American Politics / Current Events Thread

[Silent Hill | 276]

12 hours ago, Link said:

On 7/26/2020 at 8:05 AM, Rhino said:

Are 82% of crimes in Chicago committed by African Americans or is it really a disproportionate amount being taken to this facility?

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the answer is yes, despite comprising only 30% of the overall population. Why then are 82 (or whatever)% of arrests of black people? That’s disproportionate.

If 82% of crime was committed by a certain race and 82% of arrests were the same race, that makes perfect sense then. The arrest rate may be disproportionate to the population, but it IS proportionate to the crime rate.  

Just looking at homicide statistics in Chicago, while the city is ~30% black, ~75% of the homicides are black suspects (~70% are black victims). And to your point around if all people who commit crimes arrested, unfortunately they're not. These homicide statistics only account for ~35% of the homicides in the city, since the other ~65% go unsolved. 

[Silent Hill | 276]

On 7/26/2020 at 1:17 PM, Californication said:

https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-Frisk-data

I think the Stop and Frisk numbers out of New York are a perfect example of what disproporionate policing looks. Only 10% sh of the people stopped each year are white. 

"5 million people stopped."" 9 oit of 10 completly innocent."

With a focus on higher crime areas, you're bound to be affecting certain races/classes at a disproportionate rate (compared to overall population), and I think that's why the percentages of stops by race are pretty damn consistent each year. 

Stop and Frisk was either intentionally racist by targeting black/hispanic people, or it focused on higher crime areas, which have a much greater population of black/hispanic people than NYC as a whole. Perhaps it was a mix of both, depending on who was conducting the stop. Now if black/hispanic people commit crime at the rates of which they were stopped, then that data reflects proportionate stop rates compared to crime rates by race.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Silent Hill

[Californication | 1,477]

1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:

With a focus on higher crime areas, you're bound to be affecting certain races/classes at a disproportionate rate (compared to overall population), and I think that's why the percentages of stops by race are pretty damn consistent each year. 

Stop and Frisk was either intentionally racist by targeting black/hispanic people, or it focused on higher crime areas, which have a much greater population of black people than NYC as a whole. Perhaps it was a mix of both, depending on who was conducting the stop. Now if black/hispanic people commit crime at the rates of which they were stopped, then that data reflects proportionate stop rates compared to crime rates by race.

 

 

Lol.

[Link | 2,709]

Why are crime rates higher in certain areas?

[Silent Hill | 276]

22 hours ago, Californication said:

Lol.

Found an analysis of Stop and Frisk around the peak of its volume (2006) 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR534.html

It looks like some officers had patterns of stopping minorities more than the average, but it's a very low percentage. Also, hispanic people were stopped slightly more than their crime rates would suggest:

"This analysis identified 15 officers who stopped more blacks and hispanics than their colleagues, while 14 officers stopped fewer. This means 0.5 percent of the 2,756 NYPD officers most active in pedestrian-stop activity were flagged as having stop patterns warranting further investigation. Those 2,756 most active officers accounted for 54 percent of the total number of 2006 stops. The remaining stops were made by another 15,855 officers, for whom an accurate internal benchmark could not be constructed, mostly because they conducted too few stops."

"We found that black pedestrians were stopped at a rate that is 20 to 30 percent lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions. Hispanic pedestrians were stopped disproportionately more, by 5 to 10 percent, than their representation among crime-suspect descriptions would predict."

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

15 hours ago, Link said:

Why are crime rates higher in certain areas?

Many factors of course, but which have the biggest impact today is the question.

You may say trickle down effects from historic systemic racism play the biggest part, while I may say the lack of two parent households, culture and personal decisions have the most impact in recent years/decades. 

[Californication | 1,477]

@SilentHill,

I saw your post yesterday and I started to respond and then laughed because no matter what facts we tell you, you end up at the same conclusion that it's not racist. I've got to start work soon, so I am just going to point out the obvious.

Stop and Frisk stopped INNOCENT people over 90% of the time. Cops were stopping 90% MINORITIES. 

Cops were targeting innocent minorities. They were harassing innocent minorities. Black and brown people were being targeted across New York. And just because people are too poor to move or choose to live in a "high crime" area doesn't make them criminals. This is America, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and the 4th amendment to the constitution allows people to be free from search and seizure.

When I was about 18 I was living in Monterey for about 6 months and a couple friends were parked outside waiting to drive me to work. So. I walked downstairs in my dress clothes and got in the car and a cop pulled up and checked all of our id's because they got a call that said we don't look like we belong in the neighborhood. I cried after that, but not before asking what I should do to make sure I look like I belong in the neighborhood. See I have fair skin, I am a mixture of white, hispanic, native american, and spanish. And having fair skin and having a younger looking face, I just never had to deal with racism, but at the same time I know I am lucky. (I should also say I went to elementary and middle school in monterey and lived in other parts of the city over the years.)

So ya, I don't think you grasp what it means to be stoped and harassed by the police when you are doing nothing wrong and I don't think you understand how it affects young peoples psyche. That moment has stuck with me. It wasn't very long, but it is painful. Can you imagine the authorities coming over to you at your house and asking you what you are doing there? 

I don't think you can because you are so quick to call black and brown neighborhoods criminal neighborhoods and you think its okay for the police to stop people for having colored skin.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Californication

[Link | 2,709]

1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:

, while I may say the lack of two parent households, culture and personal decisions have the most impact in recent years/decades. 

Once upon a time, someone thought he was teaching me a lesson by saying corellation is not causation. I would like his opinion of this.

[Silent Hill | 276]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

@SilentHill,

I saw your post yesterday and I started to respond and then laughed because no matter what facts we tell you, you end up at the same conclusion that it's not racist. I've got to start work soon, so I am just going to point out the obvious.

Stop and Frisk stopped INNOCENT people over 90% of the time. Cops were stopping 90% MINORITIES. 

Cops were targeting innocent minorities. They were harassing innocent minorities. Black and brown people were being targeted across New York. And just because people are too poor to move or choose to live in a "high crime" area doesn't make them criminals. This is America, we are supposed to be innocent until provem guilty and the 4th amendment to the constitution allows people to be free from search and seizure.

When I was about 18 I was living in Monterey forr about 6 months and a couple friends were parked outside waiting to drive me to work. So walked downstairs in my dress clothed and got in the car and a cop pulled up and checked all of our id's because they got a call that said we don't look like we belong in the neighborhood. I cried after that, but not before asking what I should do to make sure I look like I belong in the neighborhood. See I have fair skin, I am a mixture of white, hispanic, native american, and spanish. And having fair skin and having a younger looking face, I just never had to deal with racism, but at the same time I know I was lucky. (I should also say I went to elementary and middle school in monterey)

So ya, I don't think you grasp what it means to be stoped and harassed by the police when you are doing nothing wrong and I don't think you understand how it affects young peoples psyche. That moment has stuck with me. It wasn't very long, but it is painful. Can you imagine the authority coming over to you at your house and asking you what you are doing there? 

I don't think you can because you are so quick to call black and brown neighborhoods criminal neighborhoods and you think its okay for the police to stop people for having colored skin.

I agree that the collateral damage from Stop and Frisk was that a lot of innocent people were stopped, and then let go. Does that outweigh the actual crime that was prevented by finding illegal weapons and drugs? I suppose it's subjective whether the 'juice was worth the squeeze". I'm assuming some amount of innocent people that were stopped and then let go weren't offended because they understood the actual goal of the process, which was to prevent crime in their area. Then you have other innocent people that felt like they were targeted because of their race (even though that study I linked shows that stop rates aligned with crime-suspect description rates, though hispanics were over-represented by a small percentage). 
For example, if I'm a black male who is stopped by police, I can think of it in two ways:

1. The police are racist because they stopped me for being a black male
2. The police stopped me because black males commit a majority of the crime in this area

I'm curious how you think police could proactively prevent crime if they shouldn't stop people based on their population's representation of crime rates in the area?

 

 

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

22 minutes ago, Link said:

Once upon a time, someone thought he was teaching me a lesson by saying corellation is not causation. I would like his opinion of this.

You specifically referring to me or Rhino?

[Californication | 1,477]

5 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I agree that the collateral damage from Stop and Frisk was that a lot of innocent people were stopped, and then let go. Does that outweigh the actual crime that was prevented by finding illegal weapons and drugs? I suppose it's subjective whether the 'juice was worth the squeeze". I'm assuming some amount of innocent people that were stopped and then let go weren't offended because they understood the actual goal of the process, which was to prevent crime in their area. Then you have other innocent people that felt like they were targeted because of their race (even though that study I linked shows that stop rates aligned with crime-suspect description rates, though hispanics were over-represented by a small percentage). 
For example, if I'm a black male who is stopped by police, I can think of it in two ways:

1. The police are racist because they stopped me for being a black male
2. The police stopped me because black males commit a majority of the crime in this area

I'm curious how you think police could proactively prevent crime if they shouldn't stop people based on their population's representation of crime rates in the area?

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm too busy to explain why racism is wrong and how 715 guns out of 500,000 stops in 2012 isn't an example of the police spending their time to efficiently stop crime. I'm out. 

[Link | 2,709]

54 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

You specifically referring to me or Rhino?

not you

[Silent Hill | 276]

42 minutes ago, Californication said:

Honestly, I'm too busy to explain why racism is wrong and how 715 guns out of 500,000 stops in 2012 isn't an example of the police spending their time to efficiently stop crime. I'm out. 

You don't have to explain to me why racism is wrong, of course I agree that it's wrong. But I've shown why you can't just look at stops vs. population data to identify racism. I understand if you're too busy to address that. 

And I personally think removing 715 guns during 2012 is a huge win. Potentially prevented hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes from happening (armed robberies and even homicides)

But if you'd rather see those 715 guns back on the streets in exchange for innocent people not being stopped and checked, then that's your opinion and your right to hold it. 

[Californication | 1,477]

1 hour ago, Silent Hill said:

You don't have to explain to me why racism is wrong, of course I agree that it's wrong. But I've shown why you can't just look at stops vs. population data to identify racism. I understand if you're too busy to address that. 

And I personally think removing 715 guns during 2012 is a huge win. Potentially prevented hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes from happening (armed robberies and even homicides)

But if you'd rather see those 715 guns back on the streets in exchange for innocent people not being stopped and checked, then that's your opinion and your right to hold it. 

There is a circular problem to your logic.

You think that racism is okay because it results in 715 less guns on the streets in one year. In reality, you are removing a few hundred guns and there are still hundreds of thousands available because this is America. And because of the way you removed the guns you are making hundreds of thousands of people feel like they don't belong in their communities and that the laws in America are not there to protect them. I would argue that people are more likely to join gangs and become criminals because of situations like this. 

You keep repeating that old racist trope that black people are criminals because they come from single parent homes. If you care about the psychology within the black community why do you think it is okay for them to feel targeted, harassed, and less than equal?

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

49 minutes ago, Californication said:

2 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

You don't have to explain to me why racism is wrong, of course I agree that it's wrong. But I've shown why you can't just look at stops vs. population data to identify racism. I understand if you're too busy to address that. 

And I personally think removing 715 guns during 2012 is a huge win. Potentially prevented hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes from happening (armed robberies and even homicides)

But if you'd rather see those 715 guns back on the streets in exchange for innocent people not being stopped and checked, then that's your opinion and your right to hold it. 

There is a circular problem to your logic.

You think that racism is okay because it results in 715 less guns on the streets in one year. In reality, you are removing a few hundred guns and there are still hundreds of thousands available because this is America. And because of the way you removed the guns you are making hundreds of thousands of people feel like they don't belong in their communities and that the laws in America are not there to protect them. I would argue that people are more likely to join gangs and become criminals because of situations like this. 

You keep repeating that old racist trope that black people are criminals because they come from single parent homes. If you care about the psychology within the black community why do you think it is okay for them to feel targeted, harassed, and less than equal?

I've explained why I don't think Stop and Frisk was a blatant example of racism, so stop implying that I think racism is "okay".

I don't see the logic in "well, you only removed 715 guns but there are hundreds of thousands more" as a reason to undermine the results of the process. The removal of 715 guns is better than none, but obviously not as good as the removal of more. And I don't see the logic in "well, I was stopped by police, searched and was innocent so now I'm going to commit crimes and join a gang". Not sure why you would think that would be a reasonable response/reaction.

Single parent homes have been directly connected to outcomes in crime, education and poverty through many studies, and I haven't seen anything that disputes it, so I don't think it's a "racist trope", especially since this holds true for any race. It's just that the black community has (by far) the highest rate of single parent households. It's a shame that people would feel targeted, harassed, victimized, etc. because of something like Stop and Frisk, when the actual goal of the process was to prevent crime in their high-crime area. (Again, was the effort worth the results? That is debatable, but crime was definitely prevented because of it) You'd think that they'd look at the bigger picture, especially since the #1 cause of death for young black males is homicide. I'd think any process to proactively remove guns/weapons and drugs, would be welcomed by a community plagued by crime. The removal of police presence and proactive policing is most definitely not going to decrease crime rates. 

[Californication | 1,477]

13 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I've explained why I don't think Stop and Frisk was a blatant example of racism, so stop implying that I think racism is "okay".

I don't see the logic in "well, you only removed 715 guns but there are hundreds of thousands more" as a reason to undermine the results of the process. The removal of 715 guns is better than none, but obviously not as good as the removal of more. And I don't see the logic in "well, I was stopped by police, searched and was innocent so now I'm going to commit crimes and join a gang". Not sure why you would think that would be a reasonable response/reaction.

Single parent homes have been directly connected to outcomes in crime, education and poverty through many studies, and I haven't seen anything that disputes it, so I don't think it's a "racist trope", especially since this holds true for any race. It's just that the black community has (by far) the highest rate of single parent households. It's a shame that people would feel targeted, harassed, victimized, etc. because of something like Stop and Frisk, when the actual goal of the process was to prevent crime in their high-crime area. (Again, was the effort worth the results? That is debatable, but crime was definitely prevented because of it) You'd think that they'd look at the bigger picture, especially since the #1 cause of death for young black males is homicide. I'd think any process to proactively remove guns/weapons and drugs, would be welcomed by a community plagued by crime. The removal of police presence and proactive policing is most definitely not going to decrease crime rates. 

People are being treated differently because the color of their skin that is the definition of racism. If you are okay with this policy, you are okay with racist policies. It's very simple. Are you racist? I don't know, it sounds like it. 

[Silent Hill | 276]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

2 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

I've explained why I don't think Stop and Frisk was a blatant example of racism, so stop implying that I think racism is "okay".

I don't see the logic in "well, you only removed 715 guns but there are hundreds of thousands more" as a reason to undermine the results of the process. The removal of 715 guns is better than none, but obviously not as good as the removal of more. And I don't see the logic in "well, I was stopped by police, searched and was innocent so now I'm going to commit crimes and join a gang". Not sure why you would think that would be a reasonable response/reaction.

Single parent homes have been directly connected to outcomes in crime, education and poverty through many studies, and I haven't seen anything that disputes it, so I don't think it's a "racist trope", especially since this holds true for any race. It's just that the black community has (by far) the highest rate of single parent households. It's a shame that people would feel targeted, harassed, victimized, etc. because of something like Stop and Frisk, when the actual goal of the process was to prevent crime in their high-crime area. (Again, was the effort worth the results? That is debatable, but crime was definitely prevented because of it) You'd think that they'd look at the bigger picture, especially since the #1 cause of death for young black males is homicide. I'd think any process to proactively remove guns/weapons and drugs, would be welcomed by a community plagued by crime. The removal of police presence and proactive policing is most definitely not going to decrease crime rates. 

People are being treated differently because the color of their skin that is the definition of racism. If you are okay with this policy, you are okay with racist policies. It's very simple. Are you racist? I don't know, it sounds like it. 

There's a very thin line between racial profiling and criminal profiling, and Stop and Frisk straddled the line. I can see both the positive and negative outcomes with it, but I don't agree that it was implemented to specifically target innocent minorities for the pleasure of racist cops.  

[avatar! | 1,811]

Anyone from Chicago can explain the state of the city??

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

https://news.umich.edu/police-sixth-leading-cause-of-death-for-young-black-men/

[Silent Hill | 276]

41 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

https://news.umich.edu/police-sixth-leading-cause-of-death-for-young-black-men/

I wonder where it'd rank if you account for justified use of force. 

[Link | 2,709]

5 hours ago, avatar! said:

Anyone from Chicago can explain the state of the city??

 

This doesn’t only happen in Chicago. Dunno what else to say. Yes people commit crime. Like the person on the street said, that’s messed up. That is not normal, and it’s not the state of the city in my eyes.

[avatar! | 1,811]

1 hour ago, Link said:

This doesn’t only happen in Chicago. Dunno what else to say. Yes people commit crime. Like the person on the street said, that’s messed up. That is not normal, and it’s not the state of the city in my eyes.

I'm glad to hear that's not the norm in Chicago. Obviously I hear and read the news, and the homicide rate in Chicago is about 10 times that of Boston (Boston has also had an uptick in violence). So, when you see all the violence it gives one pause. Very sad, hope Chicago and other cities will be able to curb all this. 

[Link | 2,709]

7 hours ago, avatar! said:

the homicide rate in Chicago is about 10 times that of Boston

So, this is interesting. Don’t get me wrong we do have problems here. A few quick stats

Chicago: 234 sq mi ; 2.7 million people (declining)(11k per sq mi) ; ~500 homicides in 2019
Boston: 49 sq mi ; 692,000 people (increasing)(14k per sq mi) ; 38 homicides in 2019

When considering population let’s call that a 5x rate, not 10x. Yeah... still not great.

First of all, I don’t know what the racial makeup is in Boston (50% white, vs 31% white in Chicago) but one major problem here is this city is heavily segregated. Most neighborhoods are over 90% one race. It has some positives but it’s bad in terms of economic disparity and the resultant unjust funding for public services, all going back to the practices of redlining and blockbusting, the effects of which are still felt today.

Another big—bigger imo— problem is the proximity to Indiana. We share a border with them on the south side, which is, like, all poor. And Indiana doesn’t regulate as as much as we do. We know where the guns and loose cigarettes come from.

Chicago has Gary IN (former murder capital) adjacent. Boston has Cambridge and Brookline. Is Brookline still trash? 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

Police Arrested 120 Anti-Racism Protesters in Omaha, and Barely Anyone’s Talking About It

This is what is going on in my city. Stop telling me there's no systemic racism in the Police Departments. My community is literally living it.

[avatar! | 1,811]

8 hours ago, Link said:

So, this is interesting. Don’t get me wrong we do have problems here. A few quick stats

Chicago: 234 sq mi ; 2.7 million people (declining)(11k per sq mi) ; ~500 homicides in 2019
Boston: 49 sq mi ; 692,000 people (increasing)(14k per sq mi) ; 38 homicides in 2019

When considering population let’s call that a 5x rate, not 10x. Yeah... still not great.

First of all, I don’t know what the racial makeup is in Boston (50% white, vs 31% white in Chicago) but one major problem here is this city is heavily segregated. Most neighborhoods are over 90% one race. It has some positives but it’s bad in terms of economic disparity and the resultant unjust funding for public services, all going back to the practices of redlining and blockbusting, the effects of which are still felt today.

Another big—bigger imo— problem is the proximity to Indiana. We share a border with them on the south side, which is, like, all poor. And Indiana doesn’t regulate as as much as we do. We know where the guns and loose cigarettes come from.

Chicago has Gary IN (former murder capital) adjacent. Boston has Cambridge and Brookline. Is Brookline still trash? 

For many years now Bookline has been high-end and expensive. Truth is, everything around the greater Boston area is expensive. Too expensive. Everywhere people are building "luxury" condos, etc. and I don't know how anyone can afford anything here! Seriously, a condo will cost someone around $1 million. Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, etc. is basically unaffordable. There are laws that if you say build a condominium, then you have to set a certain portion aside that will go (in principle) to people who are on a lottery for assisted housing. However, if you make $25,000 or more than you are not "poor". So yeah, unless you're rich, Boston is not the city for you. This is a big problem, and I feel over time will lead to serious issues. 

But.... anyway. Back to crime, currently Boston is quite a safe and walkable city, and most of the surrounding neighborhoods are as well. I haven't been to Chicago in many years, but I still remember having fun at the Taste of Chicago.