US police are equally violent to all races finds study

Nessie · 26th July 2016, 07:47 AM

Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...counters-study

“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said."

This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study;

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.

Newtons Bit · 26th July 2016, 07:48 AM

Quote:

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

..... what?

Nessie · 26th July 2016, 07:49 AM

I know, that figure needs checking.

caveman1917 · 26th July 2016, 08:00 AM

Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US?

Nessie · 26th July 2016, 08:00 AM

It is also reported here

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN1052G1

"(Reuters Health) - An estimated 55,400 people were injured as a result of legal police interventions in the U.S. in 2012, a study found.......That year, according to the website of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, law enforcement made an estimated 12.2 million arrests, including more than half a million for violent crimes.
Miller and colleagues pooled information from several nationwide databases to estimate nonfatal injuries resulting from legal police interventions.
An estimated 1 in every 291 stops or arrests resulted in a death or medically treated injury, and this rate did not differ significantly between racial or ethnic groups, according to the researchers."

Nessie · 26th July 2016, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US?

I wanted to check it because it seems very high.

caveman1917 · 26th July 2016, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I wanted to check it because it seems very high.

How many experiences (stops/arrests/...) have you had with cops? That number really doesn't seem to be particularly high to me.

Pup · 26th July 2016, 08:12 AM

Are they including the target of the stop as a bystander? Couldn't tell from the article, but that's not what I'd think.

If they mean the normal definition of bystander, such as a witness, or a person passing by in a car or bicycle, or a passenger in the car, or a neighbor--somebody nearby but not the focus of the police stop--that's astounding. Why? How? Bad aim? Did the bystanders start attacking the police? The number should be close to zero, if the bystanders are just hanging out being bystanders.

Nessie · 26th July 2016, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by caveman1917

How many experiences (stops/arrests/...) have you had with cops? That number really doesn't seem to be particularly high to me.

Well it seems high to me as I do not know of anyone hospitalised or killed during a stop check in Scotland and there are few reports of hospitalisations during arrests. I also cannot find any reports of deaths during arrests.

caveman1917 · 26th July 2016, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Well it seems high to me as I do not know of anyone hospitalised or killed during a stop check in Scotland and there are few reports of hospitalisations during arrests. I also cannot find any reports of deaths during arrests.

But these are numbers on US police, they are probably much less likely to shoot people in Scotland. In the US they shoot and kill more than 3 people per day, even accounting for population difference police in Belgium do not come even remotely close. I guess the same is true for Scotland.

cullennz · 26th July 2016, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

Be interesting to know how many of these were found to be totally innocent

TheGoldcountry · 26th July 2016, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Be interesting to know how many of these were found to be totally innocent

It would be difficult to judge. Dead people don't get trials. A civil trial directed at the LEO(s) might find them culpable in some way, and that still wouldn't exonerate the offender. Scary all around.

deadrose · 26th July 2016, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

It would be difficult to judge. Dead people don't get trials. A civil trial directed at the LEO(s) might find them culpable in some way, and that still wouldn't exonerate the offender. Scary all around.

That would only happen if states hadn't passed laws making it nearly impossible to prosecute an officer for anything involving their jobs. Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time.

As far as civil trials go, people frequently win quite a lot of money - but it comes with a nondisclosure order, so the findings are sealed and so are everyone's lips.

fuelair · 26th July 2016, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I wanted to check it because it seems very high.

Except for republickers, we wish it could be considered high!!!!! republickers are cool with it until it is them.

BStrong · 26th July 2016, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by deadrose

That would only happen if states hadn't passed laws making it nearly impossible to prosecute an officer for anything involving their jobs. Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time.

As far as civil trials go, people frequently win quite a lot of money - but it comes with a nondisclosure order, so the findings are sealed and so are everyone's lips.

In the case of settlements involving municipalities defending against charges of excessive force or wrongful death, not so much.

They have been used by particular jurisdictions (Baltimore Md. first comes to mind) but in California, even out-of-court settlements are covered by the state Sunshine law (Brown Act) and many municipalities have a section of city code that specifically limits the use of NDA's - here's S.F.'s:

(3) Settlement: A policy body shall neither solicit nor agree to any term in a settlement which would preclude the release of the text of the settlement itself and any related documentation communicated to or received from the adverse party or parties. Any written settlement agreement and any documents attached to or referenced in the settlement agreement shall be made publicly available at least 10 calendar days before the meeting of the policy body at which the settlement is to be approved to the extent that the settlement would commit the City or a department thereof to adopting, modifying, or discontinuing an existing policy, practice or program or otherwise acting other than to pay an amount of money less than $50,000. The agenda for any meeting in which a settlement subject to this section is discussed shall identify the names of the parties, the case number, the court, and the material terms of the settlement. Where the disclosure of documents in a litigation matter that has been settled could be detrimental to the city”s interest in pending litigation arising from the same facts or incident and involving a party not a party to or otherwise aware of the settlement, the documents required to be disclosed by subdivision (b) of this section need not be disclosed until the other case is settled or otherwise finally concluded.

Skeptic Ginger · 26th July 2016, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...counters-study

“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said."

This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study;

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.

So your rationale is, because blacks get stopped more, the police inflict more violence on them?

The OP needs editing. Your conclusion is faulty.

Did you think that was the variable in question? The issue is why are they being stopped more often. Police argue it's because they commit more crime. But the school to prison pipeline among many other things is also part of the problem, as is racial profiling as is stopping the blacks who aren't committing crimes in those crime ridden neighborhoods, the courts giving blacks longer sentences and on and on and on.

Cylinder · 26th July 2016, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by deadrose

Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time.

You've asserted that before and it is fundamentally wrong. Any law that set such a requirement would be blatantly unconstitutional via the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The statutory element is "malice" which can be defined as "evil intent." You seem to be restricting the word intent to mean only purposeful planning. That's just not the case.

Example: Angered over forum posts, you do some act -- for example, push me down stairs. That satisfies that statutory element of malice regardless of any finding of planning. It's motive and not intent. Why you acted instead of how.

Also, your characterization omits another required statutory element -- that of "a good faith belief that such act is justifiable..."

RCW 9A.16.040 -- Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

So, if a police officer uses deadly force with malice (not necessary pre-planning) or acts without a good-faith belief that the force is used to prevent the enumerated threats then they are subject to prosecution.

sir drinks-a-lot · 26th July 2016, 05:59 PM

I'm guessing this will be a very unpopular study.

Ammonitida · 26th July 2016, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

I'm guessing this will be a very unpopular study.

Indeed. All BLM activists have on their side are "disparity" studies that do not control for things like the mean age of the population on the road (in many of the neighborhoods where these studies are conducted, the white population is disproportionately elderly and thus less likely to behave recklessly while driving and less likely to be on the road) and the type of cars driven (studies have shown that blacks are more likely drive beat up cars, resulting in more stops for broken tail lights).

The New Jersey Turnpike study was the most rigorous done, and it did not support the notion of racial profiling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/ny...ew-jersey.html

Noztradamus · 26th July 2016, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...counters-study

“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said."

This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study;

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.

Why is the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation located in Maryland?

Quote:

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh"

Mumbles · 26th July 2016, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Why is the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation located in Maryland?

Because it's near Washington, D.C., which is where they likely get their funding.

Mumbles · 26th July 2016, 07:25 PM

As to the study...um, yeah, non-black people can catch it, too. That's not the only question.

There's also the rush to justify, if not outright celebrate, violence against black people at the hands of police or vigilantes, as we've seen in many incidents over the past few years, as well as the overall indifference towards black people in general, and the view of society-created problems as up to only black people to fix.

And as SG said, there's also issues like school punishments falling on black students more harshly, as well as police being much more likely to be called into schools to deal with black and Hispanic students. And yes, the habitual stereotyping of Hispanic/Latino people as "illegals".

Puppycow · 26th July 2016, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Why is the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation located in Maryland?

Seems they were founded in San Fransisco but at some point moved to Maryland. I guess they decided to not change the name.

http://www.pire.org/overview.aspx

Quote:

History

PIRE was founded as a 501(c) (3) organization in San Francisco, CA in 1974, when a group of allied scientists were among the first to recognize the dangers inherent in the emergence of widespread drug use. The Institute developed and disseminated some of the earliest prevention strategies. Since then, PIRE has broadened its scope to encompass many of the most serious threats to human health and safety.

Nonprofit Status

PIRE is a California-chartered, not-for-profit corporation, that qualifies for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)3 of the IRS code. Annual form 990s are available on this website.

They now have centers in several states, but I suppose the Maryland one is the official headquarters:

http://www.pire.org/centers.aspx

Quote:

Locations/Centers

PIRE research and program centers are located across the country. PIRE’s Centers have both common and specialty areas of research, policy analysis, program development and implementation, program evaluation, clinical trials, and training and technical assistance in various substantive areas of public health and safety. The geographic diversity of centers enables PIRE to better accommodate large-scale national and international projects.

Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest - Albuquerque, New Mexico
Decision Sciences Institute - Pawtucket, Rhode Island
PIRE Calverton Center - Calverton, Maryland
PIRE Chapel Hill Center - Chapel Hill, North Carolina
PIRE Louisville Center -Louisville, Kentucky
Prevention Research Center - Oakland, California

Puppycow · 26th July 2016, 07:44 PM

So, short version is: If you get stopped, your odds of ending up either dead or in the hospital are the same, but if you are black, your odds of getting stopped in the first place are considerably higher.

And if you are black, the reason could be that you are driving a nice car and the officer thinks it might be a stolen car. Here's an interesting perspective from that rarest of creatures, a black Republican:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/13/1218407...-police-racism
There really is such a thing as getting pulled over by a cop just for being black:

Quote:

On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina gave a heartfelt speech in which he spoke about some of the abuses by police that he, as a black man, had dealt with. The speech, Scott said, was meant to show that in some instances — he insisted that most cops mean well — police officers are in the wrong, targeting someone solely because of his skin color.

Quote:

Scott said he had been stopped seven times by police officers in the course of one year as an elected official. "Was I speeding sometimes? Sure," Scott acknowledged. "But the vast majority of the time, I was pulled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or some other reason just as trivial."

"I was following a friend of mine, we had just left working out, and we were heading to Outback to grab a bite to eat at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon," Scott said. "He pulls out, I pull out right behind him. We’re driving down the road, and the blue lights come on. Officer pulls me into the median, and he starts telling me that he thinks perhaps the car is stolen."

Scott added, "Well, I started asking myself, because I was smart enough to not ask him, ‘Is the license plate coming in as stolen? Does the license plate match the car?’ I was looking for some rational reason that may have prompted him to stopping me on the side of the road."

Scott also shared a story from his brother, who became a command sergeant major in the US Army, the highest rank possible for an enlisted soldier: When he drove from Texas to South Carolina, a police officer pulled him over, wanting to know if the car was stolen because it was a Volvo. Scott also shared the story of a former staffer, who was pulled over while driving "a nice car" — a Chrysler 300 — so many times in Washington, DC, that he sold the vehicle and bought a more obscure one to avoid police targeting him.

"I do not know many African-American men who do not have a very similar story to tell no matter the profession, no matter their income, no matter their disposition in life," Scott said. He later added, "Imagine the frustration, the irritation, the sense of a loss of dignity that accompanies each of those stops."

So "driving a nice car while black" is a real reason why a police officer might pull someone over. Unless the Republican senator is just making it up. Seems unlikely.

Ammonitida · 26th July 2016, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ammonitida

Indeed. All BLM activists have on their side are "disparity" studies that do not control for things like the mean age of the population on the road (in many of the neighborhoods where these studies are conducted, the white population is disproportionately elderly and thus less likely to behave recklessly while driving and less likely to be on the road) and the type of cars driven (studies have shown that blacks are more likely drive beat up cars, resulting in more stops for broken tail lights).

The New Jersey Turnpike study was the most rigorous done, and it did not support the notion of racial profiling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/ny...ew-jersey.html

Here are some quotes directly from the source

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...16-042023.full

Quote:

Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites,45 and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.46–48 A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation.6 However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks.7 The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied.14 The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance.

The study cites three papers that argue against the driving while black issue, including the New Jersey Turn Pike study previously cited by me (this means that study is not isolated). Further, the study references a meta analysis conducted on the use of police force, and this paper finds only one outlier showing racial bias.

Pope130 · 26th July 2016, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study;

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.

One thing that may be a factor in the seemingly high number of bystander casualties is traffic deaths. It's not unusual in high speed pursuits for the fleeing vehicle (or more rarely one of the pursuit vehicles) to crash, often injuring innocent third parties.

William Parcher · 27th July 2016, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

...And if you are black, the reason could be that you are driving a nice car and the officer thinks it might be a stolen car...

So "driving a nice car while black" is a real reason why a police officer might pull someone over. Unless the Republican senator is just making it up. Seems unlikely.

How can the individual police and their departments support the unproductive waste-of-time-and-effort behavior of pulling over blacks in "nice cars" in order to see if it is stolen? I would speculate that at any given time more than 99% of vehicles being driven on roads are not stolen regardless of the race of the driver and the "niceness" of the vehicle.

I would expect cops to just abandon this behavior (if it exists) because it is so unproductive. They would learn that there is no meaningful correlation between nice car/black driver/stolen vehicle. Also, aren't there cop bosses who could say, "Look Ralph, you've pulled over 50 cars this month on suspicion of theft and none of them were stolen. It's time to stop doing that."?

TheGoldcountry · 27th July 2016, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

How can the individual police and their departments support the unproductive waste-of-time-and-effort behavior of pulling over blacks in "nice cars" in order to see if it is stolen? I would speculate that at any given time more than 99% of vehicles being driven on roads are not stolen regardless of the race of the driver and the "niceness" of the vehicle.

I would expect cops to just abandon this behavior (if it exists) because it is so unproductive. They would learn that there is no meaningful correlation between nice car/black driver/stolen vehicle. Also, aren't there cop bosses who could say, "Look Ralph, you've pulled over 50 cars this month on suspicion of theft and none of them were stolen. It's time to stop doing that."?

Very non-productive philosophy. I would wager that most of society isn't doing anything wrong at any given time. Why wait? Quotas might be officially forbidden, but hey, if you want a promotion, the guy who writes up the least offenders might be at the bottom of the list.

Bikewer · 27th July 2016, 07:18 AM

Often, when police approach a suspicious individual for whatever reason (either citizen complaint or probable cause/reasonable suspicion) the encounter will go swimmingly up to the moment that it's found that the individual is wanted, armed, or carrying contraband.
When the individual realizes that he's about to be arrested, things can very often go south... The pursuit or wrestling match is on.
With all department policies that I'm familiar with, ANY injury to the suspect must be documented and the individual must be certified as "fit for confinement" by a medical facility.

This would include scrapes inflicted while trying to wrestle the handcuffs on to the fellow or skinned knees from rolling around on the ground. All "uses of force" must be documented as well, and handcuffing, even without any resistance at all, is considered a "use of force".

It's been my experience that a sort of panic reaction often sets in, even with people who have been cooperative up until the point where the magic words ("You are under arrest.") are spoken...
Then its..."Oh no, I can't go to JAIL!" And the fight begins.

I've seen it many times, and I don't know what can be done to mitigate this. Most of us try to talk the individual into cooperative behavior, as resistings tend to be injurious, painful, and involve a lot of extra paperwork. But often it just doesn't work.

William Parcher · 27th July 2016, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Very non-productive philosophy. I would wager that most of society isn't doing anything wrong at any given time. Why wait? Quotas might be officially forbidden, but hey, if you want a promotion, the guy who writes up the least offenders might be at the bottom of the list.

?

If quotas for promotion are in place then the cop pulling over suspected auto thefts is going to be passed by and not promoted. He will have no arrests to show for his efforts. Ralph stopped 50 cars in one month on suspicion of auto theft but made no arrests because none of those cars were stolen. What sort of quota is met with this behavior? My speculation is that Ralph is on track for non-promotion.

luchog · 27th July 2016, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

So "driving a nice car while black" is a real reason why a police officer might pull someone over. Unless the Republican senator is just making it up. Seems unlikely.

About a dozen or so years ago, the local papers ran a story about black city councilmember who had a similar experience, except he was actually pulled from his car and assaulted by police officers, simply for being in a nice car in the wrong part of town. And this in one of the supposedly most liberal cities in the US, with one of the highest paid police departments. There's simply no excuse for that sort of thing.

Mumbles · 27th July 2016, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

?

If quotas for promotion are in place then the cop pulling over suspected auto thefts is going to be passed by and not promoted. He will have no arrests to show for his efforts. Ralph stopped 50 cars in one month on suspicion of auto theft but made no arrests because none of those cars were stolen. What sort of quota is met with this behavior? My speculation is that Ralph is on track for non-promotion.

So he finds other reasons to arrest/fine people instead. "Uh...you didn't use your turn signal correctly/come to a complete stop at that sign/your window is too heavily tinted according to my poorly-trained eye/were arrested for resisting arrest/etc."

Boom, done.

William Parcher · 27th July 2016, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

So he finds other reasons to arrest/fine people instead. "Uh...you didn't use your turn signal correctly/come to a complete stop at that sign/your window is too heavily tinted according to my poorly-trained eye/were arrested for resisting arrest/etc."

Boom, done.

If a driver doesn't use a turn signal or doesn't stop at a stopsign then they can be pulled over and cited because they have broken a law. It's routine to call in the license plate to see if everything is ok with that.

Putting that aside, I suspect that many incidents of moving violations involve a cop who doesn't/can't see the race or gender of the driver until after they have turned on the flashing lights and executed the traffic stop. IOW, they observed a moving violation but they don't yet know who is driving. They find out the race of the driver after they have been stopped for the observed violation.

jimbob · 27th July 2016, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Quote:

"Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed"

..... what?

Originally Posted by Nessie

I know, that figure needs checking.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US?

Originally Posted by Nessie

I wanted to check it because it seems very high.

Indeed. Bystanders are not involved in the stop

rockinkt · 27th July 2016, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Scott said he had been stopped seven times by police officers in the course of one year as an elected official. "Was I speeding sometimes? Sure," Scott acknowledged. "But the vast majority of the time, I was pulled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or some other reason just as trivial."

Sorry - but the way he worded this sets off my spidey senses.
"Seven times" of which he was "speeding sometimes." but the "vast majority. was because he was "driving a new car" or "something trivial".
Since when is "vast majority" used to describe a number less than 4 or 5???
What is "something trivial" in his mind? Are all traffic laws "trivial"?

Sounds to me like a made up story to get votes by "identifying" with his black constituents. But of course - we know that politicians never lie to get votes.

mikado · 27th July 2016, 01:49 PM

reading stuff like this makes me glad I don't live in the u.s.
on my infrequent contact with cops, they have been polite, smiling and safe.
even when issuing a speeding ticket.
the last time a cop stopped me was for a random breath test, obviously it's apparent that I wasn't much threat , he asked me if I had any guns, drugs, bombs,weapons of mass destruction, then laughed loudly..... much prefer that sort of interaction.

Mumbles · 27th July 2016, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Putting that aside, I suspect that many incidents of moving violations involve a cop who doesn't/can't see the race or gender of the driver until after they have turned on the flashing lights and executed the traffic stop. IOW, they observed a moving violation but they don't yet know who is driving. They find out the race of the driver after they have been stopped for the observed violation.

This has generally not been my experience.

William Parcher · 27th July 2016, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

This has generally not been my experience.

How do you gain that experience?

PhantomWolf · 27th July 2016, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I know, that figure needs checking.

I agree, so I did some quick checks.

First off, the term Bystander, as noted, seems to be being applied incorrectly, because otherwise bystanders are being injured more then those being stopped/arrested.

Second, even so their figures seem out.

The DOJ reports over 40 Million Police/Public interactions a year, so with their injury figures, that is 1 in at least 722 interactions.

Secondly, the figure needs to be taken into context.

It is unlikely that your odds of getting injured or killed are the same regardless of the stop and how it proceeds. One in 300 people stopped at traffic stops are not getting injured or killed.

Consider also that there are ~50,000 assaults on Law Enforcement Officers each year according to the FBI

It's interesting that this figure and those estimated to be injured are similar. This to me would indicate that if you resist the stop or arrest, you're more likely to be injured than if you don't.

Finally, of we go back to the DOJ's stats, then only 1.4% overall of those being stopped by police had force threatened or used against them. That works out at about 560,000 people, so if the estimates are correct, then only 10% of those people received injures, we're looking at 0.14% of all the stops and arrests done in a year, and a very similar number to where Police Officers themselves are assaulted.

So based on the figures available, a fraction of those deal with in a year experience the threat or use of force, and a fraction of them, which is about the same number as Officers assaulted, receive injuries.

I'd say that based on this, the study does need to be checked.

Fudbucker · 27th July 2016, 03:19 PM

Did it say how many police stops are due to medical reasons? If a cop stops a person who's driving erratically, and they're having a heart attack, it's going to lead to either a death or hospitalization. Same with a couple pulled over for speeding and the wife is in labor. Those kinds of scenarios are bound to happen.

26th July 2016, 07:47 AM	#1
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,132	US police are equally violent to all races finds study Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...counters-study “What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said." This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study; "Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed" That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic Last edited by Nessie; 26th July 2016 at 07:48 AM.

26th July 2016, 07:48 AM	#2
Newtons Bit Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 10,016	Quote: "Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed" ..... what?
	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

26th July 2016, 07:49 AM	#3
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,132	I know, that figure needs checking.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

26th July 2016, 08:00 AM	#4
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 8,089	Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US?
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 8,089	__________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

26th July 2016, 08:00 AM	#5
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,132	It is also reported here http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN1052G1 "(Reuters Health) - An estimated 55,400 people were injured as a result of legal police interventions in the U.S. in 2012, a study found.......That year, according to the website of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, law enforcement made an estimated 12.2 million arrests, including more than half a million for violent crimes. Miller and colleagues pooled information from several nationwide databases to estimate nonfatal injuries resulting from legal police interventions. An estimated 1 in every 291 stops or arrests resulted in a death or medically treated injury, and this rate did not differ significantly between racial or ethnic groups, according to the researchers."
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

26th July 2016, 08:02 AM	#6
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,132	Originally Posted by caveman1917 Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US? I wanted to check it because it seems very high.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

26th July 2016, 08:03 AM	#7
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 8,089	Originally Posted by Nessie I wanted to check it because it seems very high. How many experiences (stops/arrests/...) have you had with cops? That number really doesn't seem to be particularly high to me.
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 8,089	__________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

26th July 2016, 08:12 AM	#8
Pup Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,679	Are they including the target of the stop as a bystander? Couldn't tell from the article, but that's not what I'd think. If they mean the normal definition of bystander, such as a witness, or a person passing by in a car or bicycle, or a passenger in the car, or a neighbor--somebody nearby but not the focus of the police stop--that's astounding. Why? How? Bad aim? Did the bystanders start attacking the police? The number should be close to zero, if the bystanders are just hanging out being bystanders.
Pup Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,679

26th July 2016, 08:28 AM	#9
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,132	Originally Posted by caveman1917 How many experiences (stops/arrests/...) have you had with cops? That number really doesn't seem to be particularly high to me. Well it seems high to me as I do not know of anyone hospitalised or killed during a stop check in Scotland and there are few reports of hospitalisations during arrests. I also cannot find any reports of deaths during arrests.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

26th July 2016, 08:32 AM	#10
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 8,089	Originally Posted by Nessie Well it seems high to me as I do not know of anyone hospitalised or killed during a stop check in Scotland and there are few reports of hospitalisations during arrests. I also cannot find any reports of deaths during arrests. But these are numbers on US police, they are probably much less likely to shoot people in Scotland. In the US they shoot and kill more than 3 people per day, even accounting for population difference police in Belgium do not come even remotely close. I guess the same is true for Scotland.
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 8,089	__________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

26th July 2016, 02:14 PM	#11
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 20,072	Originally Posted by Nessie "Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed" Be interesting to know how many of these were found to be totally innocent
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

26th July 2016, 02:24 PM	#12
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 5,961	Originally Posted by cullennz Be interesting to know how many of these were found to be totally innocent It would be difficult to judge. Dead people don't get trials. A civil trial directed at the LEO(s) might find them culpable in some way, and that still wouldn't exonerate the offender. Scary all around.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

26th July 2016, 02:34 PM	#13
deadrose Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: the wet side of the mountains Posts: 3,582	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry It would be difficult to judge. Dead people don't get trials. A civil trial directed at the LEO(s) might find them culpable in some way, and that still wouldn't exonerate the offender. Scary all around. That would only happen if states hadn't passed laws making it nearly impossible to prosecute an officer for anything involving their jobs. Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time. As far as civil trials go, people frequently win quite a lot of money - but it comes with a nondisclosure order, so the findings are sealed and so are everyone's lips.

26th July 2016, 02:37 PM	#14
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Nessie I wanted to check it because it seems very high. Except for republickers, we wish it could be considered high!!!!! republickers are cool with it until it is them.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

26th July 2016, 03:20 PM	#15
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,087	Originally Posted by deadrose That would only happen if states hadn't passed laws making it nearly impossible to prosecute an officer for anything involving their jobs. Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time. As far as civil trials go, people frequently win quite a lot of money - but it comes with a nondisclosure order, so the findings are sealed and so are everyone's lips. In the case of settlements involving municipalities defending against charges of excessive force or wrongful death, not so much. They have been used by particular jurisdictions (Baltimore Md. first comes to mind) but in California, even out-of-court settlements are covered by the state Sunshine law (Brown Act) and many municipalities have a section of city code that specifically limits the use of NDA's - here's S.F.'s: (3) Settlement: A policy body shall neither solicit nor agree to any term in a settlement which would preclude the release of the text of the settlement itself and any related documentation communicated to or received from the adverse party or parties. Any written settlement agreement and any documents attached to or referenced in the settlement agreement shall be made publicly available at least 10 calendar days before the meeting of the policy body at which the settlement is to be approved to the extent that the settlement would commit the City or a department thereof to adopting, modifying, or discontinuing an existing policy, practice or program or otherwise acting other than to pay an amount of money less than $50,000. The agenda for any meeting in which a settlement subject to this section is discussed shall identify the names of the parties, the case number, the court, and the material terms of the settlement. Where the disclosure of documents in a litigation matter that has been settled could be detrimental to the city”s interest in pending litigation arising from the same facts or incident and involving a party not a party to or otherwise aware of the settlement, the documents required to be disclosed by subdivision (b) of this section need not be disclosed until the other case is settled or otherwise finally concluded.
	__________________ Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

26th July 2016, 03:29 PM	#16
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 88,032	Originally Posted by Nessie Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...counters-study “What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said." This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study; "Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed" That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal. So your rationale is, because blacks get stopped more, the police inflict more violence on them? The OP needs editing. Your conclusion is faulty. Did you think that was the variable in question? The issue is why are they being stopped more often. Police argue it's because they commit more crime. But the school to prison pipeline among many other things is also part of the problem, as is racial profiling as is stopping the blacks who aren't committing crimes in those crime ridden neighborhoods, the courts giving blacks longer sentences and on and on and on.

26th July 2016, 04:00 PM	#17
Cylinder Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 6,062	Originally Posted by deadrose Here in Washington state, they can get away with murder (and do) as long as it can't be proven that they planned it ahead of time. You've asserted that before and it is fundamentally wrong. Any law that set such a requirement would be blatantly unconstitutional via the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The statutory element is "malice" which can be defined as "evil intent." You seem to be restricting the word intent to mean only purposeful planning. That's just not the case. Example: Angered over forum posts, you do some act -- for example, push me down stairs. That satisfies that statutory element of malice regardless of any finding of planning. It's motive and not intent. Why you acted instead of how. Also, your characterization omits another required statutory element -- that of "a good faith belief that such act is justifiable..." RCW 9A.16.040 -- Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases: (a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or (b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty. (c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony; (ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or (iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or (iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon. (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following: (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given. (3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section. (4) This section shall not be construed as: (a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or (b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section. So, if a police officer uses deadly force with malice (not necessary pre-planning) or acts without a good-faith belief that the force is used to prevent the enumerated threats then they are subject to prosecution.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

26th July 2016, 05:59 PM	#18
sir drinks-a-lot Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 4,513	I'm guessing this will be a very unpopular study.
	__________________ I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln

26th July 2016, 06:15 PM	#19
Ammonitida Muse Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 616	Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot I'm guessing this will be a very unpopular study. Indeed. All BLM activists have on their side are "disparity" studies that do not control for things like the mean age of the population on the road (in many of the neighborhoods where these studies are conducted, the white population is disproportionately elderly and thus less likely to behave recklessly while driving and less likely to be on the road) and the type of cars driven (studies have shown that blacks are more likely drive beat up cars, resulting in more stops for broken tail lights). The New Jersey Turnpike study was the most rigorous done, and it did not support the notion of racial profiling. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/ny...ew-jersey.html
Ammonitida Muse Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 616

26th July 2016, 06:45 PM	#20
Noztradamus Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,680	Originally Posted by Nessie Research by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland finds that the amount of times people are arrested determines how often the situation turns violent and the race which gets stopped the most is the most likely to encounter violence. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...counters-study “What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said." This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study; "Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed" That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal. Why is the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation located in Maryland? Quote: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh"
Noztradamus Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,680	__________________ The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

26th July 2016, 06:57 PM	#21
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,524	Originally Posted by Noztradamus Why is the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation located in Maryland? Because it's near Washington, D.C., which is where they likely get their funding.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,524

26th July 2016, 07:25 PM	#22
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,524	As to the study...um, yeah, non-black people can catch it, too. That's not the only question. There's also the rush to justify, if not outright celebrate, violence against black people at the hands of police or vigilantes, as we've seen in many incidents over the past few years, as well as the overall indifference towards black people in general, and the view of society-created problems as up to only black people to fix. And as SG said, there's also issues like school punishments falling on black students more harshly, as well as police being much more likely to be called into schools to deal with black and Hispanic students. And yes, the habitual stereotyping of Hispanic/Latino people as "illegals".
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,524

26th July 2016, 07:32 PM	#23
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 25,923	Originally Posted by Noztradamus Why is the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation located in Maryland? Seems they were founded in San Fransisco but at some point moved to Maryland. I guess they decided to not change the name. http://www.pire.org/overview.aspx Quote: History PIRE was founded as a 501(c) (3) organization in San Francisco, CA in 1974, when a group of allied scientists were among the first to recognize the dangers inherent in the emergence of widespread drug use. The Institute developed and disseminated some of the earliest prevention strategies. Since then, PIRE has broadened its scope to encompass many of the most serious threats to human health and safety. Nonprofit Status PIRE is a California-chartered, not-for-profit corporation, that qualifies for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)3 of the IRS code. Annual form 990s are available on this website. They now have centers in several states, but I suppose the Maryland one is the official headquarters: http://www.pire.org/centers.aspx Quote: Locations/Centers PIRE research and program centers are located across the country. PIRE’s Centers have both common and specialty areas of research, policy analysis, program development and implementation, program evaluation, clinical trials, and training and technical assistance in various substantive areas of public health and safety. The geographic diversity of centers enables PIRE to better accommodate large-scale national and international projects. Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest - Albuquerque, New Mexico Decision Sciences Institute - Pawtucket, Rhode Island PIRE Calverton Center - Calverton, Maryland PIRE Chapel Hill Center - Chapel Hill, North Carolina PIRE Louisville Center -Louisville, Kentucky Prevention Research Center - Oakland, California
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

26th July 2016, 07:44 PM	#24
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 25,923	So, short version is: If you get stopped, your odds of ending up either dead or in the hospital are the same, but if you are black, your odds of getting stopped in the first place are considerably higher. And if you are black, the reason could be that you are driving a nice car and the officer thinks it might be a stolen car. Here's an interesting perspective from that rarest of creatures, a black Republican: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/13/1218407...-police-racism There really is such a thing as getting pulled over by a cop just for being black: Quote: On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina gave a heartfelt speech in which he spoke about some of the abuses by police that he, as a black man, had dealt with. The speech, Scott said, was meant to show that in some instances — he insisted that most cops mean well — police officers are in the wrong, targeting someone solely because of his skin color. Quote: Scott said he had been stopped seven times by police officers in the course of one year as an elected official. "Was I speeding sometimes? Sure," Scott acknowledged. "But the vast majority of the time, I was pulled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or some other reason just as trivial." "I was following a friend of mine, we had just left working out, and we were heading to Outback to grab a bite to eat at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon," Scott said. "He pulls out, I pull out right behind him. We’re driving down the road, and the blue lights come on. Officer pulls me into the median, and he starts telling me that he thinks perhaps the car is stolen." Scott added, "Well, I started asking myself, because I was smart enough to not ask him, ‘Is the license plate coming in as stolen? Does the license plate match the car?’ I was looking for some rational reason that may have prompted him to stopping me on the side of the road." Scott also shared a story from his brother, who became a command sergeant major in the US Army, the highest rank possible for an enlisted soldier: When he drove from Texas to South Carolina, a police officer pulled him over, wanting to know if the car was stolen because it was a Volvo. Scott also shared the story of a former staffer, who was pulled over while driving "a nice car" — a Chrysler 300 — so many times in Washington, DC, that he sold the vehicle and bought a more obscure one to avoid police targeting him. "I do not know many African-American men who do not have a very similar story to tell no matter the profession, no matter their income, no matter their disposition in life," Scott said. He later added, "Imagine the frustration, the irritation, the sense of a loss of dignity that accompanies each of those stops." So "driving a nice car while black" is a real reason why a police officer might pull someone over. Unless the Republican senator is just making it up. Seems unlikely.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

26th July 2016, 08:26 PM	#25
Ammonitida Muse Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 616	Originally Posted by Ammonitida Indeed. All BLM activists have on their side are "disparity" studies that do not control for things like the mean age of the population on the road (in many of the neighborhoods where these studies are conducted, the white population is disproportionately elderly and thus less likely to behave recklessly while driving and less likely to be on the road) and the type of cars driven (studies have shown that blacks are more likely drive beat up cars, resulting in more stops for broken tail lights). The New Jersey Turnpike study was the most rigorous done, and it did not support the notion of racial profiling. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/ny...ew-jersey.html Here are some quotes directly from the source http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...16-042023.full Quote: Consistent with our findings, simulation studies find police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites,45 and high rates of black speeding citations per capita result from high violation rates.46–48 A systematic review identified 10 studies that found suspect race/ethnicity did not predict use of force or its escalation.6 However, one study found blacks were more likely than whites to face force during compliance checks.7 The PPCS survey also found that blacks were more likely to experience physical force and to perceive the threat of force during a stop, although few respondents actually were injured by the force applied.14 The large majority of incidents that those stopped perceived as undue force was stops where officers shouted at or threatened people, presumably to deter resistance. The study cites three papers that argue against the driving while black issue, including the New Jersey Turn Pike study previously cited by me (this means that study is not isolated). Further, the study references a meta analysis conducted on the use of police force, and this paper finds only one outlier showing racial bias.
Ammonitida Muse Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 616	Last edited by Ammonitida; 26th July 2016 at 08:30 PM.

26th July 2016, 08:42 PM	#26
Pope130 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 3,508	Originally Posted by Nessie This, for me is the most disturbing statistic found by the study; "Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed" That seems massive to me, especially since it does not include all injuries, only the most serious and fatal. One thing that may be a factor in the seemingly high number of bystander casualties is traffic deaths. It's not unusual in high speed pursuits for the fleeing vehicle (or more rarely one of the pursuit vehicles) to crash, often injuring innocent third parties.

27th July 2016, 06:44 AM	#27
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,821	Originally Posted by Puppycow ...And if you are black, the reason could be that you are driving a nice car and the officer thinks it might be a stolen car... So "driving a nice car while black" is a real reason why a police officer might pull someone over. Unless the Republican senator is just making it up. Seems unlikely. How can the individual police and their departments support the unproductive waste-of-time-and-effort behavior of pulling over blacks in "nice cars" in order to see if it is stolen? I would speculate that at any given time more than 99% of vehicles being driven on roads are not stolen regardless of the race of the driver and the "niceness" of the vehicle. I would expect cops to just abandon this behavior (if it exists) because it is so unproductive. They would learn that there is no meaningful correlation between nice car/black driver/stolen vehicle. Also, aren't there cop bosses who could say, "Look Ralph, you've pulled over 50 cars this month on suspicion of theft and none of them were stolen. It's time to stop doing that."?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

27th July 2016, 07:04 AM	#28
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 5,961	Originally Posted by William Parcher How can the individual police and their departments support the unproductive waste-of-time-and-effort behavior of pulling over blacks in "nice cars" in order to see if it is stolen? I would speculate that at any given time more than 99% of vehicles being driven on roads are not stolen regardless of the race of the driver and the "niceness" of the vehicle. I would expect cops to just abandon this behavior (if it exists) because it is so unproductive. They would learn that there is no meaningful correlation between nice car/black driver/stolen vehicle. Also, aren't there cop bosses who could say, "Look Ralph, you've pulled over 50 cars this month on suspicion of theft and none of them were stolen. It's time to stop doing that."? Very non-productive philosophy. I would wager that most of society isn't doing anything wrong at any given time. Why wait? Quotas might be officially forbidden, but hey, if you want a promotion, the guy who writes up the least offenders might be at the bottom of the list.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

27th July 2016, 07:18 AM	#29
Bikewer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 12,931	Often, when police approach a suspicious individual for whatever reason (either citizen complaint or probable cause/reasonable suspicion) the encounter will go swimmingly up to the moment that it's found that the individual is wanted, armed, or carrying contraband. When the individual realizes that he's about to be arrested, things can very often go south... The pursuit or wrestling match is on. With all department policies that I'm familiar with, ANY injury to the suspect must be documented and the individual must be certified as "fit for confinement" by a medical facility. This would include scrapes inflicted while trying to wrestle the handcuffs on to the fellow or skinned knees from rolling around on the ground. All "uses of force" must be documented as well, and handcuffing, even without any resistance at all, is considered a "use of force". It's been my experience that a sort of panic reaction often sets in, even with people who have been cooperative up until the point where the magic words ("You are under arrest.") are spoken... Then its..."Oh no, I can't go to JAIL!" And the fight begins. I've seen it many times, and I don't know what can be done to mitigate this. Most of us try to talk the individual into cooperative behavior, as resistings tend to be injurious, painful, and involve a lot of extra paperwork. But often it just doesn't work.

27th July 2016, 07:25 AM	#30
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,821	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry Very non-productive philosophy. I would wager that most of society isn't doing anything wrong at any given time. Why wait? Quotas might be officially forbidden, but hey, if you want a promotion, the guy who writes up the least offenders might be at the bottom of the list. ? If quotas for promotion are in place then the cop pulling over suspected auto thefts is going to be passed by and not promoted. He will have no arrests to show for his efforts. Ralph stopped 50 cars in one month on suspicion of auto theft but made no arrests because none of those cars were stolen. What sort of quota is met with this behavior? My speculation is that Ralph is on track for non-promotion.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

27th July 2016, 09:45 AM	#31
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Puppycow So "driving a nice car while black" is a real reason why a police officer might pull someone over. Unless the Republican senator is just making it up. Seems unlikely. About a dozen or so years ago, the local papers ran a story about black city councilmember who had a similar experience, except he was actually pulled from his car and assaulted by police officers, simply for being in a nice car in the wrong part of town. And this in one of the supposedly most liberal cities in the US, with one of the highest paid police departments. There's simply no excuse for that sort of thing.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won. Last edited by luchog; 27th July 2016 at 09:46 AM.

27th July 2016, 09:57 AM	#32
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,524	Originally Posted by William Parcher ? If quotas for promotion are in place then the cop pulling over suspected auto thefts is going to be passed by and not promoted. He will have no arrests to show for his efforts. Ralph stopped 50 cars in one month on suspicion of auto theft but made no arrests because none of those cars were stolen. What sort of quota is met with this behavior? My speculation is that Ralph is on track for non-promotion. So he finds other reasons to arrest/fine people instead. "Uh...you didn't use your turn signal correctly/come to a complete stop at that sign/your window is too heavily tinted according to my poorly-trained eye/were arrested for resisting arrest/etc." Boom, done.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,524	Last edited by Mumbles; 27th July 2016 at 09:59 AM.

27th July 2016, 10:39 AM	#33
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,821	Originally Posted by Mumbles So he finds other reasons to arrest/fine people instead. "Uh...you didn't use your turn signal correctly/come to a complete stop at that sign/your window is too heavily tinted according to my poorly-trained eye/were arrested for resisting arrest/etc." Boom, done. If a driver doesn't use a turn signal or doesn't stop at a stopsign then they can be pulled over and cited because they have broken a law. It's routine to call in the license plate to see if everything is ok with that. Putting that aside, I suspect that many incidents of moving violations involve a cop who doesn't/can't see the race or gender of the driver until after they have turned on the flashing lights and executed the traffic stop. IOW, they observed a moving violation but they don't yet know who is driving. They find out the race of the driver after they have been stopped for the observed violation.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

27th July 2016, 12:05 PM	#34
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,929	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Quote: "Miller and his team calculated that during one in 291 stops or arrests by police in 2012, a bystander was either hospitalized or killed" ..... what? Originally Posted by Nessie I know, that figure needs checking. Originally Posted by caveman1917 Why do you think that figure needs checking? Suppose police hospitalize someone 50 times more than they kill someone, they kill someone every 7 hours so they hospitalize someone every 8 minutes. They do about 300 times more stops than hospitalizing people, so that makes it about 200 simultaneous stops on average (assuming a stop lasts 5 minutes). Is this number so wrong, about 200 simultaneous ongoing stops on average in the US? Originally Posted by Nessie I wanted to check it because it seems very high. Indeed. Bystanders are not involved in the stop
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

27th July 2016, 01:43 PM	#35
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,123	Quote: Scott said he had been stopped seven times by police officers in the course of one year as an elected official. "Was I speeding sometimes? Sure," Scott acknowledged. "But the vast majority of the time, I was pulled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or some other reason just as trivial." Sorry - but the way he worded this sets off my spidey senses. "Seven times" of which he was "speeding sometimes." but the "vast majority. was because he was "driving a new car" or "something trivial". Since when is "vast majority" used to describe a number less than 4 or 5??? What is "something trivial" in his mind? Are all traffic laws "trivial"? Sounds to me like a made up story to get votes by "identifying" with his black constituents. But of course - we know that politicians never lie to get votes.
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,123	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*