• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Most Americans Better Off if Police Stop Interacting w/ Black People?

Are Most Americans Better Off if Police Stop Interacting w/ Black People?

  • Yes - Black suspects

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Yes - Black victims

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - Black suspects and/or black victims

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • No

    Votes: 23 88.5%

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

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:

  1. most people in this country are not black.
  2. most crime committed by black people or against black people is committed against or by other black people, respectively.
  3. 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.
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Are they?

Consider that:

  1. most people in this country are not black.
  2. most crime committed by black people or against black people is committed against or by other black people, respectively.
  3. 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.
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
YES.

Maybe the time has come in this profoundly unhappy country when a person may be stopped only by a cop of his/her own ethnicity.

(I have heard that there was once a time when Black cops could not stop a Euro American.)

So maybe the United States of America has finally become such a divisive society that a police force must consist of all five major ethnicities.

If no Black person could ever be stopped (let alone arrested) except by a Black cop, then there would no excuse to make any incident racial. All complaints would be based solely on illegal police conduct.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Are they?

Consider that:

  1. most people in this country are not black.
  2. most crime committed by black people or against black people is committed against or by other black people, respectively.
  3. 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.
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.

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.

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...”
 
Are they?

Consider that:

  1. most people in this country are not black.
  2. most crime committed by black people or against black people is committed against or by other black people, respectively.
  3. 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.
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.

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.

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.
 
When did this become one of the options offered!?
 
"Stop shooting us without provocation"

"OH YOU WANT TO NOT BE MURDERED? HOW ABOUT NO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR YOU AT ALL YOU WANT THAT!?"
 
"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.

118196707_3624645860880136_4361816724882012840_o.jpg


:shrug:
 
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.

Anecdotes don't count for much.

The overwhelming majority of victim crime is intraracial.

It's established fact.
 
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...”

Black people's fear of the police - real or imagined; legitimate or otherwise - is not the topic of this thread.
 
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.

Right. So you voted yes?
 
"Stop shooting us without provocation"

"OH YOU WANT TO NOT BE MURDERED? HOW ABOUT NO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR YOU AT ALL YOU WANT THAT!?"

Why the thread exists is not the topic of the thread.
 
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?
 
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?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

My answer was that "most American's would not be better off." I was pointing out the disadvantages if Police stopped dealing with us in our own communities. But while Black on Black crime is significant, Black on White crime is also an issue percentage-wise.

Nor should Whites receive all of the protections offered by police services while we deal without them. It would simply create more problems for both communities IMHO.
 
Black people's fear of the police - real or imagined; legitimate or otherwise - is not the topic of this thread.

When I got to " non-identity-politics-friendly interaction" I said "screw it" and decided to contribute something that would be of some actual value to the discussion.
 
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.

118196707_3624645860880136_4361816724882012840_o.jpg


:shrug:

Says the white guy in the picture. :roll:
 
"Stop shooting us without provocation"

"OH YOU WANT TO NOT BE MURDERED? HOW ABOUT NO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR YOU AT ALL YOU WANT THAT!?"

one of the bigger myths that have come from the recent antics of leftwing agitators is that police are going around shooting lots of innocent blacks
 
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.

118196707_3624645860880136_4361816724882012840_o.jpg


:shrug:

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.
 
The activist blacks you see on the liberal news and talk shows don't represent black people. I live and work in a mixed neighborhood, and none of the black people I know want the police to disengage with the black community. Sure, they're concerned about being treated fairly, but they don't hate every white officer they see. There's a silent majority of black people out here just like there is a silent majority of white people.
 
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.
Wouldn't you think that the leftst political activist 'news' media would be bullhorning those stories just as loudly as the ones they are?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom