Off duty, black cops in New York feel threat from fellow police

[her209]

Let us all hope that de Blasio gains the courage of his convictions and abolishes all forms of law enforcement, that last bastion of lawlessness, within New York City. Then it can truly become paradise.

Just hand everyone guns and see if "An armed society is a polite society" is true.

 

[master_shake_]

Just hand everyone guns and see if "An armed society is a polite society" is true.

famous last words.

 

[Jaskalas]

Cops need to realize that this is a real issue, and it's not going away. Their union can't BS a way out of it. They will have to make changes.

Would that change include replacing white cops with black cops?

I'm betting they are still racially profiled then. People of Chicago, for example, know who's shooting them day and night. It's the gangs, and those gangs are rather... mono ethnic.

 

[shira]

But you must admit that if 24 out of 25 Black off duty cops who like to eat discount chicken wings feel nervous or threatened by their whte counterparts that there truly is a deep problem that needs to be solved!! What percentage of those black cops were criminals??

FTFY. How dare you imply that these 25 black NY police officers are representative of ALL black NY police officers. Clearly there's a special demographic here based on, er, food preferences.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

there's real abuse.

That said there's something disingenuous or incredibly naive going on here

Blacks made up 73 percent of the shooting perpetrators in New York in 2011 and were 23 percent of the population.

A number of academics believe those statistics are potentially skewed because police over-focus on black communities, while ignoring crime in other areas.

In essence this says that shootings are not noticed if they happen elsewhere? Like ERs and morgues hide the bodies? I can focus on any area, but if the body counts are lower elsewhere then it makes a hell of a lot of sense to go where they are likely to happen. Let's leave the high crime areas to patrol by racial quota and have more people die. Then the police will be accused of not protecting the black communities. I'm getting tired of stupid. s

 

[DrPizza]

Nearly 90 percent of blacks stopped by the NYPD, for example, are found not to be engaged in any crime.

That means *more than* 10% ARE found to be engaged in some sort of crime. Holy cow, even if it includes carrying pot, I'd never have suspected it was that high. Now, I presume they do stop and frisk white people, but whites probably walk around without a huge fear of stop and frisk. What percentage of the white people that they stop and frisk are found to be engaged in some sort of crime.

That is, blacks in NYC know they have a good chance of being stopped - and more than 10% who are profiled are engaged in some sort of criminal behavior. Yet, it seems (since we don't hear about it), the whites walking around without fear of being stopped (yet some are), apparently aren't engaged in crimes at nearly the same rate.


I also find the justaposition of these two sentences to possibly not be correct:

Blacks made up 73 percent of the shooting perpetrators in New York in 2011 and were 23 percent of the population.

A number of academics believe those statistics are potentially skewed because police over-focus on black communities, while ignoring crime in other areas.

Yes, statistics are skewed due to over-focus on black communities. But, are they implying that shootings in white communities are ignored?? I don't think they are. That is, some crime statistics are skewed, but shooting crimes probably are not skewed. Carrying pot - skewed. Shooting a homeowner, business owner, neighbor, etc. - probably not skewed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, statistics are skewed due to over-focus on black communities. But, are they implying that shootings in white communities are ignored?? I don't think they are. That is, some crime statistics are skewed, but shooting crimes probably are not skewed. Carrying pot - skewed. Shooting a homeowner, business owner, neighbor, etc. - probably not skewed.

That was my point. How the heck do white people hide all the bodies? How do they all avoid medical treatment, which requires the reporting of gunshot wounds regardless of race. It's like the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, The Illumaniti, Skull and Crossbones, and the people from Area 51 all got together to conspire en masse to hide these events. I suspect highly advanced alien technology must have been used as well.

In other words it's so ridiculous alien conspiracies seem far more likely.

 

[fskimospy]

That means *more than* 10% ARE found to be engaged in some sort of crime. Holy cow, even if it includes carrying pot, I'd never have suspected it was that high. Now, I presume they do stop and frisk white people, but whites probably walk around without a huge fear of stop and frisk. What percentage of the white people that they stop and frisk are found to be engaged in some sort of crime.

That is, blacks in NYC know they have a good chance of being stopped - and more than 10% who are profiled are engaged in some sort of criminal behavior. Yet, it seems (since we don't hear about it), the whites walking around without fear of being stopped (yet some are), apparently aren't engaged in crimes at nearly the same rate.


I also find the justaposition of these two sentences to possibly not be correct:

Yes, statistics are skewed due to over-focus on black communities. But, are they implying that shootings in white communities are ignored?? I don't think they are. That is, some crime statistics are skewed, but shooting crimes probably are not skewed. Carrying pot - skewed. Shooting a homeowner, business owner, neighbor, etc. - probably not skewed.

Wait, you thought it was going to be even worse than 90% wrong?

Remember, these are only people who the police believe to be likely engaged in criminal behavior, and the cops are wrong about it 9 out of 10 times. That right there shows that whatever criteria you are using for your system is so completely worthless that you should scrap it immediately.

 

[smackababy]

That was my point. How the heck do white people hide all the bodies? How do they all avoid medical treatment, which requires the reporting of gunshot wounds regardless of race. It's like the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, The Illumaniti, Skull and Crossbones, and the people from Area 51 all got together to conspire en masse to hide these events. I suspect highly advanced alien technology must have been used as well.

In other words it's so ridiculous alien conspiracies seem far more likely.

I don't think it is so much a race based thing, as it is a geographic area with more shootings from the lower socioeconomic classes, who happen to be black. Take Chicago, for instance, the poorer parts are the parts with the most crime. It is unfortunate that those parts are mostly black, but that isn't the determining factor in their crime. Look at Hyde Park, for instance. It is located in the predominately black South Side of Chicago, yet, has a lower crime rate than the surrounding areas. Why? I suspect because it is much more well off than the rest of the south side.

 

[fskimospy]

Let us all hope that de Blasio gains the courage of his convictions and abolishes all forms of law enforcement, that last bastion of lawlessness, within New York City. Then it can truly become paradise.

Clearly anyone who has the temerity to criticize the police in any way wishes to abolish them.

Nothing less than constant, unequivocal praise for the police at all times will be tolerated. As soon as you don't, the nuts come out of the woodwork and start saying you hate cops.

It's always amazing to me how conservatives, who generally dislike strong government power, unionized public employees, and government employees more generally, can't get enough support for the cops. I wonder why this is?

 

[DrPizza]

Wait, you thought it was going to be even worse than 90% wrong?

Remember, these are only people who the police believe to be likely engaged in criminal behavior, and the cops are wrong about it 9 out of 10 times. That right there shows that whatever criteria you are using for your system is so completely worthless that you should scrap it immediately.

No, I didn't expect the police to find evidence of crimes more than 10% of the time. And, though I find the stop and frisk to most likely be a Constitutional violation, I completely disagree with you. If you randomly stopped people from my town, well, I bet you could stop 100% of the people in my town when they're out on the street, and you would find 0% of them are currently wanted or committing some sort of crime. Unless you believe that anywhere near 10% of U.S. citizens are engaged in crime at this very moment, I think a better than 10% rate is incredibly good.

 

[smackababy]

No, I didn't expect the police to find evidence of crimes more than 10% of the time. And, though I find the stop and frisk to most likely be a Constitutional violation, I completely disagree with you. If you randomly stopped people from my town, well, I bet you could stop 100% of the people in my town when they're out on the street, and you would find 0% of them are currently wanted or committing some sort of crime. Unless you believe that anywhere near 10% of U.S. citizens are engaged in crime at this very moment, I think a better than 10% rate is incredibly good.

About 2.2% of the total US population (as of 2011) is currently in the correctional system (in prison, jail, and under correctional supervision). So, over 10% is a very high rate.

 

[rommelrommel]

that's what I thought you would say...nothing!

What do you want me to say? A reporter went out and found 24 cops out of 10000 active and more retired ones that could relate a story of feeling that they were racially profiled. Hard to draw much from that.

 

[shira]

One doesn't expect to find criminal evidence 100% of the time when a criminal is stopped. So, if criminal evidence is found on "more than 10%" of the "profiled" blacks stopped, then it's reasonable to conclude that significantly more than "more than 10%" of the profiled blacks stopped are actually criminals.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I didn't expect the police to find evidence of crimes more than 10% of the time. And, though I find the stop and frisk to most likely be a Constitutional violation, I completely disagree with you. If you randomly stopped people from my town, well, I bet you could stop 100% of the people in my town when they're out on the street, and you would find 0% of them are currently wanted or committing some sort of crime. Unless you believe that anywhere near 10% of U.S. citizens are engaged in crime at this very moment, I think a better than 10% rate is incredibly good.

It wasn't random though, it was 10% of people they thought were acting in a way that indicated they were engaging in criminal activity.

If you're wrong 90% of the time on that, you clearly have no idea what constitutes acting in a way that indicates criminal activity. The right thing to do then is to discontinue those procedures, but that didn't happen.

 

[glenn1]

It wasn't random though, it was 10% of people they thought were acting in a way that indicated they were engaging in criminal activity.

If you're wrong 90% of the time on that, you clearly have no idea what constitutes acting in a way that indicates criminal activity. The right thing to do then is to discontinue those procedures, but that didn't happen.

Then why do you folks in NYC hate blacks enough to subject them to this? Can't you learn how to be tolerant of racial diversity in places like the south where the police don't exhibit this behavior?

 

[senseamp]

Would that change include replacing white cops with black cops?

I'm betting they are still racially profiled then. People of Chicago, for example, know who's shooting them day and night. It's the gangs, and those gangs are rather... mono ethnic.

It's not about race, it's about their tactics. It's about continuous harassment of whole sections of population as a method of policing. It has gone too far, time for police BS is over, they have to do some introspection and change their ways, or this will only get worse. There is no amount of PR their union rep can do to let them keep doing what they have been doing.

 

[rommelrommel]

How stop and frisk is legal I'll never understand.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why do you folks in NYC hate blacks enough to subject them to this? Can't you learn how to be tolerant of racial diversity in places like the south where the police don't exhibit this behavior?

SO ANGRY AND JEALOUS OF NYC.

Honestly guy, just move here already.

 

[shira]

It wasn't random though, it was 10% of people they thought were acting in a way that indicated they were engaging in criminal activity.

If you're wrong 90% of the time on that, you clearly have no idea what constitutes acting in a way that indicates criminal activity. The right thing to do then is to discontinue those procedures, but that didn't happen.

Not finding criminal evidence on someone stopped doesn't mean that the person stopped isn't a criminal. So the police may well be right 50% of the time, but only 20% of that 50% (10% total) actually have incriminating evidence on them.

The courts have authorized DUI checkpoints; clearly a lot less than 10% of those stopped are inebriated. So if the cops are successful 10+% of the time in their "criminality checkpoints," why is that unacceptable?

Yes, a big difference is that police are engaging in "profiling" to get their criminality-checkpoint percentage up to 10%, while there's no "up-front" profiling at DUI checkpoints. But note that there is post-DUI-stop profiling when the cop shines the flashlight in your eyes and asks you a question or two, to help him/her determine if you should be checked more carefully.

In other words, "profiling" always occurs. Cops use their judgement to determine who to investigate more thoroughly. It's up to the courts to decide where to draw the line.

 

[glenn1]

SO ANGRY AND JEALOUS OF NYC.

Honestly guy, just move here already.

Narcissistic much?

And why, don't your police have enough targets already without adding my family? Besides, if I wanted to live in a place where even Joe Biden says has third world infrastructure it would be somewhere with nicer weather than yours.

 

[fskimospy]

Narcissistic much?

And why, don't your police have enough targets already without adding my family? Besides, if I wanted to live in a place where even Joe Biden says has third world infrastructure it would be somewhere with nicer weather than yours.

You're the guy who can't seem to stop telling everyone who will listen about how much he doesn't care about NYC at every chance he gets. It reminds me of the kid in school that would always talk about how much he didn't like the cute girl that sat next to him in class. The lady doth protest too much.

 

[HomerJS]

How stop and frisk is legal I'll never understand.

Its not. Blacks don't have the political clout to stop it.

How long would stop and frisk last if police hung outside financial firms on Wall St, stopping all 50 yr old white guys for random searches since they commit a disproportional amount of white collar crime?

 

[cubby1223]

Its not. Blacks don't have the political clout to stop it.

How long would stop and frisk last if police hung outside financial firms on Wall St, stopping all 50 yr old white guys for random searches since they commit a disproportional amount of white collar crime?

I've said this in a past thread, the clout is there. The nation was at full attention. The only thing this movement had to do was keep itself grounded within the confines of reality. In my opinion, the opportunity was wide open to gain active support of a great many people, but African-American leaders broke the trust especially through continued misrepresentation of the Ferguson incident.

You cannot say to people "Well, while I may have lied and misrepresented this situation, I'm totally honest on this other situation. And, oh, those buildings that were burned down... I don't think that had anything to do with anything we said or did... let us move forward as if those things never happened." Trust doesn't work like that. Attention doesn't work like that.

There are too many things in this world needing fixing, for any person to devote proper time to them all. We all have to budget our time and tackle what is in our ability to do so. And it doesn't make any single person a bad person not to devote time & effort to a given issue.

We will see over the coming months what will shake of everything in NYC. I hope we see some people emerge who are skilled in resolution, rather than our same tried leaders skilled in exploiting continued conflict.

 

[werepossum]

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8-LDW7tWwAI

Pretty much.

Just hand everyone guns and see if "An armed society is a polite society" is true.

Hey, I'm in Tennessee. Everyone here already has guns. And yes, we're very polite. (When sober anyway.)

That means *more than* 10% ARE found to be engaged in some sort of crime. Holy cow, even if it includes carrying pot, I'd never have suspected it was that high. Now, I presume they do stop and frisk white people, but whites probably walk around without a huge fear of stop and frisk. What percentage of the white people that they stop and frisk are found to be engaged in some sort of crime.

That is, blacks in NYC know they have a good chance of being stopped - and more than 10% who are profiled are engaged in some sort of criminal behavior. Yet, it seems (since we don't hear about it), the whites walking around without fear of being stopped (yet some are), apparently aren't engaged in crimes at nearly the same rate.


I also find the justaposition of these two sentences to possibly not be correct:

Yes, statistics are skewed due to over-focus on black communities. But, are they implying that shootings in white communities are ignored?? I don't think they are. That is, some crime statistics are skewed, but shooting crimes probably are not skewed. Carrying pot - skewed. Shooting a homeowner, business owner, neighbor, etc. - probably not skewed.

Let's assume that whites when frisked are found to be committing crimes 1% of the time, merely a tenth the rate of blacks. If frisking nine law abiding citizens without cause to catch one criminal is acceptable, why would frisking ninety-nine law abiding citizens without cause to catch one criminal be unacceptable? Pretty much the same principle.