Quote:
Originally Posted by jhs5120
Of course:
It looks like there may have been over 100,000 in Baltimore alone since 2011: DOJ Investigation of Baltimore PD
Sections 3: BPD Makes Unconstitutional Arrests (page 34):
10,163 arrests were made that were immediately rejected at the station because they were made without merit.
Section 3, part C: BPD Unlawfully Detains Individuals (page 39)
"Local prosecutors described this practice to Justice Department officials as BPD officers making arrests without probable cause on the street, then hours later deciding to “unarrest” when detention and questioning failed to uncover additional evidence. Our review of BPD documents confirmed that BPD uses these unlawful detentions."
They do not have an official count of instances this happens (since not documented), but the DOJ estimates there were approximately 420,000 stops per year, compared to the actually reported BPD figure of 124,000. (Page 25) The DOJ (reasonably) believes that the unrecorded 300,000 stops (in 2014 alone) went unrecorded because they would not have met the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion (or charges would've been filed or the stop would've been recorded). Many (if not most) would fall under this unlawful detainment.
Keep in mind that this is just Baltimore.
There have been formal investigations into almost every major police department - I used Baltimore as an example because it is the most recent.
A summary of the number of times the DOJ has investigated police departments: Link
These aren't criminals committing crimes and getting arrested, these are innocent American citizens who are getting detained and formally arrested without cause. The DOJ also discusses unreasonable force on innocent civilians (page 74) and even gets into the BPD practice of "rough riding" (page 112).
I think every American can agree that unlawful arrests and beatings of hundreds of thousands of American citizens is a cause worth protesting. |
Thanks for the link. Interesting read though I'm not yet done.
However as the DOJ seems to be agenda driven by the simple fact of the types of issues they pursue and those they do not, I take any of their 'estimations' with a grain of salt. One just needs to look at whose civil rights they choose to protect or not, and which parts of the constitution they want to follow and when.
As noted in my NC ticketing example, one can't assume directly that population ratios should be carried over to specific activities. One can't take a 2:1 ratio of AA:white and directly relate that to cases of 'loitering' stops/arrests (for example) and expect the same ratio to be the target. One has to look at the ratio of those actual out and about. In the extreme sense (again, as an example), if the majority of the white population was over 40, and the majority of the AA population is under 25, then you will probably have a much higher percentage of
potential AA 'loitering candidates' since most people over 40 (regardless of race) don't "hang out". Similarly as it comes to income levels, the poor tend to "hang out" more than those well off, as being well off affords the opportunity to do other things. Did the report compare race differences within the same income brackets?
That said, there
are quite a few disturbing items in here. Definite things that need to be addressed. But one key element of the report could be summed up on page 23. "We are left with the firm impression that, despite the significant obstacles to restoring community trust in BPD, there is a deep desire across diverse elements of the City for a police force that is responsive, effective, and fair." This would indicate by those involved, and from the cooperation and full access granted by the BPD, that
all parties are willing to fix that. The future should be the take away here, not the past.
As far as cop shootings, it's always a tragedy when someone innocent is shot. But anyone who wants to dig deep into this needs to wonder why this is a 'front page' item
today. If you look at the historical data (another item I previously pointed to), the rate of police killings for AA males under the age of 25 was 5 times higher in the late 60s than it is today and 2 times higher in the late 70s than today. For older AA, it was 4 times higher in the late 60s and about 3 times higher in the late 70s than today. All other races as a whole have been fairly constant. My snarky question would be "maybe we should investigate why those didn't drop at the same rate"?
The problem arises when this is agenda driven and not fact driven. How many 'innocent' people were shot by the police that are still being held up as examples when the evidence clearly shows they were not 'innocent'? Add to that other 'race related' incidents, that low and behold, never happened but are still held up as 'examples'. I could run off a list from the top of my head. Would you not agree that all these 'false positives' do more to dilute the problem? Or maybe leave a 'bad taste' for those who might otherwise care? It's "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome. But if it fits the race baiter's agenda and people's pre-conceived notion, the hell with the facts. Charlotte is a fresh example. But hey, I guess for some, "Black Lives Matter" to the extent that I can loot and get my free big flat screen TV. Yes, I'm clearly being facetious. But hopefully you can see how all these 'false positives' impact perception as well.
So, what to do about the shootings and treatment of AA by the police? What do you think would happen if by some magic today, all AA interactions with the police were polite and followed the officer's request without resistance or attitude? Do you think shootings and harassment by the police would start to increase or decrease? That police wouldn't be quite as cautious, feel quite as threatened, and therefore probably not respond quite as forcefully. That spiral of trust/mistrust and respect/disrespect goes in both directions.
CK and others that 'protest' might 'care' about this, but it appears to me (IMHO) to be more 'bandwagon hopping' than anything.
Done here, as it's difficult to not be political when the topic itself is political in nature.