Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011 From: The Old Pueblo Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub No it does not..necessarily... For instance using round figures the DOJ says that because 65 percent of the city is African American and 80 percent of pull overs are of African Americans this MUST be because of racial profiling. But... what if African Americans are not as law abiding as other races in the city? Is this impossible...What if African Americans are more disrespectful and confrontational? What if the majority of the crime reported, by not only white but African Americans as well, are perpetrated by blacks... who would you be more suspicious of as a police officer... who SHOULD you be more suspicious of... I'll tell you... the people committing the majority of crime. Throughout the US, not just Ferguson, this is what is and has been happening for a long time. A relatively small percentage of the population is committing the majority of crime so sensible police reaction would be to concentrate on that part of the population. That said....If I am a law abiding African American and I am pulled over by police...questioned and searched because of a recent crime in the area committed by a black I would damn well be mad and it is dead wrong. I think this study does point to the need for change...I just hope they have some answers or suggestions to go along with their condemnation. AND that they realize this is just not Ferguson...or St. Louis ...or LA... or New York...but most every place in the US with a significant African American population. There needs to be social changes to go along with Police training and equipment if there is any chance for this study to mean shit. I'll tell you what does not work... ignoring who is committing the crime... St. Louis has done just that and had a massive surge in crime because of it... do we want this?... Not in my town... so come on DOJ... lets have something besides dumb ass condemnation without guidance. Butch ps... The government IS THE PEOPLE... how can they be in office and be hostile to the voting public??????????? I know that we've been over this before, Butch, and even if they were given the benefit of the doubt on the profiling, it still doesn't change the fact that they're still relying on fines from citations to balance the city budget. At the very least, this means that the city leaders are fiscally irresponsible and are trying to make up the difference by handing out frivolous and possibly bogus citations just to gouge the public and pay their inflated salaries. It also undermines the credibility of police agencies which claim that writing citations is not to raise revenue but to promote better public safety. Obviously, they're full of it when they say things like that. It's all a scheme for revenue enhancement, yet the cops refuse to admit it, so that makes them liars, in my opinion. And to answer your last question, this wouldn't be the first time there has been hostility between the people and their government. How they get elected in the first place is a good question, and it's an equally good question to ask why politicians and public servants are so hostile and disrespectful to their employers. I think part of the answer has to do with the fact that the system of checks and balances is not strong or effective enough. I think that we have to reach the painful conclusion that "representative democracy" is not strong enough to carry out the people's will and that more democracy is needed to balance the scales in favor of the people. One possibility could be to make the police chief and top police ranks (above sergeant) into elected posts, so that the people have some say over who runs the police department. There could also be an official complaint system where, if a government employee gets complaints from at least three different citizens (regardless of cause), then that government employee is summarily fired from their job. Giving the power back to the people might have the effect of taming government and making them less hostile to the public.
|