JMaximus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2017
- Messages
- 2,113
- Reaction score
- 604
- Location
- Upper Midwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Are they?
Consider that:
Given 1 and 2, in large part, white people probably won't much notice if police stop attempting law-enforcement where black people are concerned. Given 3, they would probably notice an improvement in their lives in the form of less destruction from rioting, etc.
- most people in this country are not black.
- most crime committed by black people or against black people is committed against or by other black people, respectively.
- a black person being on the receiving end of a non-identity-politics-friendly interaction with police can quickly lead to destruction of public and private property, rioting, murder in the streets, and other things that can readily dampen a white person's good time.
So, does that mean most Americans would be better off if the police just stopped interacting with black people?
Note the options:
- Suspect only - Only not interact when the suspect is black regardless of the race of the other participants
- Victim only - Only not interact when the victim is black regardless of the race of the other participants
- Both - Don't interact if the suspect or victim are black
Try to answer based on running the numbers - disregard, for the moment, whether it would be moral for police to refuse interactions with people based on race. Just consider the numbers and the goal of optimizing the public good of the highest number of people.
Your poll is flawed. White people use and sell drugs, therefore, "commit crimes" at the same rate as blacks. But are arrested at significantly lower rates and receive less punitive sentences. There is a reason that "stop and frisk" in NY never went uptown at 2:00 AM. Of course there are no statistics to prove this because they don't police those areas and that demographic as heavily, if at all.
I live in a county in south GA that is primarily white. The police reports are mostly white folk. (They post the pictures in the local paper) They have a black person once or twice a month. Because the crimes are being committed by local criminals, not by white or black people.
How does any of that make my poll flawed?
The poll asks whether most Americans are better off if police leave black people alone. It says nothing of white people and the assumption in the question is that police would continue to engage white people the same as they do now.
Are they?
Consider that:
Given 1 and 2, in large part, white people probably won't much notice if police stop attempting law-enforcement where black people are concerned. Given 3, they would probably notice an improvement in their lives in the form of less destruction from rioting, etc.
- most people in this country are not black.
- most crime committed by black people or against black people is committed against or by other black people, respectively.
- a black person being on the receiving end of a non-identity-politics-friendly interaction with police can quickly lead to destruction of public and private property, rioting, murder in the streets, and other things that can readily dampen a white person's good time.
So, does that mean most Americans would be better off if the police just stopped interacting with black people?
Note the options:
- Suspect only - Only not interact when the suspect is black regardless of the race of the other participants
- Victim only - Only not interact when the victim is black regardless of the race of the other participants
- Both - Don't interact if the suspect or victim are black
Try to answer based on running the numbers - disregard, for the moment, whether it would be moral for police to refuse interactions with people based on race. Just consider the numbers and the goal of optimizing the public good of the highest number of people.
Are they?
Consider that:
Given 1 and 2, in large part, white people probably won't much notice if police stop attempting law-enforcement where black people are concerned. Given 3, they would probably notice an improvement in their lives in the form of less destruction from rioting, etc.
- most people in this country are not black.
- most crime committed by black people or against black people is committed against or by other black people, respectively.
- a black person being on the receiving end of a non-identity-politics-friendly interaction with police can quickly lead to destruction of public and private property, rioting, murder in the streets, and other things that can readily dampen a white person's good time.
So, does that mean most Americans would be better off if the police just stopped interacting with black people?
Note the options:
- Suspect only - Only not interact when the suspect is black regardless of the race of the other participants
- Victim only - Only not interact when the victim is black regardless of the race of the other participants
- Both - Don't interact if the suspect or victim are black
Try to answer based on running the numbers - disregard, for the moment, whether it would be moral for police to refuse interactions with people based on race. Just consider the numbers and the goal of optimizing the public good of the highest number of people.
"Stop shooting us without provocation"
"OH YOU WANT TO NOT BE MURDERED? HOW ABOUT NO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR YOU AT ALL YOU WANT THAT!?"
But your "consider that", qualifications 2 and 3 are your own assumptions and cannot be proven. Yes, in some areas, crime against blacks is primarily committed by other blacks is true, but cannot be applied to the country as a whole. Where I live, the last murder of a black man was by two white men.
A principle black people are familiar with is that if something goes wrong (say, the normal type of situation you and I might call he police for), you do not call the police because your situation will rapidly worsen if they arrive.
When you and I call the cops and they arrive, we’re likely to think, “About time!” When cops arrive anyway, black people tend to think, “Oh no...”
So you mean: Would Americans in in general be better off if we returned to the state of affairs that we had in the first two-thirds of the Twentieth Century? Wherein local police forces largely turned their backs on black communities, and black communities and enclaves were largely left to fend for themselves?
Maybe "most Americans" would be better off if police withdrew entirely from policing black communities and only policed communities that were majority non-black, but I do not think black people in general would be better off if it became the general state of affairs in which the police never came to their neighborhoods when called.
"Stop shooting us without provocation"
"OH YOU WANT TO NOT BE MURDERED? HOW ABOUT NO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR YOU AT ALL YOU WANT THAT!?"
My answer is a flat-out NO.
In the first case, most of us want policing of our neighborhoods, and crackdowns on gangs, drugs, and other miseries perpetrated by a small but active segment of our community.
In the second case, our concerns are with the kinds of changes needed within those police departments to weed out bad cops. I.e. those who abuse their authority or use it corruptly to profit from the criminal organizations they are supposed to be combatting.
Meanwhile, organizations like BLM, who claim to be for improving our community need to put both their money and their efforts into doing just that...combatting the "thug life" culture, eliminating the welfare dependency culture, and cleaning up both our streets and improving our schools.
That's what we need to be doing.
Correct. And it would be morally unacceptable (to me at least) to deprive people of the right to police protection simply because of their race.
But in terms of numbers, because black people make up a much smaller portion of the country, their increased misery would not necessarily translate to an increase in misery of the majority of Americans.
I understand that being in the group of people who would be most harmed by this you may think it unwise - but do you believe your bad experiences would weigh heavily on the well-policed (white) majority enjoying their peace and good times?
Black people's fear of the police - real or imagined; legitimate or otherwise - is not the topic of this thread.
Resisting legitimate arrest is in fact provocation.
Assaulting an officer is in fact provocation.
Not complying with an officer's legal instructions is in fact provocation.
:shrug:
"Stop shooting us without provocation"
"OH YOU WANT TO NOT BE MURDERED? HOW ABOUT NO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR YOU AT ALL YOU WANT THAT!?"
Resisting legitimate arrest is in fact provocation.
Assaulting an officer is in fact provocation.
Not complying with an officer's legal instructions is in fact provocation.
:shrug:
Are they?
Consider that:
- most people in this country are not black.
Wouldn't you think that the leftst political activist 'news' media would be bullhorning those stories just as loudly as the ones they are?Complete B.S. All of the above does not have to lead to a shoot to kill. I've seen plenty of videos where white suspects are literally beating up on he police and they STILL walk away alive.
Why does race matter so much to you?Says the white guy in the picture. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?