Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Reekwind wrote: »

The figures certainly suggest so.

"...African-American drivers represented 86 percent of all traffic stops despite making up only 67 percent of the city’s population; white drivers, by contrast, accounted for only about 13 percent of the traffic stops in Ferguson despite making up 29 percent of its population. Meanwhile, African-American drivers accounted for nearly 93 percent of the arrests and whites only 7 percent, despite the fact that, when Ferguson police did search drivers, they found contraband on more than a third of their white targets and only a fifth of their black ones."

Amazingly, an overwhelmingly white police force has a habit of disproportionally singling out black drivers for searches and arrests. What are the odds of that? Which is of course not to even to go into the qualitative accounts of policing in Ferguson.

So either the police are amazingly good at their jobs and most criminals are black (even though the fewer whites stopped are statistically more likely to be criminals) or there is indeed a racial bias to policing in that area. Which is it? (Hint: this is the bit where you try to answer the question in my above post.)

You're taking a single factor and presuming it explains everything.

Most low level, petty crime tends to be committed by those who are poor. Poor people are more likely to be poorly educated and lack opportunities to achieve wealth legitimately. Poor areas are more likely to have a drug problem, with attendant very visible crime and violence. Much of the Gardai's is taken up with policing poor white people. Much of the US cops time is going to be taken up with policing poor white/black/asian/hispanic people. White people are simply far less likely to be poor in the US.

The US census in 2010 indicated that the median household net worth for whites was $110,729. It was $4,995 for blacks. I'm not familiar with the particular wealth dynamics in Ferguson, but reports I've seen have implied a significant black/white wealth disparity between neighbourhoods. Hence, the over-representation of black people in vehicle stops is explicable by their equal over-representation in poor neighbourhoods and lack of wealth. One follows the other, in all countries, regardless of race.

In terms of the arrests for contraband: The contraband for blacks included stolen property and weapons. Those are going to be a lot more serious and lot more likely to lead to an arrest than simple drugs/alcohol which could be something as simple as a spliff. Aggregating it all as "contraband" and presuming an illegal weapon is treated as serious as a spliff is either lazy or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the figures. Lies, damned lies and statistics as they say.

If you want to decry a problem, it is the quite frankly shocking figures in wealth disparity I mentioned above. The vehicle stops are just a symptom. I'd say if you ran the tests colour blind and simply categorised those stopped by net wealth the disparity on stops, arrests and imprisonment would be vastly stronger than a simple black/white divide. But people who see every problem as one of race have no solution for what is a wealth issue so that's not going to be popular for them.

EDIT - Back on the events themselves, from the autopsy released today, there appears to have been six shots - all to the front of Michael Brown. He does not appear to have been shot in the back as was originally claimed. The autopsy has indicated that his arms were probably raised though. Based on that eyewitness claiming Brown turned and ran towards Wilson, it seems the key point is determining if Browns arms were raised to surrender, or to attack Wilson. And if I guess a big man like Brown charging at you is enough to justify shooting him. The shooting must have been pretty panicked - it certainly doesn't appear to have been a stone cold pattern of shots to the chest/head. Most of them hit him in the arm.

Egginacup wrote: »

Humvees!!!

FCUKING HUMVEES trundling into Ferguson? Are you people taking the urine?

The rest of the world is howling with laughter at the dopes who think that you need an M60 to protect some donut guzzling slob in a Chevy from a stray dog.

And now that a few people have complained about being beaten or shot whilst trying to escape the chimp PD, the CPD are now bringing in airborne muscle and National Guard to hopefully keep a lid on their own dumbness.

I've seen some utter useless and boneheaded decisions in my life and I've seen some pillocks like the Mayor of Ferguson trying to explain things, along with a dope of a police commissioner but this is an embarrassment.

I'm actually looking forward to more statements from the paragons of education, diplomacy and intelligence that are stammering through their words regarding their own incompetence and stupidity.

Which news source are you trusting on this to have such a definite point of view.

Also the world is howling with laughter? Nothing against you, a lot of people use that kind of term or how when Roy Keane left Saipan in 2002 we were the laughing stock of world football. Do we or should we care that much? Also, who give a fudge if the world is howling with laughter...every country has deplorable stories and events in their history...

cometogether wrote: »

F uck the American police. Seriously, animals.

You wouldn't mean these guys would you.
Starts about 17.30. not for the squeamish.

RustyNut wrote: »

What civilised country sends its military to war on its own citizens?

The National Guard have many functions.......saying that they are going to war on its own citizens is crazy, sounds like a fox headline.

The national guard are being used to support the police, they aren't going around gunning down crowds of protesters.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And the police in Ferguson have been crushing initially peaceful protests and arresting journalists trying to cover the story. So anyone who goes to support the police action is arguably going to war against the right to demonstrate.

You left out a word.....you have the right to demonstrate PEACEFULLY.....the initially peaceful protests were not "crushed" by police, they turned to rioting and looting on the very first night.

rockonollie wrote: »

You left out a word.....you have the right to demonstrate PEACEFULLY.....the initially peaceful protests were not "crushed" by police, they turned to rioting and looting on the very first night.

They wouldn't have if the cops had handled the situation properly. Firstly going back on their word about releasing the officer's name, and secondly deploying riot cops against the entire protest rather than just the riots.

EDIT: What have you to say about the arresting of journalists?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Can't believe the city is paying that guy. A coked up junkie attacks them with a knife and gets put down without a shot fired. At least the cops are getting their jobs back. Ironically they probably would have had less hassle by just shooting him.

OK, if you think that beating was justified then that speaks volumes about you.

rockonollie wrote: »

So far, every journalist arrested has been because of their refusal to vacate an area that the police are attempting to secure.

This is false as has been verified by many journalists there have been cases of them being arrested for no reason other than being in that area without been given orders or time to vacate

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Rewriting historical facts, are you.

Watts riots


Demonstrators push against a police car after rioting erupted in a crowd of 1,500 in the Los Angeles area of Watts, August 12, 1965. AP
After a California Highway Patrol officer pulled over Marquette Frye, a black 21-year-old, for reckless driving in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles on Aug. 11, 1965, a confrontation ensued between the suspect and police.

Witnesses of the confrontation accused the police officer of excessive force and discrimination. African Americans in the Los Angeles area already felt unfairly targeted by police, and the Frye incident became a tipping point.

Unable to quell the civil unrest, Police Chief William H. Parker called on the state's National Guard to assist in restoring order. Almost 4,000 National Guardsmen were called in during the six days of unrest. Thirty-four people were killed, more than 1,000 injured, and more than 3,400 people were arrested.

Kent State shooting


Ohio National Guard moves in on students at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. Four people were killed and eleven wounded on May 4, 1970 when National Guardsmen opened fire. File/AP
A peaceful protest at Kent State University in Ohio turned deadly when the state’s National Guard opened fire on May 4, 1970. The demonstrators were protesting President Richard Nixon’s April 30 announcement of a U.S. military campaign in Cambodia at a time when the public was already questioning American actions in Vietnam.

Nixon's announcement had been followed by days of protests in Kent and violent threats to city officials and businesses, which led to the deployment of the National Guards troops.

National Guardsmen were trying to control protesters on May 4, but they refused to disperse and held their ground. Guardsmen alleged that a sniper had shot at them before 29 troops fired 67 rounds in 13 seconds at the protesters. Four people were killed and nine others wounded. The sniper allegation has yet to be proven.

Rodney King riots


A fire burns out of control in South Central Los Angeles April 30, 1992. Paul Sakuma/AP
The acquittal of four LAPD officers in the beating of Rodney King on April 24, 1992 sparked racially fueled riots in Los Angeles. The incident, in which the officers tasered King, kicked him in the head, and beat him for over a minute, was caught on camera and widely covered in national media.

Already angered at the beating of King, the acquittal ignited outrage and civil unrest throughout Los Angeles. The National Guard was called in after the televised civil unrest developed into looting, arson and killings for several days. More than 50 people were killed, up to 2,000 were injured, and property damage was estimated at $1 billion in the largest civil disturbances since the 1960s.

So you still think the National Guard are the answer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdHI3LrAYiE

Where exactly did i state that the national guard never use force......of course they do, sometimes neccessary, sometimes not......just because they have been asked to help in ferguson, it doesn't mean that they're there to gun down protesters.

The state troopers and police dept are still the ones dealing with the protests, a small detachment of the national guard are protecting the police command center, not engaging with protesters.