It gives the clear appearance that the District Attorney’s office just doesn’t have the will to prosecute police crimes.

That seems to be a problem nationwide. Has a cop ever been convicted of murder for an on-duty shooting?

To a certain degree, you have to understand that all these people know each other.  The DAs and the cops all go to the same bars after work, they all go to the same gym, they send their kids to the same day cares.  They’re friends.

You can’t expect friends to run off and prosecute one another.  It’s a good ole boy network, and it desperately needs some fresh air and external review.  But there isn’t much political will to engage in that either.  The relationship is deeply incestuous and - at the end of the day - the only way it gets changed is at the political level with the will of the voters behind it.

And, of course, they’re all dependent upon one another professionally—the prosecutors need police cooperation and vice versa.  It doesn’t generate an environment conducive to oversight.  They do need external, independent review.  Is there any city that has a good model for this?  I’ve never lived anywhere with reasonable oversight.

The only reason anything was done about this cop is because of the violent riots, which of course only reinforces the message that violence is the only way to get anything accomplished.

In a lot of ways I’m a bit of a luddite; still don’t have a cellphone. But I’m glad so many people do these days, with the cameras. I’m moving back to Japan in October, and I think my wife and I will just have cellphones there.

Maybe when we eventually return to Canada, too; partly because of things like this.

Police forces (and DA’s) are going to have to learn one of the key open sources software credos: many eyes eliminate the bugs and the system. Thanks to increasingly low barriers to entry and whatever is the Moore’s Law counterpart to megapixels, surveillance cuts both ways.

surveillance cuts both ways.

For now, until it’s mandatory that cell phones be equipped with a kill switch that, when given the appropriate signal, temporarily disables their recording/video abilities. To protect national security, of course.

For now, until it’s mandatory that cell phones be equipped with a kill switch that, when given the appropriate signal, temporarily disables their recording/video abilities. To protect national security, of course.

Heh. Of course. However, some of those mobiles will also be running on OSS-based OS’s like Android and this new Palm thingie, which means those pesky liberty-minded hackers will find ways to kill the kill switches. If the Homeland Security types want to put in kill switches, they’ll have to be hardware based—good luck with that across multiple international vendors and multiple jurisdictions.

And really, there are negative implications for “bottom-up” phonecam surveillance as there are positive ones. It’ll be interesting.

I read that and I was like, “what did Bartcop do this time?”  Turned out to be a different “Bart cop.”

If the Homeland Security types want to put in kill switches, they’ll have to be hardware based—good luck with that across multiple international vendors and multiple jurisdictions.

Not only that, hardware can be defeated by other counter-measures as well.  There is no such thing as ‘tamper-proof’, just ‘tamper-resistant’.

Not only that, hardware can be defeated by other counter-measures as well.

Not quite so easy as killing or blocking the RFID hardware in your passport, but yes.

Of course, doing so automatically makes one a criminal in the eyes of neoCon DHS groupies, but that steps up the game to legal countermeasures. Of course, we have the Constitution on our side, too. For now.

Has a cop ever been convicted of murder for an on-duty shooting?

After Sean Bell’s killers—to any objective observer in Bell’s position a bunch of menacing thugs in cheap, ill-fitting sports jackets, not police officers attempting to make a lawful arrest—walked, I don’t think any ever will.

Likely this guy will walk, too, or at most be convicted of manslaughter, perhaps even involuntary, because the excuse of mistaking the pistol for a Taser is too available. (Yes, he implied his guilt because he ran away, but he may just be a pants-crapper and bedwetter.) The real problem is a system that does not screen out idiots, and/or does not train non-idiots not to kill the customers.

“his guilt because he ran away”

The story is he was getting threats against his life. That would be a mitagating factor in charges brought against him.

England used to have all prosecutions, even for criminal matters, be private actions.  Now, of course, they’re pretty much done solely through the Crown Prosecution Service.

Allowing anyone to prosecute a crime would curb these DA problems, but it is of course dangerous to let the rich buy harassing prosecutions of their enemies as, say, super SLAPPs.

Looks like the other cops knee is on his neck for quite awhile, and he was holding his hands up before being pushed to the ground. Looks more like the tactics had more to to with any altercations they will try to use as an excuse than Oscars non-compliance.

The real problem is a system that does not screen out sadists

Fixed that for you, Hector.

Not only that, hardware can be defeated by other counter-measures as well.  There is no such thing as ‘tamper-proof’, just ‘tamper-resistant’.

Nod. The only unpickable lock is a weld; welds can be cut.

Okay, I’m a little confused.  How does the cops in Nevada have the authority to arrest him? Has this became a FBI case? Did the Nevada cops charge him, or did the San Diego (where the BART is, right?) cops call out an alert to have cops pick him up?

I’m a little confused…

The Bart cop ran away because of death threats against him. When the arrest order came for him the Nevada police picked him up because he was in Nevada. That is how the police work in this country when they recieve word that another jurisdication has a warrant out and the particular state police either already have him, know where he is, or catch him for some reason they turn him over to the state with the outstanding arrest warrant.

That seems to be a problem nationwide. Has a cop ever been convicted of murder for an on-duty shooting?

I’m not sure if there has but one of the biggest obstacles to convicting cops for anything is juries.  There are people out there who absolutely will not ever convict a police officer for anything.

You can’t expect friends to run off and prosecute one another

Like hell we can’t.  I for one expect the system to fucking work.

The Bart cop ran away because of death threats against him.

You know what would be safer than running across borders in that case?  Arresting and incarcerating the fucking suspect in an execution.

“I’m not sure if there has but one of the biggest obstacles to convicting cops for anything is juries.  There are people out there who absolutely will not ever convict a police officer for anything”

It’s why cops have the old chestnut that is better to face tweleve then six. Twelve jurors, six pallbearers if you need it explained.

Of course several cops shooting a guy seventy times is something that should be penalized. That isn’t following the training they had.

Honestly people should know better then to suddenly reach for something when facing a police officer. If you are going to show your ID tell the officer before you start to reach. They don’t know if you are going for a handgun or something even more dangerous. It’s like standing up in a gun fight. Gun fights are like whack a mole you get up you get shot.

Honestly people should know better then to suddenly reach for something when facing a police officer. If you are going to show your ID tell the officer before you start to reach. They don’t know if you are going for a handgun or something even more dangerous. It’s like standing up in a gun fight. Gun fights are like whack a mole you get up you get shot.
Nice victim-blaming, there.

Fixed that for you, Hector.

I don’t know enough about the cop’s character to agree or disagree. Gross overreaction followed by running away says “loser wuss” to me, not sadist. Although joining a police force could have made him feel powerful instead of a doormat.

I support psych testing for those who want to be in authority positions, to find out if they’re compensating for something.

“Honestly people should know better then to suddenly reach for something when facing a police officer. If you are going to show your ID tell the officer before you start to reach. They don’t know if you are going for a handgun or something even more dangerous. It’s like standing up in a gun fight. Gun fights are like whack a mole you get up you get shot.”

Nice victim-blaming, there.

I would advise everyone just dye their skin white. People should really know better by now than to be brown and try to interact with a cop in any way. It’s really just asking for trouble. /sarcasm

tootiredofnotbeingdmarterthanthestick, a guy was executed after submitting to to being cuffed and held. Why are you talking to people about “what not to do” to not get shot. The man didn’t do anything to get himself shot other than be black on BART.

Honestly people should know better then to suddenly reach for something when facing a police officer.

I don’t know when this country became so full of contemptible cowards in positions of authority

Re the mistaken taser defense, it doesn’t look from the tape as if the passenger was a threat to anyone in any way, so even taser use would be unjustified.

tootiredoftheright, why should citizens be the one to have to worry about giving cops the littlest, most ridiculous excuse for brutality? We expect better of police.

“We expect better of police. “

Do we not expect them to defend themselves or be proactive in defending themselves or others?
Cops are a priority target for criminals. Numerous cops have been shot because they didn’t shot the person reaching for something in their clothing, same goes for cops who didn’t shot or pull their guns out when they saw someone opening up their car door after being stopped.

“The man didn’t do anything to get himself shot “

So the police didn’t have the right to cuff and detain him in the first place? The police officer is being charged with murder and likely would have been in the first place. They had to investigate the circumstances before pressing any charges. All the riots did was cause injuries and harm to the area.

Do we not expect them to defend themselves or be proactive in defending themselves or others?

No, we pay their fucking salaries and we fully expect them to remember that THEY WORK FOR US!  THE PUBLIC!

The other thing that cops frequently forget: PROTECT AND SERVE.

“The man didn’t do anything to get himself shot “

So the police didn’t have the right to cuff and detain him in the first place?

Wait, what? Try as I might I can’t read this any way other than “if detention was justified then so was the shooting”.

Well, it would certainly cut down on law enforcement costs. Get in a brawl on BART? Shot. Possession of controlled substances? Shot. Shoplift? Shot. Sure the cops would have higher ammo expenses, but we wouldn’t have to pay for all that stupid shit like courts, judges and jails.

The police officer is being charged with murder and likely would have been in the first place.

Wow.  The naiveté, it burns.  The only reason that cop is being charged is that he was caught on independent video with dozens of live body witnesses.  Period.  Had the incident happened without a train right there you never would have heard of this killing.  Had the cops succeeded in their initial attempts to seize the camera phones you never would have heard of this incident.  And, had you personally happened on the one-off 2 minute story on local TV (that it otherwise would have generated, if lucky) you’d be disbelieving of and sneering at the family’s accusation that he was shot dead while lying down and no threat to the officers.

Do we not expect them to defend themselves or be proactive in defending themselves or others?

I’m actually astounded that we’ve gotten to the point that we think that being a police officer should be an easy, risk-free job, so any action a cop takes while on duty is perfectly fine if he feels threatened in any way, shape or form, even if the “threat” turns out to be a naked, mentally ill guy.

Next thing you know, we’ll have firefighters refusing to go into buildings to douse the flames and only working from the outside.  Don’t we know that it’s dangerous in there?

And really, there are negative implications for “bottom-up” phonecam surveillance as there are positive ones. It’ll be interesting.

there’s actually a term for it.

It’s also quickly becoming clear that it’s the only way for anyone with any sort of authority to be held accountable for anything. which is why they try and confiscate all cell phones whenever they can.

I would like to see some investigation of why the cops confiscated the phones from some people in the station and what they did with them after doing so. That had to be illegal too, right? “We wanted to cover it up” can’t be an officially valid reason. I think those cops should get in some trouble as well.

They were confiscating them for ‘evidence’.

Sounds as if the US needs an equivalent of the UK Independent Police Complaints Commission (http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/)

I couldn’t even see why the guy was being handcuffed, let alone anything else.  Tazing would have been grossly disproportionate.  And shooting him?  By all that is holy, how the hell can anyone defend that?  It’s obscene.

“Sounds as if the US needs an equivalent “

Police departments have an Internal Affairs department but the rest of the police don’t like them they are called the Rat Squad.

“I couldn’t even see why the guy was being handcuffed, let alone anything else.”

It was after a brawl. Everyone thought to be involved is taken away to the station where it will then be sorted out instead of at the scene. Since the police would have to talk to witnesses examine footage taken wheter by bystanders or surveillance at the scene it’s much better to do it at the station instead of at the incident scene so you can return things to normal instead of having the area closed off for hours sometimes even days. As for handcuffing well it’s a security measure.

“By all that is holy, how the hell can anyone defend that?”

What is being defended is the right for a fair trial as well as for the police to carry out the procedures involved in the investigation meaning having the police officer be free on leave of abscence till being brought in for questioning or charged.

Here is the thing numerous police shootings involving say whites who were reaching for their wallet or opening their car door after being pulled over never got riots or outright rage directed at the police yet when one black gets involved in the exact same circumstances there are riots.

The police will shot to protect themselves guess what white kids got shot or nearly got shot while pointing what looked like a gun at police officers yet there was never a media frenzy when it happened.

Thanks for the link, Katherine.  Do you have a sense of how well it works? 

I hadn’t seen the video with the audio before and I can’t help but think that the BART cops were actually “performing” for the crowd.  The crowd was clearly distressed by what was happening well before the shooting and I wonder if the cops felt challenged and thus completely over-responded. 

And I have no idea how self-defense could have come into play in any way, shape, or form here.  How do you need to defend yourself against non-resisting individuals?  In particular one who is cuffed and on his stomach?

I support psych testing for those who want to be in authority positions, to find out if they’re compensating for something. ~ Hector

I for one, believe that anyone who wants to be a cop, shouldn’t be allowed to become one.

/semi-snark.

If I’m in a potentially life-threatening situation with some whack-job, I’m not going to get too idealistic.  Just seems practical to me to do anything possible to decrease the risk of escalating the situation.

Tim - how is this in any way different than how you would act with an armed criminal?

And if you can’t tell the difference between the criminals and the cops, doesn’t that say that something has gone very, very wrong?

“doesn’t that say that something has gone very, very wrong?”

Too many guns out there is what is wrong. Like I said open your door when a police cruiser pulls you over and the cop gets out of his patrol vehicle. You will find a gun drawn on you very quickly.

Btw police training scenarios in which someone in an alley for example reaches for something and the cop doesn’t pull his gun to fire the cop often winds up dead. Those training scenarios are based on real life incidents. Even the army trains their soldiers that way since they have no idea if the person is reaching for a weapon.

so even taser use would be unjustified

True, but taser use would be unlikely to lead to a murder charge:

Tasing in the back is far less likely to be lethal than being shot in the back.

But even if this was one of the lethal cases, because the average person thinks that tasers are “non-lethal,” the argument that the cop had the mental state needed for murder would likely not succeed.

I think the solution here is that, instead of describing tasers as non-lethal weapons that sometimes kill, we need to make the point that tasers are lethal weapons that often fail to kill, like the old “drugstore pistol,” or “Saturday Night Special.”

“often fail to kill, like the old “drugstore pistol,” or “Saturday Night Special.” “

Dead wrong on that count. .22 are the prefered weapon for professional hitmen for a damn good reason. You aim right and that person is far more likely to die then by a magnum round.

Dead wrong on that count.

“Real” Saturday Night Specials are chambered in .25 ACP or .380. Further, when you absolutely, positively, have to kill someone, you’re not going to depend on a gun that retailed for $60 new.

“have to kill someone, you’re not going to depend on a gun that retailed for $60 new.”

Funny guns used to retail that many years ago. Btw the junk guns of the past were the ones used by the Confederate and Union armies and had their sales banned so freed slaves and poor whites wouldn’t be able to buy them..

Also despite the views of people Saturday Night Specials aren’t an unsafe gun. They do go through tests and pass them.

...white kids got shot or nearly got shot while pointing what looked like a gun at police officers yet there was never a media frenzy when it happened.

...a white kid pulling something gun-shaped and pointing it at a cop and then *almost* getting shot deserves the level of rioting that an unarmed man who is pinned to the ground and fatally shot in the back by a cop deserves? Maybe I misunderstand you.

“Maybe I misunderstand you.
“

The point is that when said instances happens to white there is never any rioting even when the police do a coverup if there is one instead of ignorance as to how police shooting investigations happens which is frequant in the black community.

If white police officers shot a suspect in the back pinned to the ground there wouldn’t be any major media attention nor riots in the area it took place in.

TooTired, do you have any statistics on how often unarmed white guys are shot by the police because they’re reaching for their wallet? And how they compare with people of colour who get shot in the same situation? Adjusted to reflect the proportion of the population would be ideal (and most accurate), but not strictly necessary.

It’s weird, but I feel like absolutely everything tootiredoftheright says about anything is some kind of weird, completely false “factoid” that he got from teevee, only it’s a special teevee that is never, ever correct.

Professional hitmen using Saturday Night Specials? Construction working-women refusing to wear any hard hats, if they aren’t available in pink? Most animals being monogamous in nature? Human reproduction being perpetuated largely by rape?

It’s like The Discovery Channel of an alternate reality…

“Professional hitmen using Saturday Night Specials?”

Never said that. I said that you don’t need a expensive gun to kill someone. A professional hitmen doesn’t need expensive tools if he knows how to use something cheap like piano wire.

“Human reproduction being perpetuated largely by rape? “

I stated that rape was shown in a study when a group of scientists bothered to find out the likelyhood of being impregnentated from rape by a stranger to a one night stand it turned out women were more likely to get pregnant from the rape which is contary what most people think. Most people think getting pregnant from rape is impossible or so unlikely the exemption should be removed. They think the woman would be undergoing such physical stress it would be impossible for the impregnantion to occur. 

I also stated that the rapist genes would pass on and the offspring would be far more likely to commit rape and pass on the genes leading to more rapes.

You also are apparently unaware that are several varieties of monogamy. Social monogamy is common as is sexual monogamy among birds.

“do you have any statistics on how often unarmed white guys are shot by the police because they’re reaching for their wallet?”

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/07/police_usually_are_able_to_cur.php

Mentions two studies. The civilians shot the unarmed black man far far far more then the police did and got worse as the study went on while the police got far far far better.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/09/coloring_inside_the_thin_blue.html

“U.S. Justice Department study that found that “police shoot black suspects more often than white suspects, per capita, because black people are disproportionately likely to be involved in crime (particularly violent crime).” That 2001 study concluded that “just as black suspects are five times more likely than white suspects to die at the hands of police, police officers are five times more likely to die at the hands of a black suspect than a white suspect.”“

See, and this is what I mean. I can read tootiredoftheright’s old posts, but he can’t. I mean, it’s right up there, in black and white. I think he’s some kind of comment-bot, but not a very good one. It’s fascinating.

What is being defended is the right for a fair trial as well as for the police to carry out the procedures involved in the investigation meaning having the police officer be free on leave of abscence till being brought in for questioning or charged.

I haven’t seen anyone claiming that the shooter in this case NOT get a trail. Criminals are guaranteed innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. Insinuating that random people reserve their own personal judgment until a verdict is rendered is much like the common insinuation that freedom of speech protects speakers not only from government censorship but from public criticism as well.

Further, whether white people riot, whether you should or should not reach for your wallet, whether to get our of your car when a cop pulls you over for a traffic violation… are all about as relevant to this incident as whether you prefer oatmeal or cream of wheat for breakfast. This guy was shot in the back while lying on the ground, in case there was some sort of confusion.

Essie, I’m with you on the whole alternate reality thing. I feel like we must be in one, since in this current world, someone can watch THAT VIDEO and start spouting off about when and how to reach for your ID during a traffic stop, as if such a thing bears any relevance whatsoever to what has gone on in this case.

Elpisian,

Good point on the trial - people aren’t rioting because they want him to get an unfair trial. They are rioting because they want him to get a trial period. I do not agree with rioting, but I can’t help but feel that this guy would not have been arrested without the riots.

Maybe he’s in an alternate reality, but his web posts are shuttled over to OUR reality. That’s the only explanation I can think of, because, yeah, this guy wasn’t reaching for his wallet or getting out of his car or doing…anything, really. So why even bring it up? Or maybe he just posts without watching the video.

It is revelant. People rioted without cause. Demostrations were uncessary. The police officer would have gone to trial anyway. Likely his fellow officers will face sanctions for their involvement.

Numerous unarmed white people have been killed by police in the exact same circumstances that unarmed black people have yet it’s not broadcasted ad nauseum on the national media nor are their riots or demonstrations.

The police do not shoot black people at a rate higher then civilians would. They shot unarmed people at a far lower rate then the general population does in the same circumstances.. In fact black civilians in tests shot the unarmed black suspects far more often then white civilians did.

Police officers have commited acts of murder off duty as well as on duty and guess what the media and public for some reason only thinks it happens to blacks and that it only matters when it happens to blacks.

The rage at police is not rational and has no place. They should blame themselves and their communities for the fact that blacks commit crimes five times more then whites even when the socio economic circumstances are the same.

Wait, there are rapist genes?  Really?

TTotR:

Pretty quick those links.  The first one in particular- which says that civilians far more racial bias in their decision to shoot or not than did trained police officers- surely that’s the single and definitive study on racial bias in police shootings, right? Ok.  Actually, that study shows no significant racial bias on the part of cops at all.

Then there’s a WaPo story that purports to state the conclusion of another study… 

Hmm, it seems the story is about a University of Chicago study that concluded, unsurprisingly, that people with training and experience, cops that is, were less likely to mistakenly shoot a suspect than untrained civilians.  Just like the first link shows. Except it shows a pretty damned serious error rate for the cops- just not as serious as for the civilians.

But I don’t think that’s the point of what your citation, judging from what you quoted.

This is the clip from the WaPo story that you’ve quoted:

“U.S. Justice Department study that found that “police shoot black suspects more often than white suspects, per capita, because black people are disproportionately likely to be involved in crime (particularly violent crime).” That 2001 study concluded that “just as black suspects are five times more likely than white suspects to die at the hands of police, police officers are five times more likely to die at the hands of a black suspect than a white suspect.””   

That’s the whole story right?  No other possibilities going on, right? 

This piece of the study that the WaPo chose to highlight with a direct quotation is all that’s worth reporting about this study? 

Oh wait.  The WaPo story has a link to the APA Journal article: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp9261006.pdf

So, let’s see what that journal article says, not what the WaPo says that it says…

Hmm, it seems the story is about a University of Chicago study that concluded, unsurprisingly, that people with training and experience, cops that is, were less likely to mistakenly shoot a suspect than untrained civilians.

So, how about if we simply search the text for those quotes the WaPo used?

Hmm.  Both quotes come from the same paragraph, near the end where the article compares this study’s results to other works- sociological studies of real world statistics, not psychological experiments, by the way.  I’ve highlighted them here.

The sociological literature provides a rich, if complicated, context in
which to view the results of the current studies. One account that
has received substantial attention is that police shoot Black suspects
more often than White suspects, per capita, because Black
people are disproportionately likely to be involved in crime (particularly
violent crime). The Department of Justice (2001) report
shows that, just as Black suspects are five times more likely than
White suspects to die at the hands of police, police officers are five
times more likely to die at the hands of a Black suspect than a
White suspect. In a similar vein, Reisig et al. (2004) found that the
use of nonlethal force (which seems to depend on suspect race)
may actually reflect race-based differences in the suspect’s propensity
to resist arrest or engage in belligerent behavior toward
officers. It is the suspect’s hostility, they argue—not race—that
prompts a hostile response from the officer. And Inn et al. (1977)
report that the number of Black suspects shot by police is proportionate
to the number of Black suspects arrested. They tentatively
conclude that it is the prevalence of criminal activity among Black
people that drives the differential shooting rates. (The authors note,
however, that arrest rates themselves may reflect biases held by the
police and thus do not provide a perfect standard of comparison.)
In line with this reasoning, in Study 1, officers from the national
sample who reported working in communities with (a) high levels
of violent crime and (b) high proportions of minority residents
showed particularly strong patterns of bias in their latencies. Did
their experiences with minority suspects foster associations that
made counterstereotypic trials particularly difficult to process?

So there’s a bit more going on here than that cops are more likely to be shot by blacks than by whites.  And there’s some interesting possibilities that explain that.

Note that the cited 1977 study with its “tentative” conclusion “that it is the prevalence of criminal activity among Black people that drives the differential shooting rates.”  Note that even the authors of that 32 year old study concede that bias in arrest rates may skew their results

Also note the last bit: that cops who work in areas with high minority populations and violent crime “showed particularly strong patterns of bias in their latencies.”

This comports with studies going back to 1967, apparently.

In other words, they show exactly what we all knew anyway- cops in high crime (ie, poor) black neighborhoods are way more likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed suspects.

(Sorry for triple post- those were some long block quotes)

Damn it, I had more, but it disappeared.

Anyway- if you actually read the study’s intro, general discussion and conclusion, it acknowleges the opposite of what you seem to claiming- racial bias exists, but so do a whole lot of other factors that may explain the undeniable fact that blacks are 5 times more likely to be shot by cops than are whites.

That civilians show as much or more bias than trained and experience cops generally is irrelevant.  All it means is that it isn’t just cops, but all society, that fears young black males, but that trained and experienced cops fear them less.  Duh.

The only good news seems to be this:

once neighborhood risk is taken into account, the effect of suspect race or ethnicity is no longer statistically reliable.

So the “good” news is that it isn’t black people who are the target per se.  It’s poor people.  A great deal of whom just happen to be black.  Well that’s a relief, eh?

Oh wait:

<i>Sampson and Raudenbush (2004)... found that the mere presence of Black people in a
community is sufficient to evoke the perception of disadvantage.
That is, controlling for objective factors (e.g., prevalence of graffiti,
broken windows, and abandoned buildings), the greater the
number of Black people living in an area, the greater the disorder
perceived… If Black people
evoke the perception of neighborhood disadvantage, they may
experience harsher treatment by police—not because the police are
biased to treat Black people in a hostile fashion, but because Black
neighborhoods seem more threatening.

Oh, okay.  It isn’t that people (cops included) are afraid of black people.  They’re afraid of black neighborhoods.  Well, that makes all the difference.

Numerous unarmed white people have been killed by police in the exact same circumstances that unarmed black people have yet it’s not broadcasted ad nauseum on the national media nor are their riots or demonstrations.

Numerous?  Really?  Do you still not get that it isn’t the absolute number, but the rate?  The rate is 5 times higher for blacks.  Your own damned citation says so.  At least read what you copy/paste.  I did.

The police do not shoot black people at a rate higher then civilians would.

See above comment.  Again, what’s your point?  Civilians are biased too?  Granted.

The rage at police is not rational and has no place. They should blame themselves and their communities for the fact that blacks commit crimes five times more then whites even when the socio economic circumstances are the same.

Where’s the cite for that?  Anyone care to bet that whatever he finds is just as relevant to his apparent point as the last one?

Heard of arrest bias?  That bias can influence investigation and arrest rates?  Prosecution bias?  That whites are more likely to have charges reduced or dropped?

This is why I spent so much time on you, though you sure ain’t worth it:

For some reason, out of all the info in that study, you (and Marc Fisher at WaPo) chose to highlight this

“just as black suspects are five times more likely than white suspects to die at the hands of police, police officers are five times more likely to die at the hands of a black suspect than a white suspect.”

Why?  I’m guessing as a rationale.  That the second fact justifies the first.  It’s strange to deny the existence of a problem- which all the sociological research recognizes exists, even if theories to explain it vary- and then seek to rationalize the problem.

So you are basically saying- The blacks aren’t being disproportionately targeted, but really they are and they totally deserve it.

I don’t see how else to interpret your comment. 

Oh, and please tell us more about that rapist gene.

tootiredoftheright;
i think that a lot of what you have been posting on this subkect is reflecting the unconcious bias of your privilege. let me attempt to explain what i am thinking.
here are some things to consider. first, non-white people are raised with the habitual knowledge that they are AUTOMATICALLY suspect. have you heard the phrase “driving while black”? the percentage of random stops of black people, or any people of color really, is MUCH higher than that of white people. meaning that there is always the change that a person of color will be pulled over by a cop MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WHITE. in these cases, there was no actual crime committed - not speeding, or running a light, or not using a blinker - just being obviously not white is suspicious and causes one to be punished. note that just being pulled over is a punishment, it uses time and gas and other resources and it is stressful and may have many other hidden costs. and then, at point, generally the cop - illegally and for not logical reason - will want to search the car, which is an OBVIOUS violation of the 4th amendment, but if one does not submit to it, then they are generally arrested because not submiting is further suspicion.
so that first point is that minorities grow up with the logical, rational, and TRUE belief that they are assumed to be, and viewed by many, as automatically suspicious of being a criminal.
then add in the training most cops and military recieve. believe it or not, MOST of the training they recieve tells them to view people of color with more suspicion. oh, there are occasional “diversity” classes, but these tend to just reinforce the stereotyping concepts; ie, “we all know that those black people are criminal at heart but we can’t say that because the bleeding-heart liberals won’t let us, so we won’t engage in conversation with the minority community - to engage in conversation will be admiting that we think they are suspicious and we can’t have that - and so we will just continue the racial profiling. after all, no matter what the lubruls say we KNOW that they are criminals. even the ones who have committed no crimes. after all, they’re not white, right?”
this is very much a self-fulfilling prophecy. if a person is raised their entire lives knowing that all the authority around him/her is automatically biased and will believe any bad thing about that person, whether or not it is true, that person is generally NOT going to help the police or cooperate with the police, because it is VERY much not in her/his best interest to cooperate with the people who have already judged you to be bad, and are already acting like you ARE bad, even though in many many many instances the person has NOT broken any laws or done anything wrong.

these two things continue to feed each other. constantly. police might be a little more forgiving if the arestee wouldn’t bluster and yell about being arrested for something s/he didn’t do; the person being falsly arrested wouldn’t bluster if s/he didn’t know that the police were already biased against him/her - which cycles back to the police would probably be a bit nicer if…

look, did you even watch the video? if not, i recommend you look for the long version, but here is the story as i understand it. BART officers were called about a fight on the train, and pulled off all the participants. Grant WAS THE PERSON WHO WAS BEING BEATEN (this is what i have read, in the few instances anything about the fight beyond the fact that there was a fight were mentioned). the video shows a few other men handcuffed, and Grant talking to the cops, along the lines of “look, the fight is over, its not a big deal, just let them go, i don’t want to make a fuss”. he originally WAS NOT ARRESTED. it appears that the reason he was cuffed is because the cops were annoyed because he wouldn’t go away.
(continues)

(continued)
then, inexplicably, when Grant had been QUIETLY sitting against the wall, for no reason a couple of cops GRAB him, and FOR NO REASON I CAN SEE AT ALL, THROW him on the ground. they throw him on his stomach, and are pushing on him. one of the cops was leaning his what appeared to be his whole weight on Grant’s neck. any struggle at that point would be total instinct, trying to breath… and in fact, according to the video, Grant barely - BARELY - moved/struggled at all. it’s possible that he said something; there was a lot of white noise at this point and his head was turned away. but he had NOT resisted, was NOT fighting, was NOT presenting ANY FUCKING SORT OF THREAT. his entire crime was being black.

if you wonder why there is an outcry at this instance, but not an instance where it’s a white person being shot? the fact that you are phrasing it that way is kinda why. in many cases, when a minority is shot or beaten or otherwise abused by authority, it happens BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WHITE. it’s generally a clear case of discrimination, abuse of power, and privilege. it DOES NOT HAPPEN that a white male who is not otherwise “obviously” criminal (if the white man does not appear to be Goth or Punk or a biker or a gang member) is treated this way. really. unless they ACTUALLY threaten a police officer, a non-deviant looking white guy is always treated with dignity, even if he is being arrested for murder (the only except being child molesters). in some cases, the crime causes the white guy to be treated with MORE respect, which is fucked up. but women and minorites are open game, are expected and expecting the treatment, and the cycle feeds itself.

i get a very interesting view of all of this, because until i was in my teens it was VERY obvious that i am Cherokee, (and native americans are generally treated the same as mexicans) but i have a disease that, along with many other symptoms, removes melanin from my skin, so that by the time i was 15 or so my skin was light enough that i was inadvertantly mistaken for white… so when i moved to Alabama when i was 16, all of the sudden i WAS white and not red anymore. so i was raised in that oppression, and through no virtue of my own have now escaped from it partially (i am still a woman and still obviously disabled. but laboring under only two handicaps instead of three is a bit less painful).

its really really hard to realize that not being pulled over randomly, or not going to jail for having pot, or serving less time for a violent crime, happens because you are white, not for any actual virtue you possess. that is what “privilege” MEANS in this context - having the privilege of not being systematically oppressed and persecuted BY AUTHORITY for aspects of oneself (like skin color) that are beyond your control. Grant was killed because he did not have the privilege of being white. you think he could have *somehow* prevented that cop from randomly and senselessly killing him somehow because you are privileged to have never experienced that lack of privilege.

i hope this explains this to you in such a way that allows to GET IT now. because sometimes you say things that are kinda insightful, but the you lob bombs like this. sometimes i really do believe you are a person who believes in human rights, and others i think you are a right-wing troll. i hope that you are NOT a troll, which is why i took the time to write all of this. certainly none of the other residents of Pandagon needed it.
as to that, sorry for the thread-jack, all. but i am hoping that i was able to help TTOTR.

oh… um, if i had been paying attention, i would have caught that Rob was making almost these same points. so, sorry for being repetitive, all…

denelian—you were not being repetitive; you have managed to explain white privilege, at least as it pertains to cop-citizen interactions. As a white male I can go anywhere in this country and receive the benefit of the doubt from the police. Only when I was 18-25 did I even receive less-than-respectful treatment from the cops, in proportion I suppose, to my perceived dangerousness.

” percentage of random stops of black people, or any people of color really, is MUCH higher than that of white people. “

Funny that when people actually looked into that they found numerous indicators that made the police pick them up. Namely things broken on the vehicle that would flag whites over, missing tags, being in a high crime rate area.

Sorry but blacks are more likely to commit crimes at a higher rate then the rest of the population. Who do you want the police to concentrate more on the population that doesn’t commit crimes at a higher rate or the one that does.

“That whites are more likely to have charges reduced or dropped?”

Wrong. Blacks get their own charges reduced or dropped at the same rate whites do if the victims are black or the allegation comes from another black.

if the victims are black or the allegation comes from another black.

The stupid. It burns.

Congratulations. You’ve proved that the one person less respect in our society than the black male is the black female.

Tim - how is this in any way different than how you would act with an armed criminal?

And if you can’t tell the difference between the criminals and the cops, doesn’t that say that something has gone very, very wrong?

Hmmm…not much of a difference I guess.  I should have made that much more generic: don’t scare the unstable man with the gun.  Especially if he can summon backup from dozens of his armed friends.

Hector - at least it was useful for SOMEONE. TTOTR obvious refuses to check his privilege, and his assumptions.

hey, jackass, i’ve worked on a few studies about THIS particular phenomenon. white guy gets caught with meth, he is sent to rehab; black, max prison sentence. ever occur to you that the reason some minorities have higher rates of crime is because they are *EXPECTED* to have higher rates of crime? that if you go LOOKING for it, you will find it; if you don’t look for it (as most don’t look for crime in middle-class-white-suburbs) you won’t find it EVEN WHEN IT’S THERE?!?!

oh,fuck it, i don’t know why i’m even wasting my time on a guy who doesn’t want to see.