Holder believes ALL cops are racists

[cabri]

Completely ignoring that he is supposed to be the nation's top cop
Or maybe he is proving what many have stated all along

Link

Federal trainers teach cops not only to think twice about stopping or questioning suspects of color, but also to ignore signs of criminal behavior and threat indicators they’ve gleaned from years of street experience. That puts their own lives in danger — and risks the safety of residents.

What’s striking about these federally mandated orders is the lack of evidence investigators found to show cops stopped and arrested black people simply because of bias. They assumed, but couldn’t prove, they targeted blacks due to an automatic and unfair association between them and crime and not because they actually committed crimes.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

The department said “many in the community perceive that pedestrian stops are overused and target minorities.” It admits it couldn’t verify the accuracy of the complaints and never bothered to get the cops’ side of the story.

Just like here at P&N, ignore the evidence and go with the gut; First story is considered to be accurate :thumbsdown:

Since Holder stepped in, crime is up 13% overall in Seattle. But it’s not just minor infractions. It’s the biggies — aggravated assaults up 14%, car theft up a whopping 44% and murders up 21%.

Officers have stopped wearing Tasers and responding to backup calls out of fear their actions will be second-guessed by federal bias monitors. Beat cops have even retreated from suspects “who threatened [them] with death or serious injury.”

Giving back the streets to the criminals.

In Las Vegas, police have banned patrol officers from touching African-American suspects during foot chases. Only partners uninvolved in the chase can step in and use force to arrest the fleeing perp.

In Fayetteville, NC, where Justice started retraining cops in October, searches of black suspects are no longer allowed — even when the suspect gives consent. “Hot-spot” policing in high-crime neighborhoods is also considered biased against blacks.

Some local black law enforcement officials say the notion cops target blacks out of bigotry is wrong. “Every complaint I’ve ever gotten that suggests that an officer is out there making stops and making law-enforcement decisions based solely on race has turned [out] not to be true,” said Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a Democrat.

Social psychologist Lorie Fridell is credited with pioneering the “unconscious bias” theory in policing. She developed her “Fair and Impartial Policing” program with generous grants from Holder’s department and has trained officers in more than 250 precincts and agencies across the country, including Seattle’s.

Like Holder, Fridell wants to ban all criminal profiling that takes a suspect’s race into account. She believes legal definitions of unlawful discrimination are “outdated” and should be broadened to include even unquantifiable prejudice against people of color that occurs “outside our conscious awareness.”
While she admits the link between blacks and crime is statistically strong — African-Americans commit 53% of all murders and are 10 times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites — she trains cops to resist that “stereotype.”

No good deed goes unpunished. When the professionals are ignored by the academics; things get worse.

 

[fskimospy]

Completely ignoring that he is supposed to be the nation's top cop
Or maybe he is proving what many have stated all along

Link

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.


Just like here at P&N, ignore the evidence and go with the gut; First story is considered to be accurate :thumbsdown:

Giving back the streets to the criminals.

No good deed goes unpunished. When the professionals are ignored by the academics; things get worse.

You realize that there is plenty of evidence that cops stop minorities at disproportionately high rates as compared to their actual crime rates, right?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Just like here at P&N, ignore the evidence and go with the gut; First story is considered to be accurate :thumbsdown: ...

Irony.

You realize that's exactly what you did, right? This is an op-ed piece, full of allegations and assertions but almost totally lacking supporting fact. If you check the author's past stories, you'll see he has a blatant agenda. Nonetheless, he told you what you wanted to hear so you went with your gut and accepted his story as accurate.

I think it's an interesting issue that deserves attention, but it needs to be presented by someone who can provide honest and objective facts instead of one-sided propaganda.

 

[cabri]

Irony.

You realize that's exactly what you did, right? This is an op-ed piece, full of allegations and assertions but almost totally lacking supporting fact. If you check the author's past stories, you'll see he has a blatant agenda. Nonetheless, he told you what you wanted to hear so you went with your gut and accepted his story as accurate.

I think it's an interesting issue that deserves attention, but it needs to be presented by someone who can provide honest and objective facts instead of one-sided propaganda.

I would expect that stated facts within the article are easily verifiable.

The author may spin the interpretation of the facts; my comments were based on the facts presented.

 

[fskimospy]

I would expect that stated facts within the article are easily verifiable.

The author may spin the interpretation of the facts; my comments were based on the facts presented.

The author conveniently left out that despite the fact that black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than whites, black people are stopped and searched in far, far greater proportions than their increased likelihood of committing a crime would warrant.

Doesn't that seem like an EXTREMELY important fact to leave out, especially when arguing that such racial profiling is warranted? There's a reason this is published in the NY Post, probably no reputable newspaper would carry it.

 

[Bowfinger]

I would expect that stated facts within the article are easily verifiable.

The author may spin the interpretation of the facts; my comments were based on the facts presented.

There is a difference between assertions and facts. I saw many assertions. Given that this is an op-ed and the author's clear agenda, those assertions need to be verified.

 

[Jimzz]

Is this stewox's alt account? Let me guess its not your fault if its not true?

 

[glenn1]

The author conveniently left out that despite the fact that black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than whites, black people are stopped and searched in far, far greater proportions than their increased likelihood of committing a crime would warrant.

Doesn't that seem like an EXTREMELY important fact to leave out, especially when arguing that such racial profiling is warranted? There's a reason this is published in the NY Post, probably no reputable newspaper would carry it.

So you want the TSA airport screening style checks where we check low-risk people more often just so that people in high risk populations don't get their feelings hurt? Maybe you NY'ers ought to stop being so terrified of your minority populations and unleashing your brownshirt police forces to stomp them down all the time.

 

[fskimospy]

So you want the TSA airport screening style checks where we check low-risk people more often just so that people in high risk populations don't get their feelings hurt?

Or maybe we should simply adopt appropriate police procedures that take into account the likelihood of someone being a criminal. It's funny that you are attacking the stupidity of TSA screening while arguing to keep a policy that is equally stupid, just in the other direction.

Maybe you NY'ers ought to stop being so terrified of your minority populations and unleashing your brownshirt police forces to stomp them down all the time.

Okay? It's always funny to watch you rage against NYC. Jealousy is an ugly thing.

 

[glenn1]

Okay? It's always funny to watch you rage against NYC. Jealousy is an ugly thing.

Found this picture of you.

 

[Meghan54]

Nice selfie, glenn.

 

[werepossum]

Found this picture of you.

Wow. Don't think I've ever seen anyone with more head below the chin than above the eyes.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is a difference between assertions and facts. I saw many assertions. Given that this is an op-ed and the author's clear agenda, those assertions need to be verified.

There's also the small matter that correlation is not causation. Well, except in the minds of Right-twits who need for it to be to maintain their beliefs.

 

[PokerGuy]

What do you expect when you put an incompetent and racist like Holder in charge of the DOJ??

 

[sportage]

When it comes to ongoing disproportionate treatment in general towards any people regardless, eventually anyone on the receiving side would lose their cool.
That is human nature.

I remember the episode from 3RD Rock From The Sun, where Dr Solomon was constantly charged for crackers in the cafeteria. No one else was, just him.
Just shows people can reach a limit. Everyone does.

I'm still waiting for Obama to say to John Boehner, "you won't pass this law just because I'm BLACK".
Because we all know that is exactly why Boehner won't.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm still waiting for Obama to say to John Boehner, "you won't pass this law just because I'm BLACK".
Because we all know that is exactly why Boehner won't.

Uh, no, "we all" don't "know" that, only stupid idiots believe that. It's nothing but you projecting your own racism onto others.

 

[Jhhnn]

What do you expect when you put an incompetent and racist like Holder in charge of the DOJ??

I expect mindless characterizations & incoherent raving like your own.

Anything to keep the Faith, right?

The NYP isn't really a newspaper, given that it's lost money every year for over 20 years. It's a propaganda organ of the Murdoch empire. Anybody who grants it credibility is a well indoctrinated fool, particularly wrt its opinion pages.

What passes for learned opinion on the Right is merely regurgitated drivel.

 

[glenn1]

Uh, no, "we all" don't "know" that, only stupid idiots believe that. It's nothing but you projecting your own racism onto others.

It's both sad and a bit dangerous that the left is starting to believe their own rhetoric. I'd much prefer they don't stay in their own echo chamber rather than reexamining their beliefs and those of the opposition, especially after an opportunity like the wipeout election loss they just suffered. Instead lately they don't even bother to ponder whether their positions appeal to the voter and just assume the voters are wrong ("What's the matter with Kansas").

 

[fskimospy]

It's both sad and a bit dangerous that the left is starting to believe their own rhetoric. I'd much prefer they don't stay in their own echo chamber rather than reexamining their beliefs and those of the opposition, especially after an opportunity like the wipeout election loss they just suffered. Instead lately they don't even bother to ponder whether their positions appeal to the voter and just assume the voters are wrong ("What's the matter with Kansas").

Can you tell me what positions of yours you reconsidered after 2008 or 2012, especially considering the fact that far more people voted in those elections and the democratic margin of victory was larger?

I'm just wondering if you bothered to ponder whether your positions appealed to the voter.

 

[fskimospy]

It's also funny to see conservatives interpret 51% of the popular vote in house elections as an enormous mandate/victory but ignore the fact that Obama won re-election with about the same margin.

Is 51% a mandate or not? You can't have it both ways.

 

[drebo]

You realize that there is plenty of evidence that cops stop minorities at disproportionately high rates as compared to their actual crime rates, right?

If racial profiling is effective (and let's face it, everywhere else in the world does it, and it IS effective,) why not use it?

Affraid you're going to hurt a criminal's feelings?

The PC police are ruining this country. Holder is a racist and white guilt is going way too far.

If black people commit 53% of all murders, doesn't it make sense to look at them 53% more closely when there's a murder in a black neighborhood?

 

[fskimospy]

If racial profiling is effective (and let's face it, everywhere else in the world does it, and it IS effective,) why not use it?

Affraid you're going to hurt a criminal's feelings?

The PC police are ruining this country. Holder is a racist and white guilt is going way too far.

If black people commit 53% of all murders, doesn't it make sense to look at them 53% more closely when there's a murder in a black neighborhood?

1. Can you provide me with evidence that racial profiling is an effective use of police resources? I can provide you with research that says it is not. So no, we won't be accepting that it is effective.

2. Do you realize that black people are in fact scrutinized by law enforcement far in excess of their higher crime rate?

With these things in mind, do you want to revise anything you wrote?

 

[glenn1]

Can you tell me what positions of yours you reconsidered after 2008 or 2012, especially considering the fact that far more people voted in those elections and the democratic margin of victory was larger?

I'm just wondering if you bothered to ponder whether your positions appealed to the voter.

I dropped support for partial birth abortion bans, Alaska ANWR drilling, and maintaining tax cuts for the top earners. Not thrilled about Obama's Afghanistan approach at first but know give him benefit of the doubt. Wall Street and auto company bailouts were basically done deal by election time so that's moot. Wasn't thrilled with the "stimulus" but willing to go along after the election but think he squandered it tremendously by alloting it to states/municipalities and boondoggles like "cash for clunkers."

OTOH, I was ahead of Obama regarding gay marriage and glad to see he's come around and still hoping he'll actually honor his earlier position about FISA/NSA spying.

 

[fskimospy]

I dropped support for partial birth abortion bans, Alaska ANWR drilling, and maintaining tax cuts for the top earners. Not thrilled about Obama's Afghanistan approach at first but know give him benefit of the doubt. Wall Street and auto company bailouts were basically done deal by election time so that's moot. Wasn't thrilled with the "stimulus" but willing to go along after the election but think he squandered it tremendously by alloting it to states/municipalities and boondoggles like "cash for clunkers."

OTOH, I was ahead of Obama regarding gay marriage and glad to see he's come around and still hoping he'll actually honor his earlier position about FISA/NSA spying.

So basically tax cuts for the rich. Still, that's something! What do you think democrats should change?

 

[glenn1]

So basically tax cuts for the rich. Still, that's something! What do you think democrats should change?

Well, returning to the topic at hand, ending the practice of second-guessing cases like this by having the Justice Department prosecute for "civil rights violations" would be a good start. Having the POTUS stop saying counterproductive things like "if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon Martin" would be good also.