Actual numbers on police shootings:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/black-...le/2600164

That is a poorly written opinion piece in a lot of ways, (and I suspect they are relying on the same "scholarly" publication by a racial realist website that was discussed here in a different thread). For example, the author either distorts actual results or displays a misunderstanding of statistics when he says that "Several studies released this year show that police officers are less likely to shoot blacks than whites"... at least one study said that given a violent confrontation, the likelihood of shooting a black person was marginally less than shooting a white person. The author deceptively implies the risk of being shot is lower for blacks than for whites, but the fact that blacks are more likely to be in such a confrontation to begin with than whites are makes it clear that this is not the case... the quoted statement is not true.

However, she is partly right by including this observation, though her parenthetical conclusion is false:

Black lies matter | Washington Examiner

Quote:If blacks are killed by officers at a rate higher than their population numbers, economist Ted Miller told The Guardian, "it's the excessive arrest of minorities that's the problem. We need to bring down the numbers of [blacks] being arrested in the first place." (Unless blacks themselves bring their crime rate down, however, the only way to lower their arrest rate is to eliminate criminal statutes or to ask the police to ignore crime.)

As a matter of policy, the combination of broken windows policing and pressure on police departments to self-fund necessarily results in an artificially high arrest rate. That can and should be addressed (as should underlying, genuine crime rates).

There is a genuine problem that the black lives matter movement has brought to light, but it is not racism by police departments, and it's not the police that are to blame. The problem is the disparity in arrest rates and what is in effect a highly regressive tax enforced by police. Those who are to blame are policy-makers - both inside and outside the police departments. Both civic and police policy-makers are responsible for addressing broken windows policing and need to revisit whether that is advisable or productive use of time, and how to mitigate the unintended consequences.

The easy and obvious change that should have come about from the black lives matter protests is that policy-makers should find a way to fund police departments without relying on traffic tickets and other fundraising-by-enforcement. The fact that in Ferguson, MO, there a black citizen should expect to receive 4.5 traffic tickets for every one that a white neighbor receives speaks volumes. One may be willing to believe that the disparity in theft or murder is vastly different for blacks in this country, but do you really believe that there is that much difference in driving skills? I would wager that funding police from state or national monies so that cities do not have to rely on fundraising-by-citation would go a long way towards reducing the disparity in such a simple disparity and as a result would lower tensions between police and otherwise law-abiding citizens.

(09-08-2016 06:53 AM)I45owl Wrote:  That is a poorly written opinion piece in a lot of ways, (and I suspect they are relying on the same "scholarly" publication by a racial realist website that was discussed here in a different thread). For example, the author either distorts actual results or displays a misunderstanding of statistics when he says that "Several studies released this year show that police officers are less likely to shoot blacks than whites"... at least one study said that given a violent confrontation, the likelihood of shooting a black person was marginally less than shooting a white person. The author deceptively implies the risk of being shot is lower for blacks than for whites, but the fact that blacks are more likely to be in such a confrontation to begin with than whites are makes it clear that this is not the case... the quoted statement is not true.

However, she is partly right by including this observation, though her parenthetical conclusion is false:

Black lies matter | Washington Examiner

Quote:If blacks are killed by officers at a rate higher than their population numbers, economist Ted Miller told The Guardian, "it's the excessive arrest of minorities that's the problem. We need to bring down the numbers of [blacks] being arrested in the first place." (Unless blacks themselves bring their crime rate down, however, the only way to lower their arrest rate is to eliminate criminal statutes or to ask the police to ignore crime.)

As a matter of policy, the combination of broken windows policing and pressure on police departments to self-fund necessarily results in an artificially high arrest rate. That can and should be addressed (as should underlying, genuine crime rates).

There is a genuine problem that the black lives matter movement has brought to light, but it is not racism by police departments, and it's not the police that are to blame. The problem is the disparity in arrest rates and what is in effect a highly regressive tax enforced by police. Those who are to blame are policy-makers - both inside and outside the police departments. Both civic and police policy-makers are responsible for addressing broken windows policing and need to revisit whether that is advisable or productive use of time, and how to mitigate the unintended consequences.

The easy and obvious change that should have come about from the black lives matter protests is that policy-makers should find a way to fund police departments without relying on traffic tickets and other fundraising-by-enforcement. The fact that in Ferguson, MO, there a black citizen should expect to receive 4.5 traffic tickets for every one that a white neighbor receives speaks volumes. One may be willing to believe that the disparity in theft or murder is vastly different for blacks in this country, but do you really believe that there is that much difference in driving skills? I would wager that funding police from state or national monies so that cities do not have to rely on fundraising-by-citation would go a long way towards reducing the disparity in such a simple disparity and as a result would lower tensions between police and otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Broken windows policing coincided with a dramatic decrease in crime rate. I don't think it was entirely a coincidence.

There's clearly a problem with some police not having the training or temperament to avoid escalation. There's a problem with "driving while Black." But reducing arrests to avoid confrontations between Blacks and police can leave everyone less safe. There are already indications that might be happening.

The problem is not broken window policing.

(09-07-2016 08:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  Actual numbers on police shootings:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/black-...le/2600164

What are the numbers BLM is posting?

"Hands Up Don't Shoot"! That's all you have to say regarding the LIE that BLM and the SNC are shoveling !

(09-08-2016 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Broken windows policing coincided with a dramatic decrease in crime rate. I don't think it was entirely a coincidence.

I think there is evidence that it works in turning around neighborhoods. I've never really advocated getting rid of it without careful evaluation. But, it also leads to unintended consequences, such as the death at police hands of Eric Garner, who was selling singleton cigarettes.

I think the broader negative is that it may engender resentment among those communities for police intervening over trivial issues, which could lead to escalation of later incidents. And, the study from a Harvard professor did indicate that confrontations between police and blacks was more likely to lead to violence. I think that escalation is primarily due to the suspects and may well have to do with prior experience with police, the fact that they are intervening over trivial matters, and the rhetoric that is coming from groups like BLM.

I don't think that broken windows policing is an unmitigated success nor an unmitigated failure. I do think it needs to be seriously re-evaluated.

(09-08-2016 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's clearly a problem with some police not having the training or temperament to avoid escalation. There's a problem with "driving while Black." But reducing arrests to avoid confrontations between Blacks and police can leave everyone less safe. There are already indications that might be happening.

I think that deescalation or measures to prevent shooting should be pressed, and would apply equally to both blacks and whites. I think that represents a missed opportunity by BLM... no-one wants to be unjustly shot by police.

(09-08-2016 08:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  The problem is not broken window policing.

What do you suggest it is, then? The closest you've come is suggesting that it's due to "Driving while black", which is precisely the perception that comes from broken windows policing (which is essentially profiling by another name).

If it is the case that after serious evaluation, the conclusion is to continue broken windows policing, then you absolutely must both decouple police funding from monies raised by citations and better explain to the public what you are doing and why, and why the consequences are judged to be acceptable. Perhaps, you could use monies raised by citations to re-invest into the neighborhoods where the citation was made.

ed: corrected name of victim, noting Kaplony's reference below

You broken windows opponents need to make up your rabbit-assed minds and tell us what you want. Both NYC and Baltimore gave the masses what they were calling for, an end to proactive policing (or broken windows) and got bashed for it. Now in both cities the very same masses that were bashing proactive policing are begging for it to return because unsurprisingly when it ended crime went up. So make up your minds.....to you want proactive policing and less crime or reactive policing and more crime? There is no middle ground.

(09-08-2016 12:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You broken windows opponents need to make up your rabbit-assed minds and tell us what you want. Both NYC and Baltimore gave the masses what they were calling for, an end to proactive policing (or broken windows) and got bashed for it. Now in both cities the very same masses that were bashing proactive policing are begging for it to return because unsurprisingly when it ended crime went up. So make up your minds.....to you want proactive policing and less crime or reactive policing and more crime? There is no middle ground.

(09-08-2016 12:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You broken windows opponents need to make up your rabbit-assed minds and tell us what you want. Both NYC and Baltimore gave the masses what they were calling for, an end to proactive policing (or broken windows) and got bashed for it. Now in both cities the very same masses that were bashing proactive policing are begging for it to return because unsurprisingly when it ended crime went up. So make up your minds.....to you want proactive policing and less crime or reactive policing and more crime? There is no middle ground.

What I want is for people to stop blaming the cops in the street who is just implementing policies set by civic and police leaders.

At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for people to be frustrated, and it's important to show empathy for those reasons, and try to find solutions if possible.

I have given specific, concrete suggestions above that would help address some of the regressive tax that comes from broken windows policing. I don't know if you'd say that's middle ground or not.

I do not know how much policy makers have taken the negative, unintended consequences of broken windows policing into account when they have decided to implement those policies, nor do I know of other approaches that may be effective. But, I do think re-evaluating those decisions makes sense.

Regardless of whether they move forward with it or not, I think it's critical to get communities to buy into it where possible.

If you have another approach to address what is an ongoing public relations problem to say the least... an approach that will help tone down rhetoric that has led to the assassination of police here in Dallas, please present that. I do not recall seeing any kind of concrete suggestion from you with regards to such an approach, but I understandably have seen a lot of frustration from you with the blame, vitriol, and violence directed at police.

(09-08-2016 02:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You broken windows opponents need to make up your rabbit-assed minds and tell us what you want. Both NYC and Baltimore gave the masses what they were calling for, an end to proactive policing (or broken windows) and got bashed for it. Now in both cities the very same masses that were bashing proactive policing are begging for it to return because unsurprisingly when it ended crime went up. So make up your minds.....to you want proactive policing and less crime or reactive policing and more crime? There is no middle ground.

What I want is for people to stop blaming the cops in the street who is just implementing policies set by civic and police leaders.

At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for people to be frustrated, and it's important to show empathy for those reasons, and try to find solutions if possible.

I have given specific, concrete suggestions above that would help address some of the regressive tax that comes from broken windows policing. I don't know if you'd say that's middle ground or not.

I do not know how much policy makers have taken the negative, unintended consequences of broken windows policing into account when they have decided to implement those policies, nor do I know of other approaches that may be effective. But, I do think re-evaluating those decisions makes sense.

Regardless of whether they move forward with it or not, I think it's critical to get communities to buy into it where possible.

If you have another approach to address what is an ongoing public relations problem to say the least... an approach that will help tone down rhetoric that has led to the assassination of police here in Dallas, please present that. I do not recall seeing any kind of concrete suggestion from you with regards to such an approach, but I understandably have seen a lot of frustration from you with the blame, vitriol, and violence directed at police.

No it's not. You are either proactive in reducing crime or you are reactive in dealing with the aftermath of crime. You can't go easy on some crime and crack down on others without sending mixed signals that it's OK to break the law in some instances. By it's very nature progressive policing means that no crime will be tolerated.

But let's say this is the fairytale land you desire and there is a middle ground. In your opinion which crimes would be OK to be ignored and why?





BTW the mention of the death of Garner has nothing to do with broken windows policing and everything to do with a career criminal resisting arrest (something he had a history of doing) for a crime he had been arrested for multiple times before. Had Garner put his hands behind his back he would have been able to fight his case in the proper venue, a court. Instead he tried to fight his case in an improper venue, the street, and died for it.

(09-08-2016 02:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 02:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You broken windows opponents need to make up your rabbit-assed minds and tell us what you want. Both NYC and Baltimore gave the masses what they were calling for, an end to proactive policing (or broken windows) and got bashed for it. Now in both cities the very same masses that were bashing proactive policing are begging for it to return because unsurprisingly when it ended crime went up. So make up your minds.....to you want proactive policing and less crime or reactive policing and more crime? There is no middle ground.

What I want is for people to stop blaming the cops in the street who is just implementing policies set by civic and police leaders.

At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for people to be frustrated, and it's important to show empathy for those reasons, and try to find solutions if possible.

I have given specific, concrete suggestions above that would help address some of the regressive tax that comes from broken windows policing. I don't know if you'd say that's middle ground or not.

I do not know how much policy makers have taken the negative, unintended consequences of broken windows policing into account when they have decided to implement those policies, nor do I know of other approaches that may be effective. But, I do think re-evaluating those decisions makes sense.

Regardless of whether they move forward with it or not, I think it's critical to get communities to buy into it where possible.

If you have another approach to address what is an ongoing public relations problem to say the least... an approach that will help tone down rhetoric that has led to the assassination of police here in Dallas, please present that. I do not recall seeing any kind of concrete suggestion from you with regards to such an approach, but I understandably have seen a lot of frustration from you with the blame, vitriol, and violence directed at police.

No it's not. You are either proactive in reducing crime or you are reactive in dealing with the aftermath of crime. You can't go easy on some crime and crack down on others without sending mixed signals that it's OK to break the law in some instances. By it's very nature progressive policing means that no crime will be tolerated.

But let's say this is the fairytale land you desire and there is a middle ground. In your opinion which crimes would be OK to be ignored and why?

If it was the conclusion that you'd abandon proactive policing, then I would certainly always prioritize enforcing crimes of violence and protecting others' property. You may not remember the 1980s when the Houston police department or district attournies very publicly said that they would not arrest car thieves because they did not have space in the jails to hold them. I don't want to return to those times (I remember going to a junkyard to arrange to get a new engine block and the guy in line was complaining that thieves broke his windows to get his radio... he was bitching because the doors were unlocked).

But, I am not qualified to make the call you are asking for here. I am not convinced that proactive policing should be done away with. In my last post, though, I asked what you would do to help the current situation... if nothing else, how would you convince communities that they are really not under fire from police and that they are not justified assassinating them? Is there any kind of corrective action that you can suggest?

(09-08-2016 02:57 PM)I45owl Wrote:  In my last post, though, I asked what you would do to help the current situation... if nothing else, how would you convince communities that they are really not under fire from police and that they are not justified assassinating them? Is there any kind of corrective action that you can suggest?

There is nothing law enforcement can do to convince people who choose to believe a myth. The facts about police relations have been presented and they choose to ignore them over the myth propagated by anti-law enforcement leftists looking to advance their war on law enforcement and race baiters looking to line their pockets. Until the community itself chooses to believe the facts they are going to hold false beliefs and nothing any outside force does will change that.

If anything recent events have shown that law enforcement can't win in these communities. They complain about proactive law enforcement then complain about the lack of proactive law enforcement. Even when they give the community what they want they are wrong.

(09-08-2016 03:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 02:57 PM)I45owl Wrote:  In my last post, though, I asked what you would do to help the current situation... if nothing else, how would you convince communities that they are really not under fire from police and that they are not justified assassinating them? Is there any kind of corrective action that you can suggest?

There is nothing law enforcement can do to convince people who choose to believe a myth. The facts about police relations have been presented and they choose to ignore them over the myth propagated by anti-law enforcement leftists looking to advance their war on law enforcement and race baiters looking to line their pockets. Until the community itself chooses to believe the facts they are going to hold false beliefs and nothing any outside force does will change that.

If anything recent events have shown that law enforcement can't win in these communities. They complain about proactive law enforcement then complain about the lack of proactive law enforcement. Even when they give the community what they want they are wrong.

I understand your predicament and (I think) cynicism. I think you have summarized the basic problem that includes discussions on this forum as well as persuasive argumentation in general.

I am more optimistic that it is possible to persuade people that the problem is not one of racist police that shoot black people indiscriminately, but is symptomatic of the situation where they are performing their jobs as tasked due to a combination of policy and crime patterns.

Much of the behavior and culture that has been at the heart of a number of these incidents shows a culture of defiance... walking in the middle of the street as Michael Brown did, pants around kids' knees, resisting arrest, arguing with police. I think those behaviors will not change as long as the perception (I agree much of it is mythology) persists that police are out to get black people... if that perception is changed by reason and persuasion, I think those behaviors are more likely to change, albeit slowly.

I am a broken window on four wheels, and wind up with probably an average of just over $100 (deferred adjudication) per year in traffic fines. If my neighborhood were subject to proactive policing, statistics from Ferguson, MO suggest that would balloon to $800-$1700 even if traffic violations were the only thing that police would probably find there with any significant frequency. I am therefore somewhat sympathetic with people in those situations... not because I'm a menace on the road (I think I generally don't pose much risk to anyone else, even if I view speed limits as suggestions), but because I could see the economic burden that would place on me.

From an academic perspective, it seems to me there is a huge opportunity to look into the statistics to compare results where proactive policing has been put in place and see if it does cause people to resist arrest more than in areas where that has not been in place.