables involved. Every one of them was ignored in order to advance the narrative of racist police.

        What does Obama want? Racial quotas on traffic stops? We are so far gone from the dreams of MLK. Current civil rights leaders are to blame.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • What does Obama want? Racial quotas on traffic stops? We are so far gone from the dreams of MLK. Current civil rights leaders are to blame
          It was taken in an completely different direction, with different values and principles after MLK was murdered by our gov't. If you compare the net worth of these charlatans like sharpston and Jackson from long ago to now, you understand what these types of men are about. Shakedown artists, legal confidence men, with their marks being fleeced as much as possible. No wonder we have such racial division today. MLK spoke of the time when man would not be judged by the color of his skin, but on character. Where is the idea of character today in the C. R. Movement? It has been totally left out of the equation.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post

            I am not sure I can explain it more directly than I already have: The civil rights movement of the 50's, 60's, and 70's eliminated state sponsored segregation and took the first great steps toward integrating culture and neighborhoods across this nation. Then the civil rights baton was handed off to the Reverends (Jackson and Sharpton) who have systematically used their influence to stir up emotions and re-divide Americans upon racial lines. They have allowed two generations of young African-Americans to believe whitey is the enemy and owes them a debt. It is this ridiculous notion which has led to two distinctive set of rules for appropriate speech - depending on the color of ones skin and/or the color of those which you speak of.

            Rodney Harrison made the point that Kaepernick probably has not faced the same types of blatant discrimination as blacks - as he does not appear to be black. After all, how can a police officer pull you over for being black if you appear to be white? Even though Harrison was wrong - as Colin does have a one black parent - his observation would not require a public apology if it were not for the insane level of racial sensitivity the Reverends have forced upon this nation. But Harrison did have to apologize immediately - or his career at NBC could come to immediate end.

            It should not require a DNA test to determine limitations of appropriate speech.
            As left or right wing causes cycle between efficiency and corruption, this is no surprise. But your example should have used Sharpton's defense of the 13 yr. old who ran off on a drug binge, rather than his claim that she had been raped. He was -once upon a time- a leader of the civil rights movement, before his cycle declined into corruption. Doesn't mean there are no civil rights activists who are competent. It just means the movement seems to be dominated by the old order, the Corrupt Ones.


            Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
            I completely agree that police departments should be judged on a more local basis. We cannot put this in the hands of bureaucracies with a political agenda like the Obama DOJ. You know, the report that determined a culture of racism in the Ferguson PD regardless of a complete lack of evidence. This was done to cover up the misdirected hysteria amplified by the Obama administration in relation to the Michael Brown case. The DOJ report was entirely based on one statistic - 67% of the population represented 87% of all vehicle stops. But there are hundreds of other variables involved. Every one of them was ignored in order to advance the narrative of racist police.

            What does Obama want? Racial quotas on traffic stops? We are so far gone from the dreams of MLK. Current civil rights leaders are to blame.
            There are good and bad police depts. around the nation. The BLM movement likely has members who would take the time to identify who is who, praise those who properly enforce the law, and provide a ground game against those who won't enforce the law. The Ferguson PD example was not their best bet, but that PD still needs some work. A police dept. that is very skewed away from the ethnic group of their civilian population is a problem -really. That was what I thought was most significant at the end of the day. If (or better) when BLM ups their standard, they will gather the stats on police programs that fall short on putting rogue cops into prison, and praise recruiting an ethnic profile somewhat closer to the civilian pop they're serving. The ethnic part isn't feel good BS, either. It's one less factor police administration has to deal with, when minimizing the "us vs. them" syndrome. Of course, forgiving an adolescent busted for having a cannabis joint or other minor offense is important, if we are recruiting cops from all groups. The skew on imprisonment rates, despite the same rate of offense, is another BLM cause.

            Using murder as the issue gets ratings, but it's a short term tactic. They need to get the larger issue into court. If the federal level dropped the ball, private interests can do better. Much like the Southern Poverty Law Center did a better job of shrinking the KKK in recent times.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              . . . He was -once upon a time- a leader of the civil rights movement, before his cycle declined into corruption. Doesn't mean there are no civil rights activists who are competent. It just means the movement seems to be dominated by the old order, the Corrupt Ones.
              Fair enough, but who are they? Because of his obvious political success our President is a de facto civil rights leader - and he throws gas on the fire every time a racial incident takes place. If only police officers in this nation received the same factual investigation before rushing to judgement as Islamic terrorists do, much of the violent protesting may have never taken place.

              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              There are good and bad police depts. around the nation. The BLM movement likely has members who would take the time to identify who is who, praise those who properly enforce the law, and provide a ground game against those who won't enforce the law.
              You are suggesting BLM be asked to judge police departments? This is like asking Ryan Lochte to write the new American Tourism Ethics Guide. I think a more impartial group would be required. I think you earlier suggested the ACLU. Better.

              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              The Ferguson PD example was not their best bet, but that PD still needs some work. A police dept. that is very skewed away from the ethnic group of their civilian population is a problem -really. That was what I thought was most significant at the end of the day. If (or better) when BLM ups their standard, they will gather the stats on police programs that fall short on putting rogue cops into prison, and praise recruiting an ethnic profile somewhat closer to the civilian pop they're serving. The ethnic part isn't feel good BS, either. It's one less factor police administration has to deal with, when minimizing the "us vs. them" syndrome. Of course, forgiving an adolescent busted for having a cannabis joint or other minor offense is important, if we are recruiting cops from all groups. The skew on imprisonment rates, despite the same rate of offense, is another BLM cause.
              What you are talking about here is racial quotas. After all, there was not even an accusation of impropriety in the Ferguson PD hiring practices. Young blacks - who have been told that the police are their enemy throughout their lives - have little interest in a law enforcement career. This all circles back to the lies and exaggeration they are fed via black leaders, the POTUS, black congressional leaders, and practically every democrat candidate they have encountered.

              Also, the idea that only black officers can represent black people brings me right back to my point about modern civil rights leaders pushing segregation.

              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              Using murder as the issue gets ratings, but it's a short term tactic. They need to get the larger issue into court. If the federal level dropped the ball, private interests can do better. Much like the Southern Poverty Law Center did a better job of shrinking the KKK in recent times.
              You will have to explain further what the SPLC has done to reduce membership of the KKK. The KKK has been in natural decline since 1920 with recent membership estimates of only 3,000 to 5,000 nation wide. The tiny numbers of all white supremacist groups makes them highly irrelevant in my opinion. In comparison to the estimated 300,000 pedophiles roaming the nation - I see them as a very small threat.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                The ratio of unarmed black people killed by police action is statistically at about 37%, vs black people being 13% of the population. I understand your point, though. BLM leadership would do better using all police arrest and district attorney prosecution stats, rather than dealing exclusively with deadly force. It would give them a much higher case number to deal with, identify bias in other aspects of law enforcement, and provide living witnesses. The purpose should be to correct police and DA bias first, before getting press coverage. IOW, they should be doing state-by-state reforms, working thru the ACLU and other legal organizations.

                More boring that police shootings, but that would get better results in the longer run.
                2. According to Riley, "Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do."

                Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

                Here are some more statistics from the FBI:
                In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.

                What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.
                3. Black crime is even more prevalent in the country's largest cities and counties.

                Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Safe that in Chicago, IL, blacks committed 76 percent of all homicides, despite composing 35 percent of the city's population. Blacks also accounted for 78 percent of all juvenile arrests. Whites, who compose 28 percent of the city's population, committed 4 percent of its homicides and 3.5 percent of its juvenile arrests. Hispanics, who compose 30 percent of the city's population, committed 19 percent of its homicides and 18 percent of its juvenile arrests. (Another eye-opening fact from Mac Donald's research is that only 26 percent of murder cases were solved in Chicago.)

                Blacks are 10 percent of the population in Los Angeles, CA, but commit 42 percent of its robberies and 34 percent of its felonies. Whites make up 29 percent of the city's population, and commit 5 percent of its robberies and 13 percent of its felonies.

                In New York City, blacks committed "75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime," despite only composing 23 percent of the population, said Mac Donald in a Hillsdale speech. Additionally, 2009 Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers show that in 2009, "blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties."

                http://www.dailywire.com/news/7441/7...-aaron-bandler

                Males are profiled more so than Women, because Males commit more violent crimes. Perhaps Blacks are profiled more so because Blacks commit more violent crimes.

                It makes sense that a larger percentage of Black people are in prison, because statistically a larger percentage of the black population commit a larger percentage of violent crimes.

                Does anyone have stats to show that blacks do not commit a disportionate amount of violent crime in the US?
                Last edited by msc; 09-18-2016, 08:11 AM.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by msc View Post

                  2. According to Riley, "Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do."

                  Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

                  Here are some more statistics from the FBI:
                  In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.

                  What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.
                  3. Black crime is even more prevalent in the country's largest cities and counties.

                  Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Safe that in Chicago, IL, blacks committed 76 percent of all homicides, despite composing 35 percent of the city's population. Blacks also accounted for 78 percent of all juvenile arrests. Whites, who compose 28 percent of the city's population, committed 4 percent of its homicides and 3.5 percent of its juvenile arrests. Hispanics, who compose 30 percent of the city's population, committed 19 percent of its homicides and 18 percent of its juvenile arrests. (Another eye-opening fact from Mac Donald's research is that only 26 percent of murder cases were solved in Chicago.)

                  Blacks are 10 percent of the population in Los Angeles, CA, but commit 42 percent of its robberies and 34 percent of its felonies. Whites make up 29 percent of the city's population, and commit 5 percent of its robberies and 13 percent of its felonies.

                  In New York City, blacks committed "75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime," despite only composing 23 percent of the population, said Mac Donald in a Hillsdale speech. Additionally, 2009 Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers show that in 2009, "blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties."

                  http://www.dailywire.com/news/7441/7...-aaron-bandler

                  Males are profiled more so than Women, because Males commit more violent crimes. Perhaps Blacks are profiled more so because Blacks commit more violent crimes.

                  It makes sense that a larger percentage of Black people are in prison, because statistically a larger percentage of the black population commit a larger percentage of violent crimes.

                  Does anyone have stats to show that blacks do not commit a disportionate amount of violent crime in the US?
                  Poor people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US. Unemployed people, same thing. People raised in broken families, same.
                  There are more than a few sociological studies on the phenomena. One is linked, below. You mentioned race with no other context, as if economics and historical treatment do not matter.
                  http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~japhill/sp802.pdf

                  One last note: Your 2013 quote of FBI statistics (I bolded it) notes blacks committing 38% of murders, whites committing 31%. I understand the disproportion based on total populations of each race in the US. What doesn't connect the dots, is why the portion of murders in the FBI stats doesn't square with stats you quote from other sources. Why the difference?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                    Fair enough, but who are they? Because of his obvious political success our President is a de facto civil rights leader - and he throws gas on the fire every time a racial incident takes place. If only police officers in this nation received the same factual investigation before rushing to judgement as Islamic terrorists do, much of the violent protesting may have never taken place.


                    You are suggesting BLM be asked to judge police departments? This is like asking Ryan Lochte to write the new American Tourism Ethics Guide. I think a more impartial group would be required. I think you earlier suggested the ACLU. Better.


                    What you are talking about here is racial quotas. After all, there was not even an accusation of impropriety in the Ferguson PD hiring practices. Young blacks - who have been told that the police are their enemy throughout their lives - have little interest in a law enforcement career. This all circles back to the lies and exaggeration they are fed via black leaders, the POTUS, black congressional leaders, and practically every democrat candidate they have encountered.

                    Also, the idea that only black officers can represent black people brings me right back to my point about modern civil rights leaders pushing segregation.


                    You will have to explain further what the SPLC has done to reduce membership of the KKK. The KKK has been in natural decline since 1920 with recent membership estimates of only 3,000 to 5,000 nation wide. The tiny numbers of all white supremacist groups makes them highly irrelevant in my opinion. In comparison to the estimated 300,000 pedophiles roaming the nation - I see them as a very small threat.
                    To your first point, reducing the number of violent protests would involve two factors: The BLM leadership (civil rights' less corrupt leaders as well) making a blunt statement that some of the cases they supported were a waste of time, since it turned out the police made a justified shooting. The second factor would be the black community agreeing with the blunt statement, rather than assuming all police are not justified, and all black people being shot by police are innocent. That ain't gonna happen quickly, since humans are involved. How many time has the general pop (white, black, all races) been duped by the initial BS of a media story? How many times has a political/social group's leadership -conservative or liberal- admitted they were duped by said media BS?

                    Next point: I think the bias problem "...only black officers can represent black people...pushing segregation", is indeed pushing segregation. That is not what I said, nor what I implied. I stated it was in the interest of police administrations to recruit and build police demographics that were closer to the ethnic pops they served. Getting exact proportions would be ridiculous and counterproductive; some of your best recruits might not fit any racial profile of the community to which they are assigned. Ignoring the issue, as if placing an all-black police force in charge of an all-white rural community in W. Virginia is perfectly functional, is also ridiculous and counterproductive. Don't believe me?... here's one example of police administration strategy. It is common across the nation, and it's not because all chiefs are touchy-feely types. It's because they are practical.
                    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...cruitm/346986/

                    Here's the explanation of why SPLC's service was valuable. The KKK was broken down further, unable to execute destructive tactics because it had less money. Numbers of people in an organization is only one factor in how that organization might be effective. Discipline, cohesion, material supplies and extent of their connections are also important. Yes, money is important, and removing large chunks of that money will definitely help reduce criminal behavior.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Poor people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US. Unemployed people, same thing. People raised in broken families, same.
                      There are more than a few sociological studies on the phenomena. One is linked, below. You mentioned race with no other context, as if economics and historical treatment do not matter.
                      http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~japhill/sp802.pdf

                      One last note: Your 2013 quote of FBI statistics (I bolded it) notes blacks committing 38% of murders, whites committing 31%. I understand the disproportion based on total populations of each race in the US. What doesn't connect the dots, is why the portion of murders in the FBI stats doesn't square with stats you quote from other sources. Why the difference?
                      FBI stats are total population, The other stats are broken down to cities. Though even with a discrepancy and with the article you posted, it verifies that blacks commit more homicides and violent crime. Point is what I found and what you found, all show a larger disproportionate amount of crime being committed by the blacks, which explains the proportionate rate of arrests to the crimes being committed by black people. Not racist. Not arrested because they are black. Arrested because they committed crime.

                      Now I understand your point of relevance to the reasoning of why blacks commit more homicides, rapes, and violent crimes. Though the underlying reasons may be a factor of why, it doesn't negate the fact that they are committing the crimes they are arrested and jailed for. The reasons should be addressed to prevent this continuation, But NO, the reasons don't matter when addressing the crime.

                      Surely you don't suggest we allow violent criminals to run free and harm more people, (of all races), based on the history and life conditions of that person. Let's be logical and honest here. If a member of your family was murdered by a black man, and you were told he has a record of violent crime, but he's been oppressed and grew up in poverty, "so we didn't want to keep him in jail, because it's not his fault", would you be understanding and accept the reasoning as legitimate for why this killer was allowed to roam free and murder your loved one? Because of the history of the killer?

                      We have to simultaneously address the circumstances and protect society from violent criminals. Violent criminals must be taken off the streets. If a larger majority of violent criminals are black, then a larger majority of blacks will be arrested and imprisoned. If a larger majority are male, than a larger majority of males will be arrested and imprisoned.

                      Profiling. Stats create profiling. Change the stats, change the profiling. Everyone is profiled to prevent crime. Not just by race, but sex, age, clothing, and demeanor. Now that doesn't mean that a suspect should be treated disrespectfully, but it does mean that if a criminal is to be caught you have to narrow down your search, (according to stats), to who is most likely to have committed the crime.

                      Like I said, the reason for the stats should be worked on while simultaneously taking the violent criminals off the streets.

                      There is no civil wrong taking place in regard to a larger percentage of arrest and incarceration of Black Men.
                      Last edited by msc; 09-19-2016, 05:04 AM.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Lets recall our original disagreement - as the truth is, we agree on most angles of this situation.

                        Colin Kaepernick, in the name of social justice, is refusing to stand for the national anthem. A black NBC football commentator, Rodney Harrison, suggested Colin does not even understand the plight of African-Americans. Due to Kaepernick's light skin color Harrison was not aware he was black. Once learning the truth Harrison immediately apologized for his comments.

                        I concluded this incident demonstrates results of 30+ years of an intentionally divisive 'civil rights' movement. You disagreed, suggested neither individual is in any way representative of BLM or the modern civil rights movement.

                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        To your first point, reducing the number of violent protests would involve two factors: The BLM leadership (civil rights' less corrupt leaders as well) making a blunt statement that some of the cases they supported were a waste of time, since it turned out the police made a justified shooting. The second factor would be the black community agreeing with the blunt statement, rather than assuming all police are not justified, and all black people being shot by police are innocent. That ain't gonna happen quickly, since humans are involved. How many time has the general pop (white, black, all races) been duped by the initial BS of a media story? How many times has a political/social group's leadership -conservative or liberal- admitted they were duped by said media BS?
                        I completely agree that, fact and truth based reaction rather than media hyped emotional backfire, would calm racial tensions. What you are missing is - hyped up emotional backfire IS the goal of BLM and modern civil rights leadership. They do this by intentionally allowing young blacks believe a justified police shooting was actually the product of racism. BLM is not going to assist any reporting of the truth. The greatest threat to the future of their movement is the truth. Depending on current civil rights leadership to assist in the calming of racial tensions is futile. You are suggesting the addict be put in charge of guarding the stash.

                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        Next point: I think the bias problem "...only black officers can represent black people...pushing segregation", is indeed pushing segregation. That is not what I said, nor what I implied. I stated it was in the interest of police administrations to recruit and build police demographics that were closer to the ethnic pops they served. Getting exact proportions would be ridiculous and counterproductive; some of your best recruits might not fit any racial profile of the community to which they are assigned. Ignoring the issue, as if placing an all-black police force in charge of an all-white rural community in W. Virginia is perfectly functional, is also ridiculous and counterproductive. Don't believe me?... here's one example of police administration strategy. It is common across the nation, and it's not because all chiefs are touchy-feely types. It's because they are practical.
                        http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...cruitm/346986/
                        What is in best interest of the police - and the people they serve - is to hire the most qualified applicants regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The concern about demographics is based on the general ignorance of the population and we need not cater to the stupid.

                        The article you linked states that the Chattanooga PD is going to pay $500 per head for recruiting minority police cadets. In other words, the city is going to take $500 of my tax dollars and then pay it to a less qualified black applicant who will then take my place in cadet school. If I oppose this new plan then I will be labeled a racist. Yeah - sounds like a great plan.

                        Diversity in itself does not make us a great nation. Using the tools of freedom and liberty to unleash the greatest potential in all American's is what makes us exceptional.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                          Lets recall our original disagreement - as the truth is, we agree on most angles of this situation.

                          Colin Kaepernick, in the name of social justice, is refusing to stand for the national anthem. A black NBC football commentator, Rodney Harrison, suggested Colin does not even understand the plight of African-Americans. Due to Kaepernick's light skin color Harrison was not aware he was black. Once learning the truth Harrison immediately apologized for his comments.

                          I concluded this incident demonstrates results of 30+ years of an intentionally divisive 'civil rights' movement. You disagreed, suggested neither individual is in any way representative of BLM or the modern civil rights movement.


                          I completely agree that, fact and truth based reaction rather than media hyped emotional backfire, would calm racial tensions. What you are missing is - hyped up emotional backfire IS the goal of BLM and modern civil rights leadership. They do this by intentionally allowing young blacks believe a justified police shooting was actually the product of racism. BLM is not going to assist any reporting of the truth. The greatest threat to the future of their movement is the truth. Depending on current civil rights leadership to assist in the calming of racial tensions is futile. You are suggesting the addict be put in charge of guarding the stash.


                          What is in best interest of the police - and the people they serve - is to hire the most qualified applicants regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The concern about demographics is based on the general ignorance of the population and we need not cater to the stupid.

                          The article you linked states that the Chattanooga PD is going to pay $500 per head for recruiting minority police cadets. In other words, the city is going to take $500 of my tax dollars and then pay it to a less qualified black applicant who will then take my place in cadet school. If I oppose this new plan then I will be labeled a racist. Yeah - sounds like a great plan.

                          Diversity in itself does not make us a great nation. Using the tools of freedom and liberty to unleash the greatest potential in all American's is what makes us exceptional.
                          Diversity in itself is divisive just as is affirmative action. Both assume that blacks are different and inferior to others. I have always believed that liberals are the racists because they really believe that minorities cannot succeed without their help. It makes them feel good and superior to help the downtrodden.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by msc View Post

                            FBI stats are total population, The other stats are broken down to cities. Though even with a discrepancy and with the article you posted, it verifies that blacks commit more homicides and violent crime. Point is what I found and what you found, all show a larger disproportionate amount of crime being committed by the blacks, which explains the proportionate rate of arrests to the crimes being committed by black people. Not racist. Not arrested because they are black. Arrested because they committed crime.

                            Now I understand your point of relevance to the reasoning of why blacks commit more homicides, rapes, and violent crimes. Though the underlying reasons may be a factor of why, it doesn't negate the fact that they are committing the crimes they are arrested and jailed for. The reasons should be addressed to prevent this continuation, But NO, the reasons don't matter when addressing the crime.

                            Surely you don't suggest we allow violent criminals to run free and harm more people, (of all races), based on the history and life conditions of that person. Let's be logical and honest here. If a member of your family was murdered by a black man, and you were told he has a record of violent crime, but he's been oppressed and grew up in poverty, "so we didn't want to keep him in jail, because it's not his fault", would you be understanding and accept the reasoning as legitimate for why this killer was allowed to roam free and murder your loved one? Because of the history of the killer?

                            We have to simultaneously address the circumstances and protect society from violent criminals. Violent criminals must be taken off the streets. If a larger majority of violent criminals are black, then a larger majority of blacks will be arrested and imprisoned. If a larger majority are male, than a larger majority of males will be arrested and imprisoned.

                            Profiling. Stats create profiling. Change the stats, change the profiling. Everyone is profiled to prevent crime. Not just by race, but sex, age, clothing, and demeanor. Now that doesn't mean that a suspect should be treated disrespectfully, but it does mean that if a criminal is to be caught you have to narrow down your search, (according to stats), to who is most likely to have committed the crime.

                            Like I said, the reason for the stats should be worked on while simultaneously taking the violent criminals off the streets.

                            There is no civil wrong taking place in regard to a larger percentage of arrest and incarceration of Black Men.
                            What is being done to correct the conditions behind the higher rate by black men? Employment? No. Dems pay people to be unemployed, and GOP insists on the bootstraps method. While the D. method is obviously doomed to failure, the GOP method is more subtle. Guaranteed that 5% will succeed, being motivated and self-educated because they are deviant in a positive way. The rest -95%- are doomed by their average nature. They are facing a system of mediocre/poor schools, bad neighborhoods, a distrust of the "white" system that goes back centuries, not decades. Is society doing much to correct education in bad neighborhoods? No. A few cities are introducing non-profit or local-run charter schools, but successful examples are few and far between. The last factor is one of few that lies mostly at the feet of urban black culture -dysfunctional families. Solution there is obvious, a bumper sticker that applies to dirt-poor white people as well as their black counterparts: "Stupid people shouldn't breed". Brutal, but the truth hurts. Point is, neither party is taking on the issue effectively, nor are any racial groups within the citizenry. We are doing the wrong things to correct problems that should be almost non-existent by now.

                            As to your other point, of course violent offenders need to be arrested and tried, regardless of their race. But that will spiral downward, blighted areas of cities will continue to fester, unless there is an active employment policy that replaces welfare and public schools are funded per student on a statewide basis. Zone-based funding guarantees bad neighborhoods stay bad.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                              Lets recall our original disagreement - as the truth is, we agree on most angles of this situation.

                              Colin Kaepernick, in the name of social justice, is refusing to stand for the national anthem. A black NBC football commentator, Rodney Harrison, suggested Colin does not even understand the plight of African-Americans. Due to Kaepernick's light skin color Harrison was not aware he was black. Once learning the truth Harrison immediately apologized for his comments.

                              I concluded this incident demonstrates results of 30+ years of an intentionally divisive 'civil rights' movement. You disagreed, suggested neither individual is in any way representative of BLM or the modern civil rights movement.


                              I completely agree that, fact and truth based reaction rather than media hyped emotional backfire, would calm racial tensions. What you are missing is - hyped up emotional backfire IS the goal of BLM and modern civil rights leadership. They do this by intentionally allowing young blacks believe a justified police shooting was actually the product of racism. BLM is not going to assist any reporting of the truth. The greatest threat to the future of their movement is the truth. Depending on current civil rights leadership to assist in the calming of racial tensions is futile. You are suggesting the addict be put in charge of guarding the stash.


                              What is in best interest of the police - and the people they serve - is to hire the most qualified applicants regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The concern about demographics is based on the general ignorance of the population and we need not cater to the stupid.

                              The article you linked states that the Chattanooga PD is going to pay $500 per head for recruiting minority police cadets. In other words, the city is going to take $500 of my tax dollars and then pay it to a less qualified black applicant who will then take my place in cadet school. If I oppose this new plan then I will be labeled a racist. Yeah - sounds like a great plan.

                              Diversity in itself does not make us a great nation. Using the tools of freedom and liberty to unleash the greatest potential in all American's is what makes us exceptional.
                              That young black man who wants to be a police officer? He doesn't qualify, because he was busted with a cannabis joint when he was 17. His white counterpart across town was also caught with a joint at the same age, but doesn't have a record. So the white kid goes to the academy, black kid doesn't. Stats on drug use vs. penalty paid shows a disparity in prosecution and incarceration, despite usage rates being nearly the same. The $500 bucks paid by the police administration might attract the few blacks left who were disciplined or lucky enuf to not get caught; maybe they were smart and wealthy enough to fight an arrest in court, like their white counterparts. Is the chief trying to attract a less qualified person, or just one who is more difficult to find because a juvenile conviction is a lifetime penalty as far as getting a job in law enforcement?

                              The strategy is going to succeed for fail in the longer term, because his police force can deal with the community effectively or not. A large majority of white cops in a mostly black community might work, if they build trust with each other. If the black community just won't trust a cop because they are white, unless they are "vetted" by a black partner, then the $500 pays off in a short time. Call that ignorance, because on an individual level, that mistrust is ignorant. Consider another level -black youth going up the river at a higher rate than their white counterparts committing the same crime at the same rate. In that case, a universal ignorance is based on a real history, and it won't be corrected easily, or in a short time.

                              The BLM should change, we agree. Short term, "bleeds it leads" tactics won't work in the longer term. They should support leadership that goes with a SPLC strategy, in this case making bias in arrest and prosecution too expensive for local law enforcement. The DA needs to pay first, while the police follow up with re-training and (yes) recruitment that at least attempts to resemble their community. Opportunity isn't the same between groups, but that can be corrected. The work ahead is dull in most ways, odd when we consider the damage that needs fixing is anything but boring.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                                That young black man who wants to be a police officer? He doesn't qualify, because he was busted with a cannabis joint when he was 17. His white counterpart across town was also caught with a joint at the same age, but doesn't have a record. So the white kid goes to the academy, black kid doesn't. Stats on drug use vs. penalty paid shows a disparity in prosecution and incarceration, despite usage rates being nearly the same. The $500 bucks paid by the police administration might attract the few blacks left who were disciplined or lucky enuf to not get caught; maybe they were smart and wealthy enough to fight an arrest in court, like their white counterparts. Is the chief trying to attract a less qualified person, or just one who is more difficult to find because a juvenile conviction is a lifetime penalty as far as getting a job in law enforcement?

                                The strategy is going to succeed for fail in the longer term, because his police force can deal with the community effectively or not. A large majority of white cops in If a mostly black community might work, if they build trust with each other. If the black community just won't trust a cop because they are white, unless they are "vetted" by a black partner, then the $500 pays off in a short time. Call that ignorance, because on an individual level, that mistrust is ignorant. Consider another level -black youth going up the river at a higher rate than their white counterparts committing the same crime at the same rate. In that case, a universal ignorance is based on a real history, and it won't be corrected easily, or in a short time.

                                The BLM should change, we agree. Short term, "bleeds it leads" tactics won't work in the longer term. They should support leadership that goes with a SPLC strategy, in this case making bias in arrest and prosecution too expensive for local law enforcement. The DA needs to pay first, while the police follow up with re-training and (yes) recruitment that at least attempts to resemble their community. Opportunity isn't the same between groups, but that can be corrected. The work ahead is dull in most ways, odd when we consider the damage that needs fixing is anything but boring.
                                If you will recall, the black police chief in Dallas called upon the black community to come and join the force just to prove the lie about biased police officers and got no takers.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X