Page 1 of 3

Race, or Gender - What Metric Drives Police Brutality?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:09 pm
by Galloism
Both, probably.

Let's look at some handy data points to get started. We'll begin with what was universally agreed upon as racist - new york's stop and frisk policy.

I pulled this from the NYCLU (a chapter of ACLU).

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

In 2019, NYPD did stop and frisk to 13,459 people. That's people that they didn't have proof of crime of (and indeed, 66% were abjectly innocent). This is a constitutional violation to start with, but it's also racist:

7,981 were Black (59 percent).
3,869 were Latinx (29 percent).
1,215 were white (9 percent).


A quick google search suggests NYC is 26% hispanic, 26% black, 13% asian, and white 33%. The other 2% are other groups or mixed.

https://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/The ... ods_11.pdf

This suggests that latinos are slightly overrepresented (29%/26%), whites are significantly underrepresented (9%/33%), and black people are significantly overrepresented (59%/26%). Asians are also underrepresented (not cited on NYCLU, but I did a pivot table) at 2.2%/13%.

Men make up about 50% of NYC. They make up between 90.5% (base figure, 12179 / 13459) and 90.8% (12229 / 13459) of the total. This discrepancy is made up of 50 stops where sex wasn't recorded. They're over 9 times as likely to be stopped as women. I also did a pivot table for that, because the NYCLU doesn't mention it.

Whew, it's just as sexist as it is racist.

What about black people vs white people killed by police across the nation?

Well...

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

There's a handy graph here that cannot be ignored:

Image

We see here there's a dramatic increase in death of african american men over white men, with white men coming in at second lowest (substantially above asians, but still relatively low). However, compare that to the figures for women - they're almost nonexistent. It's exceedingly difficult to say black men are targeted for death compared with Asian men, and not make the same observation about men compared with women. Again, there's both a racial and gendered aspect here.

It doesn't count the way that black people get targeted for confrontation and arrest by police right?

Sure, that's an issue. It's also a gendered one, although it's fair to note that gendered discrepancy is slowly decreasing.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/ ... cingwomen/

Image

Well, but black people are more likely to be searched. Also true! This also exists on gender lines. Although this bias is lessening.

Image

Well but black people get longer sentences for the same crimes. True as well! About 10% longer. This is a problem.

But... it's also a gendered issue.

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/f ... hat%20Prof.

After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.


And of course, there's the objection that it's men doing this to men so it doesn't count. It absolutely does count - who's committing the gendered oppression is largely irrelevant to the fact that it occurs, and this is true on racial lines as well - where black police are just as likely to kill black suspects as white police, if not more. This is about a system that encourages this type of bias, not about the individual actor carrying it out.

We need to take a full intersectional approach to this issue, understanding the underpinnings that are leading to this discrepancy in police targeting minorities based on race and sex, especially so black men, and understand the root cause and biases leading to this conclusion. Which is not JUST an issue of police training (although that's an important issue and should not be ignored), but also the social and financial factors that drive police to overpolice in minority areas - namely the crime problems and such that come from the discrimination resulting in poverty issues.

What say ye, NSG?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:59 am
by Stellar Colonies
Yep, gender bias and racial bias are both influencing police brutality, harming people belonging to both of those groups, black men, the most. However, it is promising that the gap seems to be closing over time according to your sources, which suggests that the problem is either being intentionally or unintentionally addressed. There is more work to do of course, and we should be focusing on ending police brutality across the board as speedily as possible.

Some of that disparity is likely real however, with men committing more crimes on average. However, this could be due to them facing harmful social pressures, since it has been documented that greater rates of that sort of thing on a group (poverty, obligatory and stressful social roles, singled-out oppression etc.) tends to drive up their crime rates. So to fully solve the problem, the full solution would have to go beyond just police reform.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:02 am
by Trollzyn the Infinite
Class.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:04 am
by Stellar Colonies
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Class.

Yeah, that could be the largest factor in how badly someone will be brutalized, although the other two contribute to it.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:06 am
by Anatoliyanskiy
Must agree with AN. If the police that a rich person has conducted a felony, then they'll probably (emphasis on probably) just arrest them and move on with their day. If it's a poor person then they will probably brutally attack them and force them into the vehicle. or worse. There is apparently no empathy for the lower class. *sigh*.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:07 am
by Neutraligon
Stellar Colonies wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Class.

Yeah, that could be the largest factor in how badly someone will be brutalized, although the other two contribute to it.

It might not be "class" so much on if the person is wearing cheap looking clothing, etc. If the person looks poor, regardless of if they are poor, they may face more violence.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:07 am
by Estanglia
Seems like both are probably at fault.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Class.


And that.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:37 pm
by Stellar Colonies
Neutraligon wrote:
Stellar Colonies wrote:Yeah, that could be the largest factor in how badly someone will be brutalized, although the other two contribute to it.

It might not be "class" so much on if the person is wearing cheap looking clothing, etc. If the person looks poor, regardless of if they are poor, they may face more violence.

Yeah, the basic appearance is the main factor.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:17 pm
by Nanatsu no Tsuki
It’s a mix of race, gender and probably economic/social class.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:25 pm
by Rojava Free State
Class. They would never have done to Jessie Jackson Jr. what they did to George Floyd.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:26 pm
by Tekania
Race and gender profile trigger more interactions with police. That also drives an aggression factor in officers when they perceived based upon the combined gender and race bias that the person is more of a threat. That being said actual violence tends to be drives more by class as there is a general lack of fear that the poor will be able to afford counsel to bring a case and police are heavily shielded by immunity laws whereby their errors are largely brunt by the tax payers rather than personally and blue-line defense that resists the even disciplinary actions against officers.

This combined dynamic is what gives us our issues.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:35 pm
by Purpelia
Tekania wrote:Race and gender profile trigger more interactions with police. That also drives an aggression factor in officers when they perceived based upon the combined gender and race bias that the person is more of a threat. That being said actual violence tends to be drives more by class as there is a general lack of fear that the poor will be able to afford counsel to bring a case and police are heavily shielded by immunity laws whereby their errors are largely brunt by the tax payers rather than personally and blue-line defense that resists the even disciplinary actions against officers.

This combined dynamic is what gives us our issues.

I don't think it's that. Rather, the poor are just naturally more inclined to be dangerous. Your random middle or upper class person is very unlikely to be involved with violent crime. Where as much of the poor either live off crime or live near to and around those that do which makes them far more likely to resist arrest. And in america that can mean shooting the officer dead without warning. So when it comes to dealing with the poor officers are naturally going to be on edge and prone to employing overwhelming preemptive force.

Now of course, it is my opinion that this is something that needs to be trained away until the police get the mindset that it's better to get killed than to harm an innocent. But that's probably a hard sell.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:42 pm
by Conterale
race, since racism.
sex/gender, since males are seen as more agressive
class, since what's a poor person gonna do? Hire a lawyer?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:46 pm
by Rojava Free State
Anatoliyanskiy wrote:Must agree with AN. If the police that a rich person has conducted a felony, then they'll probably (emphasis on probably) just arrest them and move on with their day. If it's a poor person then they will probably brutally attack them and force them into the vehicle. or worse. There is apparently no empathy for the lower class. *sigh*.


If a wealthy person commits a crime, they usually get let out on bond, then they're given 180 days probation for whatever they did.

If you live where I live and even move wrong, there's a major risk the cops will put you in a choke hold or light you up.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:46 pm
by Purpelia
Conterale wrote:race, since racism.
sex/gender, since males are seen as more agressive
class, since what's a poor person gonna do? Hire a lawyer?

Pull a gun on you. Remember, the poor are not to be trusted.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:49 pm
by Pangurstan
Rojava Free State wrote:
Anatoliyanskiy wrote:Must agree with AN. If the police that a rich person has conducted a felony, then they'll probably (emphasis on probably) just arrest them and move on with their day. If it's a poor person then they will probably brutally attack them and force them into the vehicle. or worse. There is apparently no empathy for the lower class. *sigh*.


If a wealthy person commits a crime, they usually get let out on bond, then they're given 180 days probation for whatever they did.

If you live where I live and even move wrong, there's a major risk the cops will put you in a choke hold or light you up.

If you're a billionaire, traffic laws don't apply to you.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:51 pm
by Rojava Free State
Pangurstan wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
If a wealthy person commits a crime, they usually get let out on bond, then they're given 180 days probation for whatever they did.

If you live where I live and even move wrong, there's a major risk the cops will put you in a choke hold or light you up.

If you're a billionaire, traffic laws don't apply to you.


Billionaires get to have private islands where they can rape teenage girls. Poor people get shot in the back running from police because they were guarding a business.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:55 pm
by Purpelia
Rojava Free State wrote:
Pangurstan wrote:If you're a billionaire, traffic laws don't apply to you.


Billionaires get to have private islands where they can rape teenage girls. Poor people get shot in the back running from police because they were guarding a business.

Sadly true. If the world were fair we'd all have private islands where they can rape teenage girls. Someone should start a movement in that direction.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:56 pm
by Questarian New Yorkshire
None of the above.

Police are basically a mafia with a bureaucracy added and some "accountability."

The purpose of the mafia is to keep order by suppressing petty criminals in exchange for allowing organised crime to happen.

Mafias scale their brutality in relation to how disorderly the place is. Some parts of the United States are extremely disorderly and the police are extremely brutal in keeping order (although they don't do as good a job as mafia). Other parts have no disorder and the police are just normal.

The job of the police is just the same as mafia: keep order. They don't have much of a say in what that order is, that's not their call. If you want less police brutality, change the order, or eliminate the cause of disorder. Other than that the police are just a middleman tool. Reforms will only make the situation worse.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:56 pm
by Questarian New Yorkshire
Purpelia wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
Billionaires get to have private islands where they can rape teenage girls. Poor people get shot in the back running from police because they were guarding a business.

Sadly true. If the world were fair we'd all have private islands where they can rape teenage girls. Someone should start a movement in that direction.
exists already

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:58 pm
by Purpelia
Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:
Purpelia wrote:Sadly true. If the world were fair we'd all have private islands where they can rape teenage girls. Someone should start a movement in that direction.
exists already

Are they actually in favor of private rape islands for everyone? I mean, I doubt it. But it is america so like part of me believes it to be possible. I mean, you guys do have NAMBLA for crying out loud.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:54 pm
by Tekania
Purpelia wrote:
Tekania wrote:Race and gender profile trigger more interactions with police. That also drives an aggression factor in officers when they perceived based upon the combined gender and race bias that the person is more of a threat. That being said actual violence tends to be drives more by class as there is a general lack of fear that the poor will be able to afford counsel to bring a case and police are heavily shielded by immunity laws whereby their errors are largely brunt by the tax payers rather than personally and blue-line defense that resists the even disciplinary actions against officers.

This combined dynamic is what gives us our issues.

I don't think it's that. Rather, the poor are just naturally more inclined to be dangerous. Your random middle or upper class person is very unlikely to be involved with violent crime. Where as much of the poor either live off crime or live near to and around those that do which makes them far more likely to resist arrest. And in america that can mean shooting the officer dead without warning. So when it comes to dealing with the poor officers are naturally going to be on edge and prone to employing overwhelming preemptive force.

Now of course, it is my opinion that this is something that needs to be trained away until the police get the mindset that it's better to get killed than to harm an innocent. But that's probably a hard sell.


I disagree, police more often will use deescalation in cases where the person is of higher class and more likely to get aggressive with lower class. Has nothing to do with the people being "inherently more dangerous" if anything the danger comes from the more upper-class, as deescalation would get employed for fear of reprisal via connections as they upper-class has a tendency to be able to exert political pressure on the department.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:18 pm
by Rojava Free State
Tekania wrote:
Purpelia wrote:I don't think it's that. Rather, the poor are just naturally more inclined to be dangerous. Your random middle or upper class person is very unlikely to be involved with violent crime. Where as much of the poor either live off crime or live near to and around those that do which makes them far more likely to resist arrest. And in america that can mean shooting the officer dead without warning. So when it comes to dealing with the poor officers are naturally going to be on edge and prone to employing overwhelming preemptive force.

Now of course, it is my opinion that this is something that needs to be trained away until the police get the mindset that it's better to get killed than to harm an innocent. But that's probably a hard sell.


I disagree, police more often will use deescalation in cases where the person is of higher class and more likely to get aggressive with lower class. Has nothing to do with the people being "inherently more dangerous" if anything the danger comes from the more upper-class, as deescalation would get employed for fear of reprisal via connections as they upper-class has a tendency to be able to exert political pressure on the department.


I'm 99% convinced that my negative interactions with cops would not have occurred if I was a rich tech tycoon or a politician. It would have been "out for a stroll tonight sir?" And not "put your hands where I can see them. One wrong move and you die motherfucker."

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:22 pm
by Israeli Defense Force
Galloism wrote:Both, probably.

Let's look at some handy data points to get started. We'll begin with what was universally agreed upon as racist - new york's stop and frisk policy.

I pulled this from the NYCLU (a chapter of ACLU).

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

In 2019, NYPD did stop and frisk to 13,459 people. That's people that they didn't have proof of crime of (and indeed, 66% were abjectly innocent). This is a constitutional violation to start with, but it's also racist:

7,981 were Black (59 percent).
3,869 were Latinx (29 percent).
1,215 were white (9 percent).


A quick google search suggests NYC is 26% hispanic, 26% black, 13% asian, and white 33%. The other 2% are other groups or mixed.

https://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/The ... ods_11.pdf

This suggests that latinos are slightly overrepresented (29%/26%), whites are significantly underrepresented (9%/33%), and black people are significantly overrepresented (59%/26%). Asians are also underrepresented (not cited on NYCLU, but I did a pivot table) at 2.2%/13%.


What's the breakdown of crime committed by each group?

Does it correspond with the rates of people stopped and frisked?

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:23 pm
by Rojava Free State
Israeli Defense Force wrote:
Galloism wrote:Both, probably.

Let's look at some handy data points to get started. We'll begin with what was universally agreed upon as racist - new york's stop and frisk policy.

I pulled this from the NYCLU (a chapter of ACLU).

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

In 2019, NYPD did stop and frisk to 13,459 people. That's people that they didn't have proof of crime of (and indeed, 66% were abjectly innocent). This is a constitutional violation to start with, but it's also racist:



A quick google search suggests NYC is 26% hispanic, 26% black, 13% asian, and white 33%. The other 2% are other groups or mixed.

https://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/The ... ods_11.pdf

This suggests that latinos are slightly overrepresented (29%/26%), whites are significantly underrepresented (9%/33%), and black people are significantly overrepresented (59%/26%). Asians are also underrepresented (not cited on NYCLU, but I did a pivot table) at 2.2%/13%.


What's the breakdown of crime committed by each group?

Does it correspond with the rates of people stopped and frisked?


Stopping and frisking random people on the street because their specific race, class or gender commits more crime on average isn't okay. It just breeds resentment.

Also black and brown people on average are treated harsher in the criminal justice system for the same crimes as white folks, like drug possession.