Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
He wasn't an excon as far as I know

I thought he was?

I haven't seen any mention of it thus far that he was.

Reviewing the wife's cell phone footage, I still don't see a gun, but her tone does definitely change significantly to address her husband, but the whole time she's doing that the camera is either at the ground or getting a nice shot of some cars.

On the other hand, I was totally right that things have not gotten better in Charlotte (since I lived in the area);

Scott’s fatal shooting ― the sixth by Charlotte police in the past 12 months ―

He had a record. In 2004, he was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats. All charges, as far as I know, stemmed from the same incident (or series of incidents on that date). He took a plea to misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge, and the others were dropped.


In screen shots of the footage, he was wearing what appeared to be an ankle holster. In another, he appeared to be taking a stance to shield the handgun with his leg while holding it. It a common disarmament prevention and ready tactic, and almost instinctual, even used by police officers. That why is was taught in civilian and law enforcement circles for some time.

And a gun was recovered. It was a Colt Mustang .380. It was cocked and locked, which means it was in "Condition One" and ready to go. Just had to brush off the thumb safety to fire.

Unfortunately, the police are now being accused of "planting" the weapon. Just as I figured would happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How about this, just throwing it out there for contemplation: if an officer shoots another human being, rightly or wrongly, during the course of their day, they lose their badge and their ability to be a police officer. Hear me out. The goal of a police officer should be to diffuse any and all situations and protect the peace. If the situation results in the loss of a life, the job was not done correctly. Now, there may be cases when the loss of life is required, fair enough. You still lose the ability to be an officer. You did your duty, you paid a steep price of having to take a life. You should be rewarded if it was a nessicary decision. But you should no longer be paid to keep the peace. It might make people think twice. Of course, it it was a life or death situation, you wouldn't think, thereby limiting it to life or death situations.

Look, I'm a filthy, gun hating, socialist, pot smoking (not really), Canadian scum, and even I think that's a bad idea.

But I like that you're trying a new angle on this, though.

Why? I get the gut reaction, hell, even I don't agree with it on moral grounds. [Actually, I can't really say that, as I believe there is no moral reason to kill someone else, ever--there is no escape clause in the "thou shalt not kill" concept to me, but I get the justification]. But on practical grounds, it seems to me like it might help.

Becoming a cop represents a significant investment of time and energy. Automatically losing their job because of a death is unreasonable.

Sometimes, it really is "kill or be killed".

It requires as little as a 2 year degree and sixteen weeks of training. Being a cop is not all that difficult, not given the amount of power (literally the power of life and death) placed into their hands.

And yearly recertification. And certification every time new equipment is introduced. And specialized training if needed. And policy training and seminars. And on and on.


Training, certification, etc doesn't end when you get your certification. And not meaning to be snotty or an ass, but unless you've worn the badge and worked the streets, don't presume to make claims on how "difficult" the job is as statement of fact.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
He had a record. In 2004, he was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats. All charges, as far as I know, stemmed from the same incident (or series of incidents on that date). He took a plea to misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge, and the others were dropped.

Is it confirmed? There's so many rumors swirling, I'm taking everything with a gain of salt.

In screen shots of the footage, he was wearing what appeared to be an ankle holster.

It does look like there's something around his right ankle when the police approach his body in the body cam video. You can only see it very briefly before the red shirted officer obstructs our view, but it's definitely there.

And a gun was recovered. It was a Colt Mustang .380. It was cocked and locked, which means it was in "Condition One" and ready to go. Just had to brush off the thumb safety to fire.

I believe they recovered a gun. There have been evidence photos released of it on the pavement.

I'm highly skeptical right now that Scott was holding it though. In the dash cam video, we see his left side about as well as these poor quality videos allow, and it doesn't look like he's holding anything. In the body cam video, we see his right side, and he also doesn't look like he's holding anything. The "whatever it is" is definitely on his right ankle, so I'd take that to mean he's right handed and would have had the gun in his right. We have a pretty good view between all three videos released (dash, body, and cell), of the immediate area after the shooting and I've looked but I don't see the gun anywhere. It might be under his body, or maybe it slid under a car though, or perhaps the red shirt officer, who in the videos crouches by Scott and seems to reach for something took possession of the weapon or maybe knocked it away?

I concede that the video quality is piss poor, and we never get a good look at Scott. Colt Mustangs are pretty small aren't they? It's possible we just can't see the gun very well.

Unfortunately, the police are now being accused of "planting" the weapon. Just as I figured would happen.

Well it wouldn't be the first time. Bad cops drag the good ones into the gak right along with them. The issue is that we have three videos that give us a nice variety of angles of the incident, and a gun is not apparent in any of them. The burden should be on the police to prove the shooting was justified, not a dead man to prove it wasn't. These videos are not supporting the police's story right now, but who knows what high tech video technology might reveal later. I'm fully willing to admit a gun might be there, but they're just too grainy for me to make any out.

Even then though, should the cops really be shooting a guy whose only action is to keep his arms perfectly at his side and back up? The dashcam video makes the entire encounter look like bs. Gun or no gun, he was not acting aggressively, and I see no reason to have fired at him as suddenly as they did. There's a whole slew of questions that could be asked about this incident. If I can't see the gun, imagine what little witnesses could see? It's no wonder people rioted. Standing from a distance or at the right angle, it looks like nothing more than cops gunning a man down for backing away from his car.

 LordofHats wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
He had a record. In 2004, he was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats. All charges, as far as I know, stemmed from the same incident (or series of incidents on that date). He took a plea to misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge, and the others were dropped.

Is it confirmed? There's so many rumors swirling, I'm taking everything with a gain of salt.

In screen shots of the footage, he was wearing what appeared to be an ankle holster.

It does look like there's something around his right ankle when the police approach his body in the body cam video. You can only see it very briefly before the red shirted officer obstructs our view, but it's definitely there.

And a gun was recovered. It was a Colt Mustang .380. It was cocked and locked, which means it was in "Condition One" and ready to go. Just had to brush off the thumb safety to fire.

I believe they recovered a gun. There have been evidence photos released of it on the pavement.

I'm highly skeptical right now that Scott was holding it though. In the dash cam video, we see his left side about as well as these poor quality videos allow, and it doesn't look like he's holding anything. In the body cam video, we see his right side, and he also doesn't look like he's holding anything. The "whatever it is" is definitely on his right ankle, so I'd take that to mean he's right handed and would have had the gun in his right. We have a pretty good view between all three videos released (dash, body, and cell), of the immediate area after the shooting and I've looked but I don't see the gun anywhere. It might be under his body, or maybe it slid under a car though, or perhaps the red shirt officer, who in the videos crouches by Scott and seems to reach for something took possession of the weapon or maybe knocked it away?

I concede that the video quality is piss poor, and we never get a good look at Scott. Colt Mustangs are pretty small aren't they? It's possible we just can't see the gun very well.

Unfortunately, the police are now being accused of "planting" the weapon. Just as I figured would happen.

Well it wouldn't be the first time. Bad cops drag the good ones into the gak right along with them. The issue is that we have three videos that give us a nice variety of angles of the incident, and a gun is not apparent in any of them. The burden should be on the police to prove the shooting was justified, not a dead man to prove it wasn't. These videos are not supporting the police's story right now, but who knows what high tech video technology might reveal later. I'm fully willing to admit a gun might be there, but they're just too grainy for me to make any out.

Even then though, should the cops really be shooting a guy whose only action is to keep his arms perfectly at his side and back up? The dashcam video makes the entire encounter look like bs. Gun or no gun, he was not acting aggressively, and I see no reason to have fired at him as suddenly as they did. There's a whole slew of questions that could be asked about this incident. If I can't see the gun, imagine what little witnesses could see? It's no wonder people rioted. Standing from a distance or at the right angle, it looks like nothing more than cops gunning a man down for backing away from his car.

As far as I know, his past troubles with the law comes from public records. Other charges in N.C. is a charge for DUI in Gaston County, N.C. last year.

Also, he was arrested and charged in Texas for evading arrest and served 15 months in 2005, according to records from Bexar County. In July 2005, he was sentenced to seven years in Texas State prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was released in 2011, according to a spokesman from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

In 1992, he was was a frequent flyer in Charleston County, S.C, with several arrests including simple assault, carrying a concealed weapon (non-firearm), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aggravated assault . In all instances he plead guilty. But for the aggravated assault charge, the charge was plea bargained down to a lesser one.

In 1995, in S.C., he was arrested and charged with assault with intent to kill. The charge was reduced via plea bargain.


As far as the holster goes, there is also this shot of what looks like an ankle holster:






And this shot (the same one where he looks like he's shielding a gun). His pants leg is slid up over what looks like an ankle holster:






You are absolutely right about the poor vid quality. It makes is hard to really come to any concrete conclusions without some sort of digital enhancements. I'm just going by what it looks like to me, based on personal experience. I could be 100% wrong on this.

Colt Mustangs are indeed small handguns with small grips (being a lower capacity single stack pistol for concealed carry). I had one some years back that I traded for a .38 Colt Agent. Even though my hands are not that large, they completely hid the grip. Supposedly, Scott had big hands. You are correct that the gun could be hard to see from a distance, especially with the crappy vid quality.


Here is a released pic of the weapon recovered at the scene just to give folks who haven't seen the pics an idea of the gun's size. :






There are bad cops out there as well as idiots (God knows I worked with enough of them. The dumb bastards.). It was even worse when I was in Corrections work. So, I agree that those bad apples give police a bad name. My problem is the tendency of some people to jump the gun (no pun intended) and assume the worst without evidence. As the Sherry Hall and Betty Shelby incidents prove (among others), the bad cops tend to get burned when they screw up big time. You have exceptions. But it's not as widespread as some people think, especially people in the black community.

The concept of "throw downs" is one from back in my Pop's days as a cop in the 1970's and 1980's. A lot of cops did indeed carry a "throw down piece". It was mostly to cover their asses if some kid jumped out at them with a toy gun in poor lighting, and got shot. In those days, a cop could very easily get crucified as a cold blooded murderer for an accidental shooting. But in my time in law enforcement, I never knew of any who carried a throw down piece. Not to say that nobody did. Just that it was rare enough that I never heard of any who did. At least, in the jurisdictions I worked in. And I never engaged in that practice. I consider it to be a chicken move. If I screwed up, I would've owned up to it. I can't stand anybody who doesn't man up and take responsibility for their actions, cop, civvie, or criminal.

I would prefer if they would clean up the images at some point, so we can see the details better. It would answer a lot of questions about this incident.

Looking at the still frame rather than a moving picture though, it does look like he might have something in his hand. But with how grainy the images are, it could easily just be a shadow as a gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
As far as I know, his past troubles with the law comes from public records. Other charges in N.C. is a charge for DUI in Gaston County, N.C. last year.

Also, he was arrested and charged in Texas for evading arrest and served 15 months in 2005, according to records from Bexar County. In July 2005, he was sentenced to seven years in Texas State prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was released in 2011, according to a spokesman from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

In 1992, he was was a frequent flyer in Charleston County, S.C, with several arrests including simple assault, carrying a concealed weapon (non-firearm), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and aggravated assault . In all instances he plead guilty. But for the aggravated assault charge, the charge was plea bargained down to a lesser one.

In 1995, in S.C., he was arrested and charged with assault with intent to kill. The charge was reduced via plea bargain.

Yeah I found a news article giving a biography of him; Stuff

I only ask because if you google in" Brently Venson Arrest" you get this article about a completely different guy with the same name; There's actually a troll who's tried to edit it into Wikipedia two days ago even though it's clearly a different person XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
But it's not as widespread as some people think, especially people in the black community.

Well part of the problem has nothing to do with the police, but public policy (which the police have limited control over). It's inevitable that black communities have more negative interactions with the police because their neighborhoods are more heavily patrolled, and this comes along with the other dominoes of generational experiences of injustice and abuse, and a court system that basically screws poor people in general, and is even worse for Blacks who are disproportionately poor and have a long history of zero trust in the systems of government that surround them. It's not like I think there are slews of cops who wake up in the morning and decide "lets go abuse some black people." That's not what's going on.

This is an institutional problem with multiple levels of contributing factors. The police are at ground level, and are the most visible symbol of the discontent felt with the system as a whole. Unfortunately we all deal with cops more frequently than we deal with law makers, so they get the "bullet" so to speak for the law enforcement and criminal justice systems' larger failings and inequities. EDIT: By extension, I don't think it's that the police like shooting black men, so much as I think that the procedures on the use of lethal force are too liberal. Of course more black men will be killed in such circumstances, since black communities are where a lot of police are.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I guess it's easier to apply blame externally than it is to fix the internal problems in a community. Though I don't know what the former achieves, recognition that you're in a crap situation because of things done in generations past? Ok, but I don't see how that helps anyone now.

Isn't the 'why' something is the way it is an important part of changing the way something is. Otherwise if you are in a hole you may just end up digging down further in your attempt to dig yourself out of it.

We are all under the shadow of our pasts. Germany is still dealing with the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, history does not go away just because it was yesterday.

 StygianBeach wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I guess it's easier to apply blame externally than it is to fix the internal problems in a community. Though I don't know what the former achieves, recognition that you're in a crap situation because of things done in generations past? Ok, but I don't see how that helps anyone now.

Isn't the 'why' something is the way it is an important part of changing the way something is. Otherwise if you are in a hole you may just end up digging down further in your attempt to dig yourself out of it.

We are all under the shadow of our pasts. Germany is still dealing with the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, history does not go away just because it was yesterday.

Of course recognising the past is important, but I specifically said blaming external things instead of fixing the current internal problems.

You can recognise that crap from past generations, but it's not going to stop your bastard son dropping out of school and trying to make a living selling drugs or your unwed daughter getting pregnant and just repeating the cycle again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's inevitable that black communities have more negative interactions with the police because their neighborhoods are more heavily patrolled.

But do you have any evidence that this is actually discrimination, or just cops going where crime is having the largest negative impact?

As I said on previous pages, even in predominantly white areas you get police targeting poorer neighbourhoods at times because that's where the most stabbings, shootings, domestic violence, etc occur. If people are just covertly selling and buying drugs but it doesn't lead to thievery, muggings and violent crimes, I'd suggest the cops wouldn't give a feth.

If the police weren't trying to help the problems, they'd just go to richer neighbourhoods and hand out fines for menial infractions, more money in it and less dangerous for the cops.

Richer neighborhoods are more likely to complain and 'fight' back. Plus richer neighborhoods fund government better with higher property taxes.

 skyth wrote:
Richer neighborhoods are more likely to complain and 'fight' back.

I disagree. I'd say richer neighbourhoods are more likely to just pay the fines they can afford and get on with life than start a riot or resist arrest or make a scene.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 StygianBeach wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I guess it's easier to apply blame externally than it is to fix the internal problems in a community. Though I don't know what the former achieves, recognition that you're in a crap situation because of things done in generations past? Ok, but I don't see how that helps anyone now.

Isn't the 'why' something is the way it is an important part of changing the way something is. Otherwise if you are in a hole you may just end up digging down further in your attempt to dig yourself out of it.

We are all under the shadow of our pasts. Germany is still dealing with the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, history does not go away just because it was yesterday.

Of course recognising the past is important, but I specifically said blaming external things instead of fixing the current internal problems.

You can recognise that crap from past generations, but it's not going to stop your bastard son dropping out of school and trying to make a living selling drugs or your unwed daughter getting pregnant and just repeating the cycle again.

I imagine that recognising the past of that bastard son actually would help that bastard son from dropping out of school and trying to make a living selling drugs or an unwed (not that marriage matters so much, but I assume that you don't mean 'marriage' in the legal sense) daughter from getting pregnant and repeating the cycle. If the past is acknowledged then at least it can be recognised as a cycle and be stopped somewhere along the line.

Or perhaps more importantly, if the greater public knew the past of a certain group which is having poor results in terms of educational, judicial and financial outcomes maybe said public would be more sympathetic to taking steps to reverse these poor outcomes.

I guess there is a fine line between what constitutes recognition and what constitutes blame and how much of either is actually useful for a better future..

I just wish more people understood more about history and I dislike hearing comments that basically write it off as unimportant to current events.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Richer neighborhoods are more likely to complain and 'fight' back.

I disagree. I'd say richer neighbourhoods are more likely to just pay the fines they can afford and get on with life than start a riot or resist arrest or make a scene.

By fight back, I meant politically. If cops started trying to use affluent areas as income sources, they would be hearing from their elected supervisors pretty quickly.

Plus, there is less of a 'need' to treat affluent areas as an income source since the property tax base there is a lot larger. They already have a decent income stream.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But do you have any evidence that this is actually discrimination,

Crime rates are based on police data on reports and arrests. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. What little independent evidence there is, like studies of drug use, dismiss the idea that blacks commit more crime on the whole.

Why is it that despite drug use being radically higher among whites than blacks in total sum and per capita, that the prison population of people incarcerated for drug offenses is almost even, with still more blacks imprisoned than whites (15% vs 16% (page 16)). Someone feel free to do the per capita conversion on that. It's not going to be pretty . 57% of the blacks in prison are in prison for drug crimes (BJS study page 17). There's a reason I keep harping on it. One because it represents a very huge chunk of known crime, and two it isn't exactly a crime that gets reported so much as the cops find it because they happen to be there. Take the very case that prompted the riot that prompted this thread. If a black man smokes a joint in his car and no cop is around to see it, did he commit a crime? Yes, but it won't be recorded in the crime rate. Police presence directly effects reported crime rates. This reality is even misconstrued by idiots who try to claim that the police increase crime, when the reality is that crime goes up in higher police presence because the police happen to be around to see more stuff going on.

Crime rates != more crime. They equal more crime being recorded.

If we just take recorded crime at its face, we get insanity like this;

Insanity

You know what's weird about that map? Actually the first thing that stands out isn't Charlotte at all but that little area at the bottom; Pineville. Pineville has a staggeringly (like seriously, blows your mind away) crime rate compared to Charlotte. 1,878 vs 338. It's 80% white. By the logic of going where the crime is, I sure hope Pineville has one of the largest police departments in the US (it doesn't). And that's because police don't actually make decisions about where to patrol based solely on crime rates, and yes, the policy decisions that put more cops in black neighborhoods operate of a discriminatory presumption that has existed since the 1930s that blacks commit more crime period.

If the police weren't trying to help the problems

Wanting to help, and helping effectively are not necessarily the same thing. Police presume their presence is a deterrent to crime, even though the Kansas City Preventative Police Experiment found nearly 50 years ago the police presence has a non-significant effect on crime (and subsequent studies have either confirmed this or countered it but failed to be repeatable).

Discrimination isn't one thing. It's not always just a conscious decision one person makes. An entire society can discriminate based on its structure. American society is built such that it discriminates against minorities, the poor, immigrants, and excons. There's one group of people who overwhelmingly falls into all three categories. Well technically two, but we're not talking about the other one in this thread (Native Americans are actually leading the way this year on "killed by cops per capita" which for all I know is a first for them since the 1800s!). It's not like any of us sat down and agreed to that and have to feel guilty over it. 200+ years of our past have made things that way. We didn't ask for it, it's just the hand we were dealt.

I don't actually know what would need to be done to start redressing many of these problems. You'd need someone a hell of a lot smarter than I am, with a lot more knowledge about community outreach and social engineering. I do know though that it won't be easy, because when is fixing long standing social problems ever? It won't be cheap, and it won't happen if the larger population remains in denial about what the problem.

 LordofHats wrote:

Honestly this is probably impossible to know right now. Historians, Sociologists, and Political Scientists are still largely clueless why Crime Rates in the US spiked in the 60s, and suddenly sharply declined starting in the 90s. The drop and rise are poorly defined, and poorly understood in the grand scheme.

The spike is well understood as being related to the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War opposition, and leftist advocacy...it is the decline that's puzzling.

 d-usa wrote:
They say they noticed him rolling a joint, so that's the "crime" that was exacerbated by having a gun.

Which is dumb as people roll cigarettes all the time.

 CptJake wrote:

Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).

So attempting to "drop it" could easily be construed, by police, as an attempt to "draw it".

Seems like gak policy to me.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Open Carry in NC means in a visible holster or slung (long arm), NOT in your hand with the cops repeatedly yelling at you to Drop It! (as the wife's video clearly shows they do).

So attempting to "drop it" could easily be construed, by police, as an attempt to "draw it".

Seems like gak policy to me.

"Drop It' when it is in your hand is not a hard to grasp concept. Anyone legally carrying in NC knows when approached by a cop for ANYTHING you MUST (by law) inform the officer you are carrying (concealed or not). A cop will not yell 'Drop It! repeatedly if the weapon is holstered. But build the straw man you are comfortable fighting.

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But do you have any evidence that this is actually discrimination,

Crime rates are based on police data on reports and arrests. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. What little independent evidence there is, like studies of drug use, dismiss the idea that blacks commit more crime on the whole.

You keep using drugs as an example and seem to be missing the point that I don't really care

Yes, drug charges are why most people are in jail, but high drug use isn't why an area will be more heavily policed. It's only when the drug use lead to violent crimes that an area is going to be policed more.

My assertation that blacks commit crime at a higher rate has little to do with drug use or incarceration rates because I'm well aware of America's war on drugs and think it's not a good policy.... BUT I am dubious that menial drug charges have a great influence on the distribution of police resources. My thought that blacks commit crime at a higher rate is based on murder, non-negligent manslaughter and robbery charges being higher among black (and although I'm sure the FBI stats are incomplete, but according to them I wouldn't say there is actually a huge bias in rate of drug use arrests between blacks and whites, which leads me to believe the fact there's more blacks than whites in jail for drug related charges means there were probably other circumstances like violent crimes related to drug use).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You keep using drugs as an example and seem to be missing the point that I don't really care

Gee why would I keep bringing up the charge the represents nearly half the prison population, more than half of the black prison population, and the plurality of arrests? It's almost like they're the most committed crimes in the country by a very health margin or something.

I realized you don't care some time ago. You're happy to mount a complete dismissal based on your own supposition, but unfortunately your not caring is irrelevant because you can't make the stats go away by not caring. Harping on the the US' low and increasingly low violent crime rate does not support the numbers we see, because it's not what people keep getting arrested for and its not what most people who go through the criminal justice system are charged with. There are more sex offense charges than murders in this country, and I don't see anyone arguing we need to police white neighborhoods more because whites commit sex offenses at a radically higher rate than blacks.

It might have something to do with the fact this thread is about the Charlotte riots rather than drug and sex offences.

I mean, obviously the drug discussion is an interesting one, but I don't think it tells a story of why blacks are shot by police at a high rate which in turn leads to the riots.

You just keep harping on about how drug charges show that black neighbourhoods are more heavily policed and I just don't believe it. I think they're more heavily policed because of violent crime and then get put in prison because of drug related crimes.

No one gives much of a crap if people smoke a bit of weed at home or at college or whatever. They do give a crap when people start getting mugged or you have dealers in parks and on street corners selling to kids or someone gets stabbed/shot.

more because whites commit sex offenses at a radically higher rate than blacks.

Correction, whites get charged with more sex offences, I don't think the rate per population is higher and the thing to remember with sex offences is they only tend to get charged if they get reported. So you can only say whites commit more sex offences if you also know the rate of reporting sex offences is the same.

EDIT: According to the FBI stats, blacks make up 31.2% of rape arrests and 24.6% of sexual assault charges and according to google are 12.3% of the population. So blacks get charged with sex offences at a higher rate. But still, I think it's difficult to make a comparison because reporting rates can vary wildly and skew the results. I would imagine very few sex offences are caught in the act but rather rely on being reported and investigated, so having more cops patrolling a specific area isn't going to be a huge influence one way or the other.

EDIT 2: I'd actually be interested to know if there is evidence that police actively patrol black areas more. Casual observation tells me not really, but I haven't done a close study on it. I know poor communities are often the subject of specific targeted police operations, but as far as having cops generally patrolling around, I've always thought they prefer making an appearance in wealthier areas.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No one gives much of a crap if people smoke a bit of weed at home or at college or whatever.

46% of the prison population, and Kieth Scott, beg to differ.

Honestly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Police don't generally just stop people walking down the street and ask "have you assaulted anyone lately." They will stop people walking down the street and ask if they have any drugs on them.

But apparently you don't want to talk about drugs because "no one cares." Doesn't make sense, but fine. Lets pretend no one cares about drugs when almost half the people in prison are in prison for them. I mentioned earlier in thread that we weren't even hitting the bigger part of the iceberg, which is non-criminal law enforcement. Stuff like loitering and traffic stops. One of the factors that leads to a lot of these shootings is the rate at which black men are stopped.

This study is about Connecticut, but it's results were very much in line with studies conducted in Ferguson and Dearborn (linked earlier in thread too lazy to find again XD);

The most troubling numbers in the report involve car searches. Cars driven by whites that were pulled over were searched only 2.65 percent of the time, while vehicles driven by blacks and Hispanics were searched 5.7 percent and 5.37 percent of the time, respectively. And yet, contraband was found in the cars driven by whites 32.34 percent of the time, but only in 27 percent of the searches of cars driven by blacks and 24.7 percent of the cars driven by Hispanics was contraband found.

There are estimated to be 41,000,000 speeding tickets given out this year. Just tickets and not accounting for any other kind of traffic violation. That's more than all crime back when crime was at its peak of 15 million nearly 20 years ago. I certainly hope I really don't have to explain the racial biases found in street stop policies (commonly called stop and frisk though not all stop policies involve the frisking).

But yeah. Let's not talk about why African Americans might riot about things police do. That's clearly wildly off topic in a thread about African Americans rioting after police did something.

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No one gives much of a crap if people smoke a bit of weed at home or at college or whatever.

46% of the prison population, and Kieth Scott, beg to differ.

Honestly.

So are you being purposely obtuse or are you really that slow that you didn't even read the very next sentence after the one you quoted?

"They do give a crap when people start getting mugged or you have dealers in parks and on street corners selling to kids or someone gets stabbed/shot."

If you really didn't comprehend the fact I was contrasting not caring about harmless drug offences in private vs drug offences related to other crimes that directly impact the community, well, I guess there's not much else to say.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So are you being purposely obtuse or are you really that slow that you didn't even read the very next sentence after the one you quoted?

I responded to this;

"They do give a crap when people start getting mugged or you have dealers in parks and on street corners selling to kids or someone gets stabbed/shot."

With this;

your own supposition

In a previous post (multiple previous posts actually, but I can only say the same thing so many different ways before it becomes apparent your not listening).

It's not my fault you repeat yourself like a broken record and engage absolutely nothing I say while positing your own head cannon, which your free to do of course, but calling me obtuse is rather kettle of you. Fishing through for all these studies and statistics is kind of time consuming, and it's kind of annoying when the response to them is complete dismissal. I'm just hoping people other than you are actually reading some of this and maybe learning something.

 LordofHats wrote:

The most troubling numbers in the report involve car searches. Cars driven by whites that were pulled over were searched only 2.65 percent of the time, while vehicles driven by blacks and Hispanics were searched 5.7 percent and 5.37 percent of the time, respectively. And yet, contraband was found in the cars driven by whites 32.34 percent of the time, but only in 27 percent of the searches of cars driven by blacks and 24.7 percent of the cars driven by Hispanics was contraband found.

There are estimated to be 41,000,000 speeding tickets given out this year. Just tickets and not accounting for any other kind of traffic violation. That's more than all crime back when crime was at its peak of 15 million nearly 20 years ago. I certainly hope I really don't have to explain the racial biases found in street stop policies (commonly called stop and frisk though not all stop policies involve the frisking).

But yeah. Let's not talk about why African Americans might riot about things police do. That's clearly wildly off topic in a thread about African Americans rioting after police did something.

Sorry I didn't see this part when I made my previous post, you must have ninja updated it.

That is a somewhat interesting finding, though before jumping out and screaming "racial discrimination!" you still have to look at the variables which could affect it.

There are several variables that will increase your likelihood of getting pulled over and searched.
Depending on the location, you might be more likely to be pulled over if you're driving a crap car. Are more blacks driving crap cars?

If you're driving a nice car through the back streets of a rough area, you're probably more likely to be pulled over and asked if you own the car you're driving. Are more blacks driving nice cars through crap neighbourhoods?

If you're driving a bomb of a car away from a park which is a known hot spot for drugs, guess what? You're more likely to be pulled over and have your vehicle searched. Are more blacks driving around known drug hot spots?

The statistic that more blacks are pulled up for vehicle searches while more whites are found with drugs doesn't mean whites are more likely to have drugs, it may simply mean that blacks are in positions which increases their chances of being searched while actually being law abiding.... while more whites are less likely to be in positions where they are suspected of drug possession, yet when they do put themselves in such positions they probably are possessing drugs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's not my fault you repeat yourself like a broken record and engage absolutely nothing I say...

Pot, kettle, black.

You post uncompelling arguments that I don't feel like engaging in, you obviously feel the same way about me the way you pick individual lines from my posts to respond to and go off tangentially to.

Ok, so let me just ask outright, in short what do YOU think the problem is?

I think the problem is blacks typically live in low socio-economic situations and we live in a capitalist society rather than a communist/socialist one so the way to fix the problem is to give people the best chance of getting out of that situation. Address those communities with better education, better community outreach programs, fostering a sense of both self and community pride, have people in positions of power/respect/influence highlighting that kids can do better than their parents if they are willing to put in the effort. What I DON'T think helps the problem is externalising the problems from those communities and fostering a victim mentality. I don't think it helps to the point where it can actually be harmful if people of influence and the media act to incite the populace and level blame rather than encourage, unite and uplift the populace. EDIT: And I could definitely agree that America's war on drugs is quite possibly doing more harm than good.

I don't think racial discrimination is not a problem, I just question whether it is the core problem now (opposed to historically) and whether focusing on it does benefit to the predominantly poor black communities. I am yet to see a compelling argument to convince me otherwise (though I fully admit any studies on the topic are always going to be difficult because there's so many factors other than skin colour that influence things).

My stance is usualy correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, just because having dark skin is somewhat correlated with XXXXX doesn't mean XXXXX is caused because people have dark skin.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Sorry I didn't see this part when I made my previous post, you must have ninja updated it.

Yeah that's my bad. Nasty habit I sometimes have @_@

Depending on the location, you might be more likely to be pulled over if you're driving a crap car. Are more blacks driving crap cars?

If you're driving a nice car through the back streets of a rough area, you're probably more likely to be pulled over and asked if you own the car you're driving. Are more blacks driving nice cars through crap neighbourhoods?

If you're driving a bomb of a car away from a park which is a known hot spot for drugs, guess what? You're more likely to be pulled over and have your vehicle searched. Are more blacks driving around known drug hot spots?

The statistic that more blacks are pulled up for vehicle searches while more whites are found with drugs doesn't mean whites are more likely to have drugs, it may simply mean that blacks are in positions which increases their chances of being searched while actually being law abiding.... while more whites are less likely to be in positions where they are suspected of drug possession, yet when they do put themselves in such positions they probably are possessing drugs.

That's a whole lot of supposition that requires stretching the imagination when there is a far more readily apparent reason.

I think the problem is blacks typically live in low socio-economic situations

Agreed. But why do they live in low socio-economic situations? That's the whole point of all this "tangent." You cannot address why Blacks are so disproportionately poor without addressing the past of racism, and you can't address why they stay that way without addressing the ongoing disproportionately negative effect of public policy (of which law enforcement policy is very relevant) on black communities. Pointing that out is not laying all the blame on external factors. Hell, initial police presence surges in black communities way back in the early 80s were partially motivated by black community leaders who wanted them to happen. Lots of people in these communities still want a heavy police presence. I'm not saying we should give criminals a pass if they happen to be black with a "we're sorry we did this to you" get out of jail free card. It's pointing out that we can't just pretend that this problem is completely internal, and unrelated to the outside world. These communities don't exist in a bubble.

I don't think racial discrimination is not a problem, I just question whether it is the core problem now (opposed to historically) and whether focusing on it does benefit to the predominantly poor black communities.

Honestly, the last thing black communities probably want is a bunch of white policy makers from outside their communities walking in and telling them how to fix their problems. I don't see that going over well (even if it would help, it just won't be received well). There's a need for a much more nuanced approach to these communities and their problems, but we've acted like being super hard on crime would eventually remove all the bad eggs keeping them down and they could right themselves on their own.

It's been nearly 30 years, with zero sign of anything of the sort on the horizon.

My stance is usualy correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, just because having dark skin is somewhat correlated with XXXXX doesn't mean XXXXX is caused because people have dark skin.

My argument is that blacks are disproportionately effected by law enforcement policy, and that this is a contributing factor to ongoing problems. It can't be ignored. We've invented the phrase "institutional racism" to define discrimination that exists as part of a system, rather than as an individual bias. We don't exactly make life as an ex-con easy. You can't vote. You struggle to get a job (in a country where it's already somewhat harder for blacks to get hired). Family life is disrupted. It doesn't just stay with you. It effects your children and perpetuates itself.

Ain't No Makin' It by Jay MacLeod, is a book originally written about two groups of inner city youth, one white and one black, and spends a little of its time examining how children are affected by the social conditions of their parents and community, including the absence of fathers who are in prison and the best work available occasionally being on the shady side of the law. The entire book is a pungent refutation of the lie of meritocracy as a means of fixing social problems. It's a good read.

Riddle me this:
so if you were a murderous cop, with witness around, knowing someone had a phone out, and you were repeatedly yelling put the gun down, over and over and over, loudly, why would you then shoot the person.

If I wanted to be a murderous cop, I would shoot .5 seconds after saying once"put the gun down" and then place my drop gun next to him. Nothing about this case screams unlawful shoot. Literally I don't understand why everyone feels the need to stand over a cops shoulder, arm chair general him after the fact, without actual data and then get mad when things turn out in favor of the LEO. I am not a LEO fan but I am a fan of truth. And there is nothing here screaming unlawful shoot after all videos are watched and analyzed as a whole.

 redleger wrote:
Nothing about this case screams unlawful shoot.

Riddle me this;

Why should it be lawful to shoot a man whose only actions are to back away and keep his hands at his side?

It seems a tad extreme. One need not be murderous for this event to occur. One need not even mean anyone any harm. These events can unfold fast, and things happen suddenly. It's why training is so emphasized. You don't get much time to think. As far as I know such a thing is lawful if the target is armed (and even under circumstances if not). But people aren't just complaining about what the police do, but why they do it, and the justifiable basis upon which policy is formed. People's lives are kind of thought to be important. The police will just have to live with people arm chair generaling them. Pervasive fear of the abuse and misuse of government power is an American past time. It's our shtick.

knowing someone had a phone out,

While not necessarily relevant to any of the incidents in this thread, look up the case of Rayshon Gartly. He was arrested, brought into a police station, and violently beaten with his hands cuffed behind his back by an officer right under a surveillance camera! Or the arrest of Dayshawn Bettway, which was being recorded by multiple bystanders when one of the arresting officers pulled his gun and pointed it at the bystanders demanding they stop filming (the officer, Risel Martinez, lost his job in a heartbeat). As if that isn't insane enough, the officer who pulled the gun later proceeded to assault one of the filmers.

It's amazing the things some people will do even when they know they're being filmed (or at least should know).

 redleger wrote:
Literally I don't understand why everyone feels the need to stand over a cops shoulder, arm chair general him after the fact, without actual data

Well, conservatives have spent like 30 years saying the government is corrupt and can't be trusted, so I guess we just started believing them And of course the cops had actual data which they refused to release and then lied about why - any reasonable person would find that a bit shady


Anyway I think at least part of it was that the wife claimed the guy got shot by the cops in a car reading a book, and then there were giant riots. At that point you kinda wonder, well, there were giant riots, is it true? Certainly there has been police wrongdoing increasingly caught on video, so the idea it was a bad shoot and that led to rioting doesn't exactly boggle the mind anymore. Police don't really have a presumption of good faith now, especially with the the lies from the police in this case alone:

The chief's shenanigans with the video - he lied and said the new law didn't allow him to release the tape, and then when it turned out that was not true, just hand-waved it away

The FOP's claim that the vast majority of the people arrested were outside instigators. When the meeeedia everyone hates checked that, it turned out 80% of the arrestees were from Charlotte. The FOP then claimed "he wasn't quoting true facts".

Anyway having seen all the videos, I'm still not 100% sure what happened there - that one cops head in the way! . I certainly saw what appears to be an ankle holster, though. The idea that the cop murdered this guy for no reason in front of a ton of witnesses seems pretty far-fetched from the beginning but OK, it's happened. Then the idea that they planted a drop gun on him - at that point it's just not possible. There are too many people involved for it to be true. The idea that it was a justified shooting starts to become the most likely version of events.

Side note, this story broke the same day but got lost in the noise of Charlotte. Just a little more erosion of the presumption of good faith.

 Ouze wrote:

Well, conservatives have spent like 30 years saying the government is corrupt and can't be trusted, so I guess we just started believing them And of course the cops had actual data which they refused to release and then lied about why - any reasonable person would find that a bit shady

The cognitive dissonance astounds me

Just remember...Anything from the government is bad...Unless it's the Police or Military...

 Ouze wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Literally I don't understand why everyone feels the need to stand over a cops shoulder, arm chair general him after the fact, without actual data

Well, conservatives have spent like 30 years saying the government is corrupt and can't be trusted, so I guess we just started believing them And of course the cops had actual data which they refused to release and then lied about why - any reasonable person would find that a bit shady


Anyway I think at least part of it was that the wife claimed the guy got shot by the cops in a car reading a book, and then there were giant riots. At that point you kinda wonder, well, there were giant riots, is it true? Certainly there has been police wrongdoing increasingly caught on video, so the idea it was a bad shoot and that led to rioting doesn't exactly boggle the mind anymore. Police don't really have a presumption of good faith now, especially with the the lies from the police in this case alone:

The chief's shenanigans with the video - he lied and said the new law didn't allow him to release the tape, and then when it turned out that was not true, just hand-waved it away

The FOP's claim that the vast majority of the people arrested were outside instigators. When the meeeedia everyone hates checked that, it turned out 80% of the arrestees were from Charlotte. The FOP then claimed "he wasn't quoting true facts".

Spoiler:

Anyway having seen all the videos, I'm still not 100% sure what happened there - that one cops head in the way! . I certainly saw what appears to be an ankle holster, though. The idea that the cop murdered this guy for no reason in front of a ton of witnesses seems pretty far-fetched from the beginning but OK, it's happened. Then the idea that they planted a drop gun on him - at that point it's just not possible. There are too many people involved for it to be true. The idea that it was a justified shooting starts to become the most likely version of events.

Side note, this story broke the same day but got lost in the noise of Charlotte. Just a little more erosion of the presumption of good faith.

I do have to concede people do dumb gak in front of witnesses all the time, thinking they are above the law. I however do not see this as being one of those cases. Also as far as having a weapon at your side, but refusing to lawfully follow directions when armed, and being repeatedly told to do so will probably lead to your death every time. Regardless of your feelings on Marijuana usage, any mind altering substance, and a fire arm in a residential area combined becomes an illegal activity. Had he dropped the weapon, not exited his car with it, and then hopped on the ground he would be alive to tell his side of the story, and we would have one less thing to be mad at the big bad government about.

As far as target discrimination, once again I have actual training in this, and probably would have made the same call. I definitely understand that they have very few seconds to make a life altering decision both for the shooter and the shootee.

Sounds like the gun he had on him was stolen:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/keith-scott-footage-lacks-audio-officer-violated-policy-article-1.2807457

The gun cops claim was found on Keith Scott had been reported stolen before the 43-year-old black man was shot and killed by a North Carolina officer, sources say.

An unidentified burglar allegedly stole the gun during a residential break-in at some point before the fatal Sept. 20 shooting, police sources told WBTV Monday. The same sources said the burglar admitted selling the gun to Scott.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it looks like his wife knew he had a gun (or at least claimed he had a gun when filing a restraining order against him):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3808803/Keith-Scott-carrying-stolen-gun-police-say-wife-filed-restraining-order-against-saying-armed-violent-threatened-kill-her.html

Mmmm....thickens the plot does. [/Yodavoice]

However, the more important thing is that the officer did not follow procedure and have his body camera on. Wonder what evidence he wanted to hide...