in our police forces?  Figures lie, and liars figure?  Excessive force complaints, while single-dimensional and short on data, prove there is NO systemic racism in our police forces?

 
OR are we not collecting enough, the right data, analyzing it correctly, and disseminating it?

 
This article indicates there is a stark racial disparity nationwide.  Reinforces, the "gut feel" I been posting about and pondering the lack of data.  Being objective minded, will concede this may be a data point that needs more analysis, BUT it sure fits a pattern and makes sense to me.

What you and Zen are now doing is called "confirmation bias." The DOJ numbers did not work in your preconceived notion of the facts, but you both pointed to them anyway then had to be shown by myself and Mari that the stats DONT point to a "systemic" problem.

 
Sadly, this article is a classic case of "liberal media." They give an anecdotal story about a black man being arrested and a picture of a black woman being arrested by of course, a white cop, with the implication that the ONLY reason they were arrested was because they were black. That is done deliberately to try and sway people with emotion and not sound logic and fact.

 
This is advocacy journalism on behalf of ABC News Once, nothing more. Not only did they not include anyone to quote to push back on their narrative, to give the story balance, they gave no hard evidence to support ANY racism at all, let alone the systemic variety.

 
It doesn't matter what race gets arrested more. That doesn't prove anything. It only matters that the arrests were warranted or not. Not seeing that info anywhere in this piece makes it impossible to draw any conclusions and makes further analysis impossible.

Don’t use words that you fully don’t understand ...

I believe there is a lot of racism still out there, and of course "driving while black" is a real thing. Where I get off this train is when people try to promote this narrative that unarmed black people are being hunted and killed by the police as a matter of practice and the numbers do NOT support that theory.

 
Police, like all people, can be very biased and they carry those pre conceived biases out into the field with them. If a cop is predisposed to think someone or some group of people are more likely to commit a crime that bias is going to manifest itself in the way he treats those people in his calls each day, and a LOT of cops/people view black people with suspicion.  

 
Please keep in mind that not all of these biases are against black people, Two Mexicans driving a rented car with Texas plates through Mississippi are almost certain to get stopped at least once on their way through the state. A skin head in meth country is going to get a lot more attention than other white people, even an Asian dude with gang tats is going to get treated worse than a black guy in a business suit. Even the car you drive will affect how the police will treat you, I drove Cadillacs for years and whenever I was stopped by the police I always got treated like a businessman because that is the image I projected. I bought a Jaguar that cost roughly the same amount as a Caddy and the next thing you know I was being treated like a drug dealer. Go figure.

 
"Matching the description" has always been a problem, I will certainly concede it happens to black people more than white people. That said, how do you propose to make cops/people less prejudiced?

I have said nothing about police “racism” other than I do not think it is measurable in the excessive force context.
In other contexts, it most certainly is- Duh racial profiling by the police., hiring, promotion etc.  The DOJ numbers I commented on did not address racism at all.

Thanks for the clarification.

Mari "suggested" his numbers did not reveal systemic racism in our police forces, in a way that implied systemic racism did NOT exist.

 
My point was, his metric and the statistics that accompanied them, in themselves, did NOT totally rule it out.

 
Further stated, the right data was not being collected/analyzed to even remotely imply, that systemic racism in our police forces does NOT exist.

 
But, you are right, Jack.  Have definitely beat this dead horse to a pulp.  Obviously this is an important point, to me.

when that bias becomes systemic that’s where the problem starts ...
Don’t forget biases can be constructive or destructive; a society that systematically weeds out the destructive ones and cultivates the constructive one ... that society will grow and flourish! The one that doesn’t will implode eventually... it took Romans to implode 200 years!

-- Modified on 6/11/2020 9:32:28 AM

(NOT) for, my apologies.

 
Please be patient with me.  Promise I will help you write in more concise, meaningful sentences, if you help me with my reading comprehension.

 
In this post, you only now, underscore the very points I attempted to make from my very first reply to you numbers.  An intro, explaining you were only using one metric and both that metric and the data were questionable, and do NOT rule out systemic racism.

 
Had you used that as an intro to your very first post, on "excessive force," I probably would not have replied.  No disrespect intended but the entire post on "excessive force" was meaningless, unless your point was, "not enough has been done, to objectively quantify, systemic racism, in our police forces."

And I  think Gag"s point is valid i.e. what do you plan to do with human bias/prejudice when and if you find it? It's an interesting question as it is an inextricable part of the human condition.

When something exists, like racism it is not hard to prove! Love the way you head fake with your subtle subject line to hint it’s is hard to prove racism because it doesn’t exist- there is no other intent of that subject line and it was a deliberate choice you made.
Of course then in your post you go into a diatribe of how racism is of various kinds etc. - good sneaky attempt to divert and dilute, and hopefully dissolve the issue at hand which is Racism in America!!!
Now I understand Laffy better when he accuses you of distracting, diverting etc. And, hats off to you, you do it in a very innocent ‘balanced looking’ way! It can impress simple minded trumpanzees but sorry it doesn’t cut it with people that can think on their own. You are a danger to an honest discourse.

do as we always do; shine a light on unacceptable behavior?  When in positions of responsibility, or of any public consequence, isn't it the bright light that helps put MOST "human bias/prejudice" in check.  We both know, those with deeply embedded feelings are not going to change.  That being the case, shouldn't we make it clear to those people, when their biases translate into unacceptable behavior, they will be held accountable?  Systemic changes may prove helpful.

 
Body cams were one way of shining the light.  In Chauvin's case, that clearly made the difference.  Noticed recent discussion to make prior complaints/disciplinary actions against cops, a matter of public record.  Just seems logical, not doing so in the past could well have been a contributing factor that led to countless examples of bad behavior which could/should have been prevented.  Again, not the expert in this area, but, am betting those who are, could come up with a number of solutions.

 
Then there are the unions which have made sure some of these protections, that only hinder transparency, are part of every updated contract.  Police officers deserve the protection unions offer, but we can both agree, sometimes the language of these contracts, crosses over the line of decency and reasonableness.

-- Modified on 6/11/2020 10:18:56 AM

END OF MESSAGE

I always want to write clearly, unless I am doing a laptop  post where I don’t post links, spell check, and usually make only brief assertions.

        Having said that, I am still lost as to why you did EVER thought I was commenting on racism. The OP was about Chauvin being indicted. Zen said this crap has to stop. He offered reform solutions.

My first post was a reply to Zen (who did not mention racism) and offered my opinion that Jack was right when he said there was no systemic problem but only the work of a very few bad apples. I based this on the DOJ “use of force” webpage:

"The DOJ has tracked excessive force complaints against law enforcement officers since 1994. While  the data on their website is out of date and tends to be compiled  only for specific years, that data does not show  systemic problems. In 2002, there were 27,000 citizen excessive force complaints – but only 8% were sustained.  The website also tells us that in 2011 over 62.9 million citizens had encounters with the police. If we assume these numbers are in the ball park for say a ten year average, this is not a systematic problem but the work – as Jack says – of a few bad apples. "

Now, I guess I could have said the DOJ data “does not show  systemic problems  WITH EXCESSIVE FORCE (but they are not commenting on racism and I am not either)” but I thought that was pretty obvious from the context. When I saw you thought otherwise in a later post – I posted STOP.

So I thought I was clear. Obviously, I was wrong.  

Body cameras should not even have on/off switches that allow cops to turn them off, well I guess that wouldn't work for bathroom breaks, but I can see having a one strike and you are out for turning off your BC while on duty except for obvious exceptions like going to the bathroom. Dash cams are routinely used to document behavior of people arrested and later used against them in court, I am all for an equal playing field in this regard.

 
I can't imagine anyone but Police unions pushing back on transparency on citizen complaints. We review hookers here and even though we allow for review fraud and fake reviews, if a hooker gets enough bad reviews she is done on TER, I can see holding cops to a similar standard.  

 
See, even knuckle dragging righties are open to some changes, but you do have to admit that "some" of the suggestions made by the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party are beyond dumb and would  hurt most the very people they claim to want to help. There are always going to be criminals and because of that fact we are always going to need cops. When you hear a criminal trying to break into your house you call a cop, not a social worker. I think we need to rein in the lunatics on the edges of both sides of this issue and let the grown ups come up with some solutions. I don't want ANTIFA weighing in on this anymore than I want the KKK doing so.

But here's the rub. How do you define it? So let me explain.

 
Almost every segment or article written on what I would call the "liberal media" is referring to the murder of Floyd as an example of "racism" and yet, I heave not seen ANY evidence whatsoever that race played any part.

 
Now, of course, I cant rule it out, but in that vein why do people "rule it in" for lack of a better term, as a matter of fact? At best, it is a matter of OPINION (devoid of any evidence I am not yet aware) but an opinion solely based on the two people's skin color.

 
I am sure you would concede that reasonable people of differing races can have a problem or issue with a person of a different race, without it being necessarily a racist one, just as two people from the same race have an altercation of some sort where race obviously isn't involved.

 
So yes, point a light on it, rehabilitate or reeducate that person when it becomes evident, but know this...we will never be able to rid ourselves of bias and prejudice, only hope to assuage it, which of course is an admirable and just goal.

 
Oft times however, we just wont be able to mutually, operationally define the problem and/or agree on the fix, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try either.

...are you going to make the complainant's info public too or just the cop?  

 
If any anonymous person can make a complaint, as you know, that could lead to tons of problems and could aggravate the situation rather than alleviating it.

 
These things need to be well thought out and not just strewn out there, as there are unintended consequences behind many of these "fixes."

The main video evidence was shot on a cell phone by a 17-year -old girl. The other primary evidence came from a security camera at a nearby store.
I have checked to see if there's other evidence from body cams or dash cams and haven't found any so far.

Let's suppose I was driving down the street in Las Vegas and I saw Zack pushing Laffy across the street in his wheelchair and I "accidentally" of course ran them over, but then the police investigation determines the  skid marks were actually acceleration marks and I end up being charged with murder.  

 
Now of course Zack being black and me being a "well known TER Racist" running over Zack could be interpreted as a hate crime, while since Laffy is white, no such hate crime charges would apply. But of course even in this hypothetical scenario I don't "hate" Zack, but my feelings towards Laffy are not exactly warm and fuzzy, and while I am certainly not confessing to even a "fake" crime isn't it ironic that somehow killing Zack would be worse in the eyes of the law than killing Laffy even if Zack was only collateral damage? lol

 
Sorry Mari, I know I have made your job of defending me so much harder with my post, but that's why you get the big bucks, right? Or should I just go ahead and hire the "ghost of Johnnie Cochran" lol

No one should be punished for "hating" anyone. We punish people for actions. You shouldn't get more, or less, of a punishment based on your "thoughts."

for a moment, Jack.  How would you feel if you were a person of color, knowing how you and a number of your closest friends, were stopped on a regular basis for "being black?"  Then, factor in recent events of people of color, being murdered by those of a different race.   The next time a black person was similiarly, needlessly killed, you would be hard pressed to believe racism was not to blame.

 
How would any of us feel Jack?  Your post underscores, the complexity of this entire matter.  How successful have we ever been at quantifying a subjective factor (human behavior) in an objective way?  Sometimes, reasonable people will differ in the way they "connect the dots" and come out with extremely divergent opinions.  Again, if the end result is fixing a broken process that we all can benefit from, who cares?  Who among us can read Chauvin's mind?  Yet we all would have to agree, his actions clearly fit a pattern, no matter how you characterize it.

 
What constructive purpose do we serve belaboring the possibility the Chauvin case may NOT have been racist.  Would it really matter, if the label at least draws attention to the atrocity itself?  Racist or not, won't objective people seek to identify and correct the root cause?  If in the end, fewer people of color are treated unjustly, who would complain if the same corrective actions spared white people as well?

 
What is the consequence of calling it a racist event or not?  Don't we have body cams today primarily due to the mistreatment of blacks by the police?  If that same bodycam insured you would be treated fairly in a situation when you otherwise might not have been, isn't that a good thing?

 
Conversely, what is the purpose, without concrete proof, of arguing so vehemently against the possibility it was racist?  Wouldn't one have to wonder, the motivation of someone so determined to entirely rule race out?  What could that person stand to gain?   What kind of agenda would they have?  Could they be sincere, or could this be just one more example of a pattern?

I am certain I would look at this differently if I were black, but it would depend on if I were a conservative black or not, as you didn’t address that part and that is no small thing. But yes, I would concede this is a very complex issue.

 
Now, conservative African-Americans clearly and often state there is racism, and that they have been on the receiving end. Senator Tim Scott in South Carolina comes to mind. But the difference is he refuses to play into the victim culture many on the Left espouse.  

 
They say, sure, racism exists but you can rise above it. Don’t let that be your excuse or your fall back position. There are many other factors involved which determines success like working hard, being a moral, principled person, staying in school, getting a higher degree or learning a trade, etc.

 
But where we really differ is you making some assumptions about my post that clearly were not intended or you just misread them. I certainly did NOT argue “so vehemently against the possibility it was racist.” If you go back and read what I said, I am open to it. Better said, I am agnostic on it.  

 
My point to you is why does the Left feel the need to add racism to the mix when there is zero evidence for it? How does that help the situation? Case in point, liberal elites did the same exact thing with the Trayvon Martin incident.  

 
There was zero evidence he was killed re: his black race. None. And yet the liberal media ran wild with that speculation day and night. So much so that the N.Y. Times decided to change Zimmermann’s race from “white” to “white-Hispanic” when they found out he wasn’t a Mick. But why in the world would they do that?  

 
Why would CNN say they thought Zimmerman said “fucking coon” when exciting his truck that night and play that tape over and over and over again only for audio experts, hired by both sides of the cable TV political aisle, to come in later and say that he stated it was “fucking cold” as it was chilly that night in Florida?

 
So let me ask. When does race bating ever help the problem? How many African-Americans walked away from that and said “If CNN reported it, it must be true.” Why would they be so thoughtless and so vile to pour racial gas on an already burning, out of control fire with zero hard proof?

 
So yes, it is VERY important we don’t add the toxicity of an unsubstantiated racism charge to an already volatile situation. We could be on the verge of a race war in this country so I think everyone should proceed with fact and not wild, unfounded, agitating racial rhetoric. We should ALL be trying to lower the heat in the room and not unleash a flame thrower into the mix.

 
Lastly, I am fully in favor of body cams, especially since I don’t think we have a systemic problem and imo, the vids will way more often than not clear the police of any malfeasance.

The first body cams were not used because of anything to do with race contrary to popular belief and the department that used them found out EXACTLY what you were speculating Jack.

 
I don't care which side is proven right by the use of body cams, the important thing is that the TRUTH comes out. If the truth is a rogue or racist cop, than good riddance. If the truth is that it was a lying criminal trying to play victim than so be it as well.

The only body cam I've seen is from one of the other officers and it is so heavily redacted as to be worthless. Very suspicious. As said in my earlier post, Chauvin's body cam if on would be crucial to showing whether he can mount a causation defense, the only one he has.  On the other hand, if they reduced audio bc the officers made racist remarks, that will kick us into a new level of racism as opposed to excessive force and probably be good to burn down a few more buildings.

The audio on the cam I saw was very clean as to language.

at the best approach, all around.  Let's eliminate those on the fringe and get to the heart of the issue.  Those who run around like their hair is on fire, accusing media coverage of race baiting, are just as bad as looters, who could care less about peaceful protests but have their own agenda.  Both are equally wrong.  A man was murdered, by someone who was in a position of trust and supposed to protect us.  That IS the issue.  Let's filter out the noise.

 
Perceiving one is "race-bating" is a pretty subjective conclusion.  Why even go there?  Why does it matter?  Was the Chauvin case a result of race or not.  Who cares?  Leaves one wondering, out of all the relevant issues we can discuss today, why would "race bating" be front and center?  More importantly, someone was murdered and we need to find a way to make sure this does not happen again.  Priority one!

 
Clearly WAS a white police officer, needlessly taking the life of a black man (who was good, bad, or indifferent, matters not).  In either case, I do not see anyone "race-bating."  Yet, I feel, any black person who chooses to voice their outrage is more than warranted to state their opinion (other than Al Sharpton--he NEVER gets a vote in my book), even if it leads them to become genuinely emotional, in light of recent events.

 
I just do not get it.  What white person could actually feel justified in focusing on race-bating rather than the murder of George Floyd?  What purpose could that serve?  What could be that person's agenda?  How could placing all this emphasis/energy on race-bating, bring anything of value to a person making those claims?

...will clear his client.  Take his words with a grain of salt - when he was asked by Chris Cuomo why his client didn't intervene to help Floyd, he said that the civilian bystanders did not intervene and help Floyd either.

 
http://www.the-sun.com/news/953203/lawyer-george-floyd-lane-car-body-cam/
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article243395591.html

BTW I am not white, so yeah I am focusing on the race baiting when people like GG claim that I need to pay for the sins of white people. Yeah, that is NEVER going to fly with me, but I digress. I want to focus on where we agree, not where we disagree.

 
Back to my "slight" disagreement , if Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd alone and without the actual help of the other three cops AND it turned out that he did if for personal reasons I would say that would be VERY relevant, but here is where I am going to take your side "sort of" Even "if" and I have always stipulated that I was just speculating, but even "if" Chauvin's murder of Floyd was personal and not related to race or the fact that Chauvin was a cop, (perhaps he was a crook himself) it still doesn't excuse the other three cops who let this happen right in front of them, and NONE of them had a preexisting relationship. So I agree, FOUR cops killed an unarmed black man that day, and whether or not this is a systemic problem nation wide, it certainly appears to be a big problem in Minneapolis, so you have won me over in that regard.

 
I had to watch and re-watch the video a couple of times before coming to this conclusion, without having the video evidence that plainly shows the culpability of the other three officers, I might have come to a different conclusion. My knee jerk reaction was that the rookie cops played almost no part in the arrest and resulting murder, but after watching the video a few times, it's pretty clear that they played a bigger role than I had earlier surmised.

 
One last thing, I do believe there is Body Cam Footage in the possession of the authorities, but it hasn't been released to the public, I won't even speculate what further light might be shined on this when the additional footage is released.

"Was the Chauvin case a result of race or not.  Who cares?"

 
I care. And many care. And you should care. For like I said, this is an incendiary issue just waiting for a conflagration. I find it hard to believe you don't think we should back off the racial finger pointing component of the case, in light of the fact there is zero evidence pointing to it.

 
Now, Mari has speculated that the cops, perhaps, used racist language in reference to the body cameras being turned off. If that speculation was proven factual i.e. that tape was made public, of course that is the time and place to emphasize race, but not before.

 
Please remember the subject line of your OP; it was about racism, and people are connecting that term with this case with no foundation, imo. I think the media should tread very lightly here. They are always lecturing conservatives about  "rhetoric," and how that can incite, but seem to always want to look the other way when people on the left do so.

 
I don't believe words that could increase the chances of violence are just "noise." The media has a role to play and they should not be inflaming the situation like I, and many, feel like they are currently doing.

 
Lastly, race baiting isn't "front and center." I never made it so. It was an aside, as I/we have talked about many, many other aspects of this case ad nauseam, over many threads and posts, with out race baiting coming up at all until just recently.

 
I don't feel the need to continue that theme but we can discuss "racism", as is in the title of your OP, and "race baiting", concurrently.

 
But I would agree, overly concentrating on it doesn't advance the discussion either.

position like this.  But again, I must agree with you.  As vehemently as I take exception to racism, both overt and covert, I also take exception to unfairness.  To me, they are one in the same.

 
The fact is people of color have been discriminated against, in any number of ways, for centuries.  Should we do everything we can, to stamp out inequality of every variety, of course we should.  It is more than an understatement to point out, doing so is extremely complicated.  We have tried in any number of ways.  An earlier post, made mention of affirmative action programs, as one example.  Yet, that does not mean we stop trying.  IMHO I believe we must remain open minded, as we continue to explore ways to fix the damage systemic racism has created.

 
Sure there is some low hanging fruit, and some of that was addressed in equal rights legislation.  But even legislation alone does not change the minds of the truly racist, who have covert ways of dispensing their racism.  And enacting legislation does little to ensure enforcement of the intent embedded in the legislation itself.  All the more reason, as we plot an uncertain course, we should favor occasional sins of commission over sins of omission.

 
Having said that, I do not favor reparations.  They are in a completely different universe and even more complicated.  Of course we all use our own personal experiences as a frame of reference.  Came from a family that was not wealthy.  Had to work my whole life to get where I am today.  Any person of color, with the same values and work ethic, could have traveled the same path as I have.  Many people of color, close to me, in fact have and are every bit as satisfied with where it has taken them as I am.

 
So using my own experience as an example, other than paying more in taxes, because I earn more and my property may be of a higher value, what would one take from me for the purpose of using it towards reparations?  And would that "something" go to a person/persons, who had all the same opportunities I had, but just chose to take the easy way out?  This may be a simplistic way of looking at it, and again, the issue itself is quite complicated.  Building and implementing any system of reparations seems more complicated to me, than even the sheer difficulty of eliminating systemic racism in our country.  When I think of the American dream, I think of a competitive environment where we try to level the playing field in every way we can, so we all have the same shot, NOT stacking the deck for those who could have worked harder but chose not to.

-- Modified on 6/11/2020 4:36:54 PM

First of all, even assuming reparations are warranted how would you pay them in a way that's fair to all Americans? For example, if your family came here from Viet Nam in 1975 as a refugee and you worked hard to assimilate and build a business, why is it fair for your tax dollars to be used for reparations? A HUGE number of other people have come here in the last few decades as legal immigrants or refugees. Same question.
Taken even further, let's say you are the descendent of slave holders. Does the guilt of your forefathers span the generations and somehow you must pay the price?
And what about all the billions provided to minorities in subsidized housing and other benefits? Does that get folded into the mix?
I've never heard anyone speak to these issues.
I'm waiting.

I am nowhere near as anti-cop as some people on this board, but that's a flat out lie by the cops attorney, the civilian bystanders most definitely "tried" to intervene but the cops wouldn't allow them to. The bystanders did as much as could be expected, they certainly couldn't rush a bunch of armed cops or they might be dead too, but they most definitely tried to save Floyd's life, something I will be very surprised to see proven about any one of the three cops who didn't directly kill Floyd.

END OF MESSAGE

fact have with the outcome, corrective action necessary to fix the problem, or any impact on you and yours?

 
Absolutely nothing.  And this is why when people unaffected in anyway by the Floyd murder, waste time focusing on anything but fixing it, people get very suspicious of their motives.  And rightfully so.

I think we jump to cash handouts as the only form of reparations, and tend to square off on exactly the (sensible) arguments you make, inicky.  

 
Instead, reparations may involve less tangible things. Perhaps eliminating that statue of Lee in Richmond is a form of "reparation". Seeing actual prosecutions (and convictions) of Chauvin and his ilk may constitute reparations.  

 
I'm suggesting that "making amends" may take more than a single form of "cash payments".

I seriously doubt your idea will satisfy ANY of the proponents of reparations.