FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The only thing about me that could have caused his "this guy might be a threat" radar to go off was the color of my skin.

I guessed incorrectly, I thought for sure he was gonna give your grief for your Georgia plates.

EDIT: Holy shit, I just remembered you moved to SC...and I had no idea you ever even moved to NC. I guess my idea of Ben E Lou is set in stone dating back to like 2001 or something. Haha.

[ISiddiqui]

In watching the Garner video again, I was struck by the fact that I didn't here any officer say "you are under arrest". Yes, Garner was telling the cops not to touch him and moving his arms out of the way (I think loudly proclaiming he was "resisting arrest" creates an unfair implication of how he was actually acting). Do we know if he was told he was under arrest and/or read his rights?

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

What I meant to post was:

Is there any evidence that Garner was doing anything wrong before the cops tried to arrest and subsequently murder him.

I think the initial stop was a Terry stop based on suspicion of selling cigarettes, he physically resisted that stop, which gave the officers the authority to arrest him.

But if the officers' action was unlawful, it really doesn't matter if Garner was "doing anything wrong" first. Same with Zimmerman/Martin, if Zimmerman's actions were unlawful, it really doesn't matter if Martin really had been "doing anything wrong." Even if Garner was a murdering child molester, an unreasonable seizure is still an unreasonable seizure. So it's disingenuous to try to tie those two things together. It leads to the "he was executed for selling cigarettes!" tagline that you were really going for.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I guessed incorrectly, I thought for sure he was gonna give your grief for your Georgia plates.
.

I doubt they care that much about out-of-state plates. If my in-laws are any indication, most of the properties in town are owned by Floridians anyhow.

[molson]

I don't know if race had anything to do with these two particular incidents, but obviously race has always been a big issue/concern in law enforcement. I've been thinking about this in the context of the discussion that came up a few pages back about racism then v. racism now, about whether racism "still exists." I think everybody agreed that the situation has changed a lot. But in some ways, I think "modern", subtle, inherent, cultural, subconscious racism (and sexism) can be even more insidious and damaging than the old-fashion slur-yelling kind.

Because now, prejudice and bias is still in every corner of our society, but - we don't really often see it directly like we did in the old days. But the numbers prove its there. Not just in law enforcement, but in salaries, job opportunities, cab wait times, housing, characterizations in the media, it's everywhere. Some of it can be explained by economic racial disparity, but even controlling for that, that bias and prejudice is there. And what makes the underlying cultural racism so insidious and damaging is that we don't realize that we're doing it. Bosses aren't literally saying, "well, this is a black women, so let's go ahead and knock 20% off the salary". Racism and sexism are particularly terrible things because they can impact even well-meaning people, even people who speak out against racism, even people who sincerely believe that they have no biases themselves. So it can always be "somebody else" that is the problem, even within the ranks of law enforcement, or employers, or whatever.

So in this thread and elsewhere, there's posters who recognize that insidious hidden nature of racism, but don't treat it that way when it comes to law enforcement. Instead, the officers are all just dirty racists who love to hassle black people. Any decision they make, whether it be stopping someone for walking in the middle of the street, or for using force, is always viewed as being directly based on race. "The same thing would never happen to a white person" because officers are racists and liars. Basically, they're reacting to these officers as if they're the more overt 60s'-style KKK racists, as opposed to people who, like everyone else, live in this society with prejudice and bias underlying everything.

I don't see how productive that is because it doesn't bring them to the table, even the "good ones." (As I said way earlier in this thread, when you group all officers or prosecutors, you nullify the ethical ones, which makes improvement impossible. We're the people actually trying to make things better - as opposed to just bitching on message boards.) It makes them defensive. How couldn't it? You're judging them based on a group category and assuming things about their intentions based on those stereotypes. The generalizations and assumptions made here are harsh, and it's so easy to take offense to them, and I probably take much less offense to them than average just because I've seen these issues from a bunch of different sides.

There are more productive ways to approach these issues than anger and these broad accusations. I've been a part of some of them in officer trainings. They get right to the heart of things - recognize modern racial prejudice for what it is - an evil that can effect anyone, even the liberal, even the tolerant, even those who strive to be open-minded. One part of that training that really stuck with me is how different cultural groups react differently to encounters with law enforcement. Things that would look defiant and challenging if coming from an American teenager are actually signs of deference and respect and submission when coming from a Mexican. Well trained and seasoned cops know this, poorly trained rookie cops might not.

Another example is what types of concrete factors actually contribute to a reasonable suspicion finding to justify a Terry stop or a Terry frisk. We really try to emphasize why "gut feelings" are not helpful by focusing on the concrete things that actually contribute to a reasonable suspicion justification. Because "gut feelings" are never truly based on your "gut" - they're based on prior experiences, biases, ignorance, or other inappropriate factors. I have no idea how good these kinds of trainings are in other places, but even when they're great, in a class of 100, you're still going to get a handful of idiots who either don't have the aptitude to make these distinctions, or are actually racist in an old-timey sense and are smart enough to hide it. For those people - I'd like to make it easier to fire them, and I guarantee you most police departments feel the same way.

[PilotMan]

God, if only we could attack white collar crimes with as much manpower, fervor and aggression as we do poor people crimes the whole concept of fairness in police action and equal rights might have a starting point for discussion.

So much more of this is about class yet nobody even discusses it.

[Buccaneer]

I am beginning to learn more about tribalism, as had been brought up in this context and in sports too.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Having lived in that area 20 years ago I was stuck at 10,000 extra people in Blowing Rock. I hope they've improved the roads and parking since I was there.

I just checked. Actually it was Banner Elk. I get all of those little towns up there confused. My in-laws have a condo in (technically) Foscoe (Echota On The Ridge) and when we're there, we frequent Boone, Blowing Rock, and Banner Elk. I don't really remember which is which.

And according to the Wooly Worm Festival's web site, it's actually 20K that show up in the area that weekend--thus the need for nearly every car to be directed to parking for the specific venue that they're looking for. It's a freaking zoo. The cost of parking was the same as the cost of my whole family's admission to the festival, actually.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I just checked. Actually it was Banner Elk. I get all of those little towns up there confused. My in-laws have a condo in (technically) Foscoe (Echota On The Ridge) and when we're there, we frequent Boone, Blowing Rock, and Banner Elk. I don't really remember which is which.

And according to the Wooly Worm Festival's web site, it's actually 20K that show up in the area that weekend--thus the need for nearly every car to be directed to parking for the specific venue that they're looking for. It's a freaking zoo. The cost of parking was the same as the cost of my whole family's admission to the festival, actually.

That's a great area, but traffic was always a disaster. If there was work for me I'd go back in a heartbeat. I spent many a day hiking trails on the Parkway.

[molson]

I wonder if we'll ever hear about resolutions, one way or the other, to the promised Justice Department investigations of both incidents. Those things have a way of just trailing off and being forgotten.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

God, if only we could attack white collar crimes with as much manpower, fervor and aggression as we do poor people crimes the whole concept of fairness in police action and equal rights might have a starting point for discussion.

So much more of this is about class yet nobody even discusses it.

White collar criminals are usually too much of a pansy to resist arrest. Trust me, many blue collar cops would love to rough up some guy who swindled millions from pension funds on an arrest. Problem is the criminal won't often resist.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

God, if only we could attack white collar crimes with as much manpower, fervor and aggression as we do poor people crimes the whole concept of fairness in police action and equal rights might have a starting point for discussion.

So much more of this is about class yet nobody even discusses it.

Originally Posted by Arles

White collar criminals are usually too much of a pansy to resist arrest. Trust me, many blue collar cops would love to rough up some guy who swindled millions from pension funds on an arrest. Problem is the criminal won't often resist.

Many (most?) white collar criminals are allowed to turn themselves in, largely because of the influence of their attorneys. Heck, O.J. Simpson was charged with double murder and even he was being allowed to turn himself in--which he didn't do. Money means power in this country.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if we'll ever hear about resolutions, one way or the other, to the promised Justice Department investigations of both incidents. Those things have a way of just trailing off and being forgotten.

The Justice Dept just released a report after an investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police.

Cleveland Division of Police findings letter

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Arles

White collar criminals are usually too much of a pansy to resist arrest. Trust me, many blue collar cops would love to rough up some guy who swindled millions from pension funds on an arrest. Problem is the criminal won't often resist.

No, the issue is that there are so many loopholes, and the complexities of the fraud that are perpetrated make it fucking incredible to prosecute. We are talking trillions of dollars of fraud, millions and millions impacted. Look at all the crap that took place prior to the '08 crash. People scream about wealth transfers from the rich to those lazy poor people, they never talk about the greatest wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

And how many regulators and investigators are responsible to keep the common people protected from it? Barely any. All the money is spent on poor people crime. There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal this last weekend talking about how the justice system is so jammed up from misdemeanor court cases that the average case can only last 4 minutes. On top of that most defendants never got to meet or talk with their BY LAW COURT APPOINTED LAWYER until the minute they were in front of the judge. Most felt like they didn't do anything wrong but were willing to plead guilty just to get it over with.

What percentage of these defendants do you suppose were black? I don't know, but I can tell you this type of police practice has been going on for well over 20 years now. It's the primary reason the poor neighborhoods are full of criminals, because the cops need someplace to pad their arrest records. Once you are in this flawed, uneven, corrupt system you don't get out. You are just on a list with a shitload of priors going forward.

This only works when the people you are attacking are poor and have no money. When you try and go after big banks, or big hedge funds, or big clients you find yourself buried in a mass of paperwork going against clients who pay their lawyers more than any government local or federal could ever afford to go against. It becomes a lose-lose game and why nothing is ever prosecuted.

It's just much easier to nail the poor bastard who can't do anything about it. In this case, most of the poor bastards also happen to be black.

[molson]

A South Carolina officer was indicted today on murder charges for a shooting involving a black man. This one hasn't gotten as much coverage, of course, because it defeats the very popular narrative that this never happens. And this was after the feds declined to pursue federal charges. But, if you google it, you can find quite a few such charges against officers, and even more very hefty civil settlements involving the use of excessive force. Maybe this "should" happen more often - I tend to think more that the laws should be re-written to make these cases easier to analyze, and be less reliant on subjective "reasonableness" determinations - and it's not impossible I get the opportunity to help do just that, at least in my tiny pond

Ex-South Carolina police chief indicted in 2011 shooting death of unarmed man - Yahoo News

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

A South Carolina officer was indicted today on murder charges for a shooting involving a black man. This one hasn't gotten as much coverage, of course, because it defeats the very popular narrative that this never happens. And this was after the feds declined to pursue federal charges. But, if you google it, you can find quite a few such charges against officers, and even more very hefty civil settlements involving the use of excessive force. Maybe this "should" happen more often - I tend to think more that the laws should be re-written to make these cases easier to analyze, and be less reliant on subjective "reasonableness" determinations - and it's not impossible I get the opportunity to help do just that, at least in my tiny pond

Ex-South Carolina police chief indicted in 2011 shooting death of unarmed man - Yahoo News

Might be because it has been nearly three and a half years (May 2011) since the incident happened. But, better late than never.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Might be because it has been nearly three and a half years (May 2011) since the incident happened. But, better late than never.

There's different reasons prosecutions can be delayed. Here there was a bunch of pretrial litigation involving the applicability of the stand your ground defense. It also looks like they deferred to the federal investigation and undertook their own after it ended. They could have easily let it go at that point, or stuck with their original lesser charge of misconduct in office.

Or maybe they were all just racist. And then forgot to be all racist.

Edit: The defense attorney is already screaming about this indictment being fueled by the prosecutors' grandstanding over recent events. That'll be a big part of the subsequent proceedings, I'm sure. The defense attorneys will accuse the prosecutors of unethical misconduct and appealing to the passions of the jury. So, either they get accused of being racist, or they get accused of trying to land a popular conviction through inappropriate appeals to emotion and matters outside the evidence. At that point, it gets easier to just tune all the morons out and just do your job. There are a ton of cases where SOMEONE is going to think you're crooked/racist/unethical no matter what decisions you make, though only a few get widespread press of course.

[molson]

Dola, the defense attorney is already screaming about this indictment being fueled by the prosecutors' grandstanding over recent events. That'll be a big part of the subsequent proceedings, I'm sure. The defense attorneys will accuse the prosecutors of unethical misconduct and appealing to the passions of the jury. So, either they get accused of being racist, or they get accused of trying to land a popular conviction through inappropriate appeals to emotion and matters outside the evidence. At that point, it gets easier to just tune all the morons out and just do your job. There are a ton of cases where SOMEONE is going to think you're crooked/racist/unethical no matter what decisions you make, though only a few get widespread press of course. It's like the actual evidence is secondary. There will be the one team that's always with the cops, and one team that's always with suspect - and that's true of all kinds of cases. The trick is to recognize the people in those groups, because their opinions don't mean shit, and find people that can at least see the weaknesses and flaws of both sides of any close case.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

There's different reasons prosecutions can be delayed. Here there was a bunch of pretrial litigation involving the applicability of the stand your ground defense. It also looks like they deferred to the federal investigation and undertook their own after it ended. They could have easily let it go at that point, or stuck with their original lesser charge of misconduct in office.

Or maybe they were all just racist. And then forgot to be all racist.

Or it could be they couldn't ignore the shooting after he was indicted on a misconduct charge related to it?

Combs had already been indicted in August 2013 in connection with the shooting on a misconduct in office charge, with a grand jury finding that his use of deadly force was unjustified, according to court records.

Not every cop is racist. No one has said that, I'm sure there a plenty of good cops out there. But I don't happen to think officers who unload their entire weapons on suspects or choke them out as a first course of action are particularly respect worthy. YMMV.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Or it could be they couldn't ignore the shooting after he was indicted on a misconduct charge related to it?

Why couldn't they ignore it? How many people have even heard of this case until today?

I don't know if you think all cops are racist, but you seem to make a lot of assumptions about them and their motives based on the group they're in. So again, it doesn't really matter if they're ethical, or professional, or whatever. You'll always see the motives as racist and corrupt. And again, those are the people that are actually trying to improve things, they do more than just bitch about it on the internet and constantly judge the collective group.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Why couldn't they ignore it? How many people have even heard of this case until today?

Huh? The second part is bullshit, so I cut it out and will ignore it. But the Grand Jury has to look at all the evidence brought to it. Seems like you're a bit peeved that a cop got indicted for killing an unarmed man.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by molson

A South Carolina officer was indicted today on murder charges for a shooting involving a black man. This one hasn't gotten as much coverage, of course, because it defeats the very popular narrative that this never happens.

It IS the exception. Indictments happen regularly for the prosecution in cases that don't involve the police, but rarely in cases that do.

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did | FiveThirtyEight

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them..........

Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Seems like you're a bit peeved that a cop got indicted for killing an unarmed man.

LOL, way to prove my point. You've made assumptions about me too.

I don't know anything about the facts of the South Carolina case, but given the liberal U.S. self-defense laws/officer force laws I discussed earlier, it's fair to say that any actual indictment likely involves some pretty egregious officer conduct. FWIW, I think the officer in the Garner case was completely in the wrong as well, but I'm on the fence on the criminality - it all comes down to whether the initial choke/headlock was itself illegal, notwithstanding the unintended result. And the law jurors are called on to apply in those situations is muddy and subjective, and I think, should be cleaned up. If Garner wasn't killed, what are the chances criminal charges would stick against the officer just for the choke part? That's relevant determination here (unless you can show intent to kill, which I know you've already assumed in this case, since you've identified the killing as a "punishment")

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal this last weekend talking about how the justice system is so jammed up from misdemeanor court cases that the average case can only last 4 minutes. On top of that most defendants never got to meet or talk with their BY LAW COURT APPOINTED LAWYER until the minute they were in front of the judge. Most felt like they didn't do anything wrong but were willing to plead guilty just to get it over with.

And here is the link to the wsj article. Completely worth the read.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/justi...rts-1417404782

follow the link through the wsj fb page for the entire article. its from Dec 1.

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It IS the exception. Indictments happen regularly for the prosecution in cases that don't involve the police, but rarely in cases that do.

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did | FiveThirtyEight

I love 538, but that's one of his biggest misses. Federal grand jury stats are completely inapplicable to state grand jury scenarios. The feds pick and choose their cases and have an astronomical conviction rate. (A ton of those cases are drug cases, the easiest of all cases to prove.) State prosecutors sometimes HAVE to go through grand juries in some categories of cases, and other times, like in Missouri, they feel compelled to do so for policy/public trust reasons. No-bills do happen there in just these kinds of cases. One of the agencies I used to work for didn't have to go through grand juries, but we probably tossed 50+% of the self-defense/mutual combat cases, for the same reasons a lot of these officer cases are tough to prove. (we didn't do officer prosecutions in that office, but I have been in others that have, so I assure you it's not impossible, and there's not some big conspiracy to prevent it).

As for the stats involving total shootings v. indictments, I think that goes to the liberal self-defense/officer force laws in most states. I'm sure there's plenty of uncharged officers in there who'd I have charged if it was up to me, but I also know how tough those cases are with the state of the law. Civil lawsuits against police departments, though, there's a lot of action there. Same with union/department battles of discipline and termination. Not always successful, I wish they were more successful in booting bad cops, but lots of good people fight that fight every day.

And I wasn't even saying it wasn't rare, just that it wasn't impossible, and noting that when it does happen, it doesn't get very much news coverage. Even if you get an indictment, it's fishy if it took a long time (it doesn't matter what the actual reasons are for any delay, those are assumed to be based on prosecutor racism.) And that it is kind of frustrating that even when you try to do everything right, you're motives will still be assumed. You can send something out to another agency that has absolutely no ties with the officer (or government official) in question, to people who have BUILT THEIR CAREERS around a desire to prosecute bad cops and corrupt politicians, but it doesn't matter. One you've decided cops are scum, that's just it, that's how you see every one of these cases.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I doubt they care that much about out-of-state plates. If my in-laws are any indication, most of the properties in town are owned by Floridians anyhow.

Hmmm, I wonder if that's where the Rays fans are???

[miked]

If a grand jury fails to return an indictment, does that mean a prosecutor can never charge somebody? I'm just wondering what the benefit is, especially in these cases. Also, why do these places not have independent special prosecutors? Don't these prosecutors frequently work with police and rely on police for their other cases? I would imagine the Ferguson prosecutor may be a little gun shy knowing he may have to work with these folks and count on them for the next 10 years.

[Lathum]

Is it just me or does Molson consistently bring a gun to these knife fights?

That is meant as a compliment.

[PilotMan]

Well, molson does have some professional background to fall back on. I'm sure if this was all about insurance practices you'd have a good base for your arguments as well.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Well, molson does have some professional background to fall back on. I'm sure if this was all about insurance practices you'd have a good base for your arguments as well.

My coworkers may tell you otherwise!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Is it just me or does Molson consistently bring a gun to these knife fights?

That is meant as a compliment.

I know, and I always regret it afterwards.

But I think both you and pilotman can understand why I feel the need to jump in, I've seen you both get a little annoyed with people who express broad (and sometimes just incorrect) negative generalizations about the insurance and airline industries, and the people who work within them. We've all had negative experiences and heard bad stories, but I'd be very confident with you handling my insurance or pilotman flying my plane.

Edit: But, it's also true that we (well, probably me, because I sometimes suck at this), to remember that the "customer" perception is incredibly relevant too, even, and probably especially, when it's hostile.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

No, the issue is that there are so many loopholes, and the complexities of the fraud that are perpetrated make it fucking incredible to prosecute. We are talking trillions of dollars of fraud, millions and millions impacted. Look at all the crap that took place prior to the '08 crash. People scream about wealth transfers from the rich to those lazy poor people, they never talk about the greatest wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

True, fraud is a lot more difficult to prove compared to drug possession or assault. Your question was about the manpower devoted to poor crime vs white collar. The main reason is volume. There are exponentially more drug possession/theft/assault "poor crimes" than there are white collar crimes. Two guys get drunk at a bar and fight could be an assault. White collar crimes usually involve more planning and are never going to be the number that the poorer crimes are. So, it's a little silly to expect the same emphasis from the cops when they may get 1-2 leads on white collar crime compared to 50 "poor crimes" in that same interval.

And how many regulators and investigators are responsible to keep the common people protected from it? Barely any. All the money is spent on poor people crime. There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal this last weekend talking about how the justice system is so jammed up from misdemeanor court cases that the average case can only last 4 minutes. On top of that most defendants never got to meet or talk with their BY LAW COURT APPOINTED LAWYER until the minute they were in front of the judge. Most felt like they didn't do anything wrong but were willing to plead guilty just to get it over with.

Again, it's volume. Look at how many speeding tickets get dolled out compared to "lawyer consults". Many people with a misdemeanor speeding tickets have money, but just pay the fine. And I'm sure many of them feel like they've driven that same speed 4 out of 5 days and never gotten punished. But, they are not going to "lawyer up" to get out of a $100 fine on a speeding ticket.

What percentage of these defendants do you suppose were black? I don't know

So, it *seems* like this isn't a race issue, but more of a class issue. The problem is so many more african americans live in poverty compared to other races as a percentage that it appears to impact them more. I'm guessing you're right and it does. But, if you found an area where a lot of poor white live, I'm certain you would see the same issues with misdemeanors and lack of lawyer representation. This isn't a race thing, it's a living in poverty where crime is a way of life thing.

but I can tell you this type of police practice has been going on for well over 20 years now. It's the primary reason the poor neighborhoods are full of criminals, because the cops need someplace to pad their arrest records. Once you are in this flawed, uneven, corrupt system you don't get out. You are just on a list with a shitload of priors going forward.

This is the crux of the argument. Poor people commit more crimes than middle class/upper. Hence, poor people often have a more combative relationships with the cops. If a cop pulls over a middle class black guy with no priors and nothing illegal in his car, he will probably be somewhat respectful. If, instead, the cop pulls over a poorer black guy with two priors and some weed (and maybe an unlicensed gun) in the car, he's probably going to be more skittish and not as cooperative.

This only works when the people you are attacking are poor and have no money. When you try and go after big banks, or big hedge funds, or big clients you find yourself buried in a mass of paperwork going against clients who pay their lawyers more than any government local or federal could ever afford to go against. It becomes a lose-lose game and why nothing is ever prosecuted.

That's true across all races.

It's just much easier to nail the poor bastard who can't do anything about it. In this case, most of the poor bastards also happen to be black.

It's also much easier when the poor bastard maybe has an unlicensed gun, or some drugs, maybe an assault or theft charge on his record and resists when the cop talks to him. Their community/culture is setup to make poor African American kids combative towards cops. Even if that's understandable, it hurts their cause. If you are a cop who pulls over a guy who acts respectful vs. one who either runs away from his car or acts like an asshat - who are you going to treat better?

The sad thing is I don't see this getting any better until poorer communities make an emphasis on not resisting arrest/treating cops better. If I were a minority leader who wanted to help, I would tell all poor black kids who get arrested to not resist. And, if they went peacefully, they would have access to an attorney I have on retainer to fight the charges. Of course, that doesn't benefit them politically so it would never happen, but that's about the only thing I can see helping.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

True, fraud is a lot more difficult to prove compared to drug possession or assault. Your question was about the manpower devoted to poor crime vs white collar. The main reason is volume. There are exponentially more drug possession/theft/assault "poor crimes" than there are white collar crimes. Two guys get drunk at a bar and fight could be an assault. White collar crimes usually involve more planning and are never going to be the number that the poorer crimes are. So, it's a little silly to expect the same emphasis from the cops when they may get 1-2 leads on white collar crime compared to 50 "poor crimes" in that same interval.


Again, it's volume. Look at how many speeding tickets get dolled out compared to "lawyer consults". Many people with a misdemeanor speeding tickets have money, but just pay the fine. And I'm sure many of them feel like they've driven that same speed 4 out of 5 days and never gotten punished. But, they are not going to "lawyer up" to get out of a $100 fine on a speeding ticket.


So, it *seems* like this isn't a race issue, but more of a class issue. The problem is so many more african americans live in poverty compared to other races as a percentage that it appears to impact them more. I'm guessing you're right and it does. But, if you found an area where a lot of poor white live, I'm certain you would see the same issues with misdemeanors and lack of lawyer representation. This isn't a race thing, it's a living in poverty where crime is a way of life thing.


This is the crux of the argument. Poor people commit more crimes than middle class/upper. Hence, poor people often have a more combative relationships with the cops. If a cop pulls over a middle class black guy with no priors and nothing illegal in his car, he will probably be somewhat respectful. If, instead, the cop pulls over a poorer black guy with two priors and some weed (and maybe an unlicensed gun) in the car, he's probably going to be more skittish and not as cooperative.


That's true across all races.


It's also much easier when the poor bastard maybe has an unlicensed gun, or some drugs, maybe an assault or theft charge on his record and resists when the cop talks to him. Their community/culture is setup to make poor African American kids combative towards cops. Even if that's understandable, it hurts their cause. If you are a cop who pulls over a guy who acts respectful vs. one who either runs away from his car or acts like an asshat - who are you going to treat better?

The sad thing is I don't see this getting any better until poorer communities make an emphasis on not resisting arrest/treating cops better. If I were a minority leader who wanted to help, I would tell all poor black kids who get arrested to not resist. And, if they went peacefully, they would have access to an attorney I have on retainer to fight the charges. Of course, that doesn't benefit them politically so it would never happen, but that's about the only thing I can see helping.

Did you read Ben's post from the other day? The cop was getting skittish and had his hand on his gun even though Ben's in a minivan with his wife and kids and (frankly) over-compensating to show the officer he's not a threat.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Arles

Their community/culture is setup to make poor African American kids combative towards cops. Even if that's understandable, it hurts their cause. If you are a cop who pulls over a guy who acts respectful vs. one who either runs away from his car or acts like an asshat - who are you going to treat better?

Yeah...some cops might not treat any black person all that well. Good thing there's no culture down there that is setup to make whites combative towards black people though!

Originally Posted by Arles

The sad thing is I don't see this getting any better until poorer communities make an emphasis on not resisting arrest/treating cops better.

A little good faith from the other side by shooting fewer black people (or even just not beating them up) might not hurt either.

[cuervo72]

Also, if you accidentally shoot someone, maybe worry about them first, THEN the security of your job?

EXCLUSIVE: Cop texted union rep as Akai Gurley lay dying - NY Daily News

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Second, Europe is not any less religious than US where many claims to be religious but believe in a false gospel.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I was going to comment on this too but thought adding religion to this debate was probably not a good idea...

[ISiddiqui]

Yes... that would lead down a rabbit hole we should leave for another thread.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Did you read Ben's post from the other day? The cop was getting skittish and had his hand on his gun even though Ben's in a minivan with his wife and kids and (frankly) over-compensating to show the officer he's not a threat.

That was indefensible and sad to see. But I don't think that one incident represents all white cops and their attitude towards black people. I'm sure there are white cops in inner cities that pull over lawyers and successful black businessmen and are tougher than they would be if they were white. But, as long as the person is respectful, chances are nothing bad will happen.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yeah...some cops might not treat any black person all that well. Good thing there's no culture down there that is setup to make whites combative towards black people though!

A little good faith from the other side by shooting fewer black people (or even just not beating them up) might not hurt either.

Just so I understand, the onus is completely on the cops here. Black kids can resist arrests, run from cops, get into scuffles with cops, but the cops need to just deal with it. There's no onus on the poorer areas of society (be it white, black or latino out here) to act respectful to cops to help improve this issue?

I'm on board with looking into these shooting/fatality incidents and if cops are at fault (as in the Garner case) - they should be punished. But someone needs to tell the poorer communities that treating cops like crazy, stalker ex-girlfriends is not the way to improve race relations. The onus should be on both sides but it seems like many on the right think it's all on the "criminal" poor and many on the left think it's all about "redneck cops". And, IMO, that's why this is unlikely to get better anytime soon. There are situations where a black guy doesn't do nearly enough to deserve the treatment from a cop. There are also plenty of cases where a cop goes easy on a suspect and ends up getting shot/attacked. If both sides point to these as the norm, nothing will ever change. All that will be created is more animosity.

[JPhillips]

True, fraud is a lot more difficult to prove compared to drug possession or assault. Your question was about the manpower devoted to poor crime vs white collar. The main reason is volume. There are exponentially more drug possession/theft/assault "poor crimes" than there are white collar crimes. Two guys get drunk at a bar and fight could be an assault. White collar crimes usually involve more planning and are never going to be the number that the poorer crimes are. So, it's a little silly to expect the same emphasis from the cops when they may get 1-2 leads on white collar crime compared to 50 "poor crimes" in that same interval.

I just want to pull out this bit.

The reason there are too few cops investigating white collar crime is that the wealthy have been successful in brandishing that kind of activity as oppressive government. There simply aren't enough people investigating or prosecuting financial crimes to catch even a majority of the perpetrators. And just in case that doesn't work, the people running the agencies are most often former financial types and they direct their employees to look elsewhere.

Focusing on the high crime areas ain't the reason.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if race had anything to do with these two particular incidents, but obviously race has always been a big issue/concern in law enforcement. I've been thinking about this in the context of the discussion that came up a few pages back about racism then v. racism now, about whether racism "still exists." I think everybody agreed that the situation has changed a lot. But in some ways, I think "modern", subtle, inherent, cultural, subconscious racism (and sexism) can be even more insidious and damaging than the old-fashion slur-yelling kind.

Because now, prejudice and bias is still in every corner of our society, but - we don't really often see it directly like we did in the old days. But the numbers prove its there. Not just in law enforcement, but in salaries, job opportunities, cab wait times, housing, characterizations in the media, it's everywhere. Some of it can be explained by economic racial disparity, but even controlling for that, that bias and prejudice is there. And what makes the underlying cultural racism so insidious and damaging is that we don't realize that we're doing it. Bosses aren't literally saying, "well, this is a black women, so let's go ahead and knock 20% off the salary". Racism and sexism are particularly terrible things because they can impact even well-meaning people, even people who speak out against racism, even people who sincerely believe that they have no biases themselves. So it can always be "somebody else" that is the problem, even within the ranks of law enforcement, or employers, or whatever.

So in this thread and elsewhere, there's posters who recognize that insidious hidden nature of racism, but don't treat it that way when it comes to law enforcement.

Or they don't give a free pass to those who benefit from institutional racism but do nothing to change it just because not all police officers fit the bill of some 1960s redneck caricature. If the end result is that minorities are disproportionately fired upon/killed/arrested/sentenced, it frankly doesn't matter to me whether or not Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo or Timothy Loehmann or whomever else happen to be capital R Racists based on your own or anyone else's definition.

At a certain point, the whole "This was tragic, both sides could have handled it better, but that's what can happen when you're disrespectful to the police," angle just becomes another layer of abstraction a la "states' rights" given how imbalanced the odds are of actually having to face grave consequences at the hands of law enforcement.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just want to pull out this bit.

The reason there are too few cops investigating white collar crime is that the wealthy have been successful in brandishing that kind of activity as oppressive government. There simply aren't enough people investigating or prosecuting financial crimes to catch even a majority of the perpetrators. And just in case that doesn't work, the people running the agencies are most often former financial types and they direct their employees to look elsewhere.

Focusing on the high crime areas ain't the reason.

It's just harder to even get started. White collar crimes are harder to get leads on, harder to get convictions and many end up being civil cases anyway (unless it is completely heinous). Plus, there are federal agencies (IE, FBI and IRS) who are specifically trained/setup to go after white collar crime. If you are a police station in NY and have 5 cases on the board - two murders, a rape/assault, a potential drug trafficking meeting and a guy who may have committed insurance fraud - which would you prefer the cops deal with as a citizen? The insurance fraud case would be last on my list and also often the most difficult to convict on.

Plenty of insurance fraud/money laundering/loan fraud/bankruptcy fraud cases get assigned to detectives and checked out. The problem is many cross state lines (esp white collar versions) and end up being federal and not local/state cases. It's also very tough to prove unless there's some form of smoking gun. To your point, there is also a view that many white collar crimes (ie, insurance fraud) aren't on the level of a murder or assault. So, some insurance company got taken, they will be fine. But the idea of a murderer running/rapist around hitting more victims tends to scare people more. Our society puts more value on solving violent crimes than non-violent.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by nol

At a certain point, the whole "This was tragic, both sides could have handled it better, but that's what can happen when you're disrespectful to the police," angle just becomes another layer of abstraction a la "states' rights" given how imbalanced the odds are of actually having to face grave consequences at the hands of law enforcement.

I agree but what's the solution? You have a vicious cycle of more crime occuring in poorer areas leading to more arrests by cops leading to more animosity by locals towards the police leading to more stereotypes by the cops that poor kids who look/dress a certain way and have attitudes end up more often then not being criminals.

How do you break this cycle? At the end of the day, a cop in a perceived situation of crisis is going to default to saving his ass before worrying if he's being "too tough" or "not fair". It seems to me that the only way to improve this is to have fewer situations where cops perceive themselves to be in these crisis situations. I think that starts with more training on the police side, but you also have to have a community who's first inkling when they see a cop isn't to be combative.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Arles

...who's first inkling when they see a cop isn't to be combative.

I think a huge problem (black or white) is that we are very combative as a nation. Combining guns with Americans rebellious streak makes almost every stop a possibly bad situation for cops.

There's no amount of money you could pay me to be a cop in the current environment.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's just harder to even get started. White collar crimes are harder to get leads on, harder to get convictions and many end up being civil cases anyway (unless it is completely heinous). Plus, there are federal agencies (IE, FBI and IRS) who are specifically trained/setup to go after white collar crime. If you are a police station in NY and have 5 cases on the board - two murders, a rape/assault, a potential drug trafficking meeting and a guy who may have committed insurance fraud - which would you prefer the cops deal with as a citizen? The insurance fraud case would be last on my list and also often the most difficult to convict on.

Plenty of insurance fraud/money laundering/loan fraud/bankruptcy fraud cases get assigned to detectives and checked out. The problem is many cross state lines (esp white collar versions) and end up being federal and not local/state cases. It's also very tough to prove unless there's some form of smoking gun. To your point, there is also a view that many white collar crimes (ie, insurance fraud) aren't on the level of a murder or assault. So, some insurance company got taken, they will be fine. But the idea of a murderer running/rapist around hitting more victims tends to scare people more. Our society puts more value on solving violent crimes than non-violent.

I've known a couple of insurance fraud investigators. Those crimes are high priority and result in a lot of convictions. When the powerful's money is at risk, the system seems to work.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

If the end result is that minorities are disproportionately fired upon/killed/arrested/sentenced, it frankly doesn't matter to me whether or not Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo or Timothy Loehmann or whomever else happen to be capital R Racists based on your own or anyone else's definition.

You should care about that difference if you're sincere about this, because underlying societal racial prejudice is a completely different beast than overt conscious racism, and require completely different considerations to address. And like I said, I think it's actually worse. When the bias and prejudice is ingrained in the culture, there's always legitimate contributing factors that anyone can point to (like economic disparity) if they just want to believe that racial bias and prejudice doesn't exist. Then, I described some ways of ways agencies try (and should try more, and harder) to address that type of underlying cultural prejudice. Do you disagree with those approaches, or have thoughts about what else can concretely be done, aside from just being angry?

I have no idea about your sincerity here but I feel like a lot of other people just really get off on this stuff - it's fun to group and judge and feel morally superior to others. So they have lots of anger, and vague talks of "national conversations," shared articles from the Atlantic on facebook (and I'm sure Holder will weigh in any day on these "thorough investigations" he's always promising), but the only ones who actually seem to try to suggest anything concrete or to actually do anything are the ethical and professional members of government agencies who are truly concerned about this issue and all issues that impact how things work. If these are the bad guys too though, and if you just make assumptions about all of their motives, then you hinder improvement. If we don't promote and encourage and provide effective tools to the good people who actually have the power to effectuate change, and better encourage good and ethical people to get into all facets of public service, what chance to we have? I know the answer, we'll have lots of vague anger and complaints about "the system" that wear off until the next incident. Because it's way easier to just complain about a system than it is to join it with the goal of improving it. The very best reason to become a cop or prosecutor is because one hates injustice and bad cops and prosecutors.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I agree but what's the solution? You have a vicious cycle of more crime occuring in poorer areas leading to more arrests by cops leading to more animosity by locals towards the police leading to more stereotypes by the cops that poor kids who look/dress a certain way and have attitudes end up more often then not being criminals.

How do you break this cycle? At the end of the day, a cop in a perceived situation of crisis is going to default to saving his ass before worrying if he's being "too tough" or "not fair". It seems to me that the only way to improve this is to have fewer situations where cops perceive themselves to be in these crisis situations. I think that starts with more training on the police side, but you also have to have a community who's first inkling when they see a cop isn't to be combative.

In any scenario with a great power disparity, it's up to the powerful to move first. I don't simply wait for my students to speak up, I change my behavior to encourage change in theirs. We need to work on policing and then return to communities, showing action, and ask for change on their parts.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've known a couple of insurance fraud investigators. Those crimes are high priority and result in a lot of convictions. When the powerful's money is at risk, the system seems to work.

I guess I didn't word that properly. I didn't mean convictions don't occur, I just meant it involves more time and manpower in many situations. Getting an assault conviction when a guy is seen hitting another guy in a bar or a drug possession charge when they are caught holding is a lot easier than an insurance fraud one. Police work is often triage where the more pressing/more serious (deemed by us) cases get the first look.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In any scenario with a great power disparity, it's up to the powerful to move first. I don't simply wait for my students to speak up, I change my behavior to encourage change in theirs. We need to work on policing and then return to communities, showing action, and ask for change on their parts.

As I said, I think both groups have work to do. But, just like you as a teacher, it can't be all cops. You can be trained to be the best teacher possible and know every tactic available. However, if a few kids continually act disrespectful day after day, at some point you may fail them on an assignment or remove them from class when maybe it wasn't completely deserved. We are human beings after all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What percentage of these defendants do you suppose were black? I don't know, but I can tell you this type of police practice has been going on for well over 20 years now.

I was thinking about this today too. I think it's probably good in the long run, that that all this officer stuff is being examined, but things are a LOT better than they were 20 years ago. And hell, it was only 1985 when the the United Supreme Court first held that it was a 4th Amendment violation for an officer to use intentionally lethal force on a fleeing felon suspect. Lots of the officers who lived under those prior rules are still around. You could shoot a fleeing suspect in the back in the head and get a medal for it - in the 80s!. (Even that scene from Fargo where the officer shoots the feeling bad guy plays so much differently today than it did in 1994....And remember Frank Drebbin getting an award for killing his 1,000th drug dealer? Sure, that was satire, but I don't think it'd be as funny today - today we'd sympathize much more with the drug dealer than the officer.) Officers haven't gotten worse, the rest of of society has just changed their expectations, and law enforcement agencies have to keep up with those changing expectations.

I think a lot of attitudes have changed with the drastic reduction of crime in this country, and that's a good thing. I think it's easy to forget, even 20 years ago, there was a ton more acceptance in the masses for cops "busting heads" and aggressively going after criminals. Especially in New York. People loved to see officers going after street criminals in a city where they didn't feel safe. Giuliani, the architect of this approach, became one of the most popular New Yorkers of all time. Now that they do feel safe - those aggressive tactics feel completely different. I've heard a million old-timey police stories from back of the day and a lot of them are pretty horrifying. New cops coming up today know that their every move and word is recorded, so it takes a different type of person to succeed. And this is kind of a mixed bag - because I think generally, cops today are more military-like and professional, and less folksy and problem-solvy. There's definitely good things about that, more and more, courts require officers to know not just the law but how the appellate courts have interpreted it. So officers have to be smarter book-wise, but they're probably also a little colder and less in tune with the people in their communities. They have to say all the right things and know how to do that - but then that can come off as fake and rehearsed and people don't trust it. (Every DUI trial testimony sounds exactly the same, because there's a formula that ensures full compliance with the constitution and makes convictions appeal-proof - but when cops look and sound like robots and say the same thing every time - it seems like it'd be easy just to say that same thing no matter what actually happened, it feels less human and sincere).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Just so I understand, the onus is completely on the cops here. Black kids can resist arrests, run from cops, get into scuffles with cops, but the cops need to just deal with it. There's no onus on the poorer areas of society (be it white, black or latino out here) to act respectful to cops to help improve this issue?

IIRC, that's the entire point of the #CrimingWhileWhite Twitter hashtag. White folks talking about doing blatantly criminal activity and getting a pass from the cops. Some guy mentioned he PUNCHED A COP IN THE FACE while drunk and the cop just drove him and his buddy home.