Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race

[NYcarbineer]

The following is from the recent Heather Mac Donald article which I recommend for reading:


"The New York Times’s front page story this week on the New York Police Department and its allegedly racist stop-and-frisk practices follows a well-worn template: give specific racial breakdowns for every aspect of police behavior, but refer to racial crime rates only in the most attenuated of terms. Disclosing crime rates—the proper benchmark against which police behavior must be measured—would demolish a cornerstone of the Times’s worldview: that the New York Police Department, like police departments across America, oppresses the city’s black population with unjustified racial tactics.

This week’s story, written by Al Baker, began with what the Times thinks is a shocking disparity: “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.” (The fact that blacks, Hispanics, and whites are arrested at the same rate after a stop undercuts, rather than supports, the thesis of racially biased policing, but more on that later.)

The Times’s story includes a graphic breakdown of police stops by race: blacks made up 55 percent of all stops in 2009, though they’re only 23 percent of the city’s population; whites accounted for 10 percent of all stops, though they’re 35 percent of the city’s population; Hispanics made up 32 percent of all stops, though 28 percent of the population, and Asians, 3 percent of all stops and 12 percent of the population. The article details a host of other police actions by specific racial numbers, including arrests, frisks, and use of force.

Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.

Given the vast disproportion in the city’s crime rates, you can either have policing that goes after crime and saves minority lives, or you can have policing that mirrors the city’s census data. You cannot have both."
Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal 14 May 2010

The percent of crime that is committed by persons who happen to fit your demographic is in no way a justification for violating your rights.

If you want racial profiling, amend the Constitution to allow it. Problem solved.

Equal protection is provided by the stop and frisk program.

It is typical liberal pap to claim other than that.

Conservatives believe that data should inform policy while liberals believe that feeling is as good as knowing. This is a perfect example of the difference.

When victims identify perps as black or hispanic, that is the description of individuals who should be stopped and questioned.. Problem solved.

Were you appointed or elected to speak for all conservatives and liberals?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So-called stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. If police are disproportionately stopping people of color that are not committing crimes, as the record indicates, then they are being unreasonably suspicious, or racially profiling,

by simple mathematics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The percent of crime that is committed by persons who happen to fit your demographic is in no way a justification for violating your rights.

If you want racial profiling, amend the Constitution to allow it. Problem solved.

Equal protection is provided by the stop and frisk program.

It is typical liberal pap to claim other than that.

Conservatives believe that data should inform policy while liberals believe that feeling is as good as knowing. This is a perfect example of the difference.

When victims identify perps as black or hispanic, that is the description of individuals who should be stopped and questioned.. Problem solved.

Were you appointed or elected to speak for all conservatives and liberals?

What a vapid, even for you, comment.

I speak as a conservative, and label you based on characteristics you evince.

 

[Samson]

I think the statistics speak for themselves--that there IS more crime among blacks and Latinos. I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered.

As usual, however, my "opinion" on the entire matter is that nothing will change until the root causes for those problems are changed, and we'll all be dead and buried before that ever happens.

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious....

Its not as easy as it looks.

BTW, likewise, I'm pleased with your firm grip.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So-called stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. If police are disproportionately stopping people of color that are not committing crimes, as the record indicates, then they are being unreasonably suspicious, or racially profiling,

by simple mathematics.

I can see where simple applies...to you.

Based on this post either you cannot comprehend the OP, or you have not read it.

I have seen other posts of yours, so I don't believe that it is the former, and, using the theorem of the 'World's First Consulting Detective,' that once you remove the impossible, whatever remains must be the solution...you haven't bothered to read the OP.

Another characteristic identifiable with your 'group.'


Consider this remedial: "The actual crime rates reveal that blacks are being significantly understopped, compared with their representation in the city’s criminal population,..."
See if you can guess the source.

 

[nraforlife]

The important thing is that blacks and Latinos are most often the victims of crime. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to get shot than whites. Blacks and Latinos are most likely to be robbed and raped. .

Almost always by other Negroes and Mex. Whites/Asians on the otherhand are VERY frequently targeted by the coloured.

...........because of stories like this, minorities are less well protected.

how do you figure that reporting the Truth CAUSES negro on negro crime?

Your terminology is very outdated. No one will take you seriously if you use the words 'Negro' and 'Colored'.

I am not at all concerned about the approval of PC whipped sheeple and their masters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the statistics speak for themselves--that there IS more crime among blacks and Latinos. I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered.

As usual, however, my "opinion" on the entire matter is that nothing will change until the root causes for those problems are changed, and we'll all be dead and buried before that ever happens.

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious....

Its not as easy as it looks.

BTW, likewise, I'm pleased with your firm grip.

It this a Tu Quoque or 'so are you' post?

Bottom of the barrel.


If I used emoticons, I'd stick out my tongue here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Almost always by other Negroes and Mex. Whites/Asians on the otherhand are VERY frequently targeted by the coloured.





how do you figure that reporting the Truth CAUSES negro on negro crime?

Your terminology is very outdated. No one will take you seriously if you use the words 'Negro' and 'Colored'.

I am not at all concerned about the approval of PC whipped sheeple and their masters.

Did you just call me...or your dominatrix?

 

[nraforlife]

Your terminology is very outdated. No one will take you seriously if you use the words 'Negro' and 'Colored'.

I am not at all concerned about the approval of PC whipped sheeple and their masters.

Did you just call me...or your dominatrix?

Neither

 

[Samson]

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious....

Its not as easy as it looks.

BTW, likewise, I'm pleased with your firm grip.

It this a Tu Quoque or 'so are you' post?

Bottom of the barrel.


If I used emoticons, I'd stick out my tongue here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

its not as easy as it looks.

Btw, likewise, i'm pleased with your firm grip.

it this a tu quoque or 'so are you' post?

Bottom of the barrel.


If i used emoticons, i'd stick out my tongue here.

ooooooooooooooh!

 

[MaggieMae]

I think the statistics speak for themselves--that there IS more crime among blacks and Latinos. I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered.

As usual, however, my "opinion" on the entire matter is that nothing will change until the root causes for those problems are changed, and we'll all be dead and buried before that ever happens.

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious...

as for your "I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered." it's another example of the famous joke NYTimes headline:

"Asteroid destroy's earth: Women and minorities hardest hit. ..."


It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.

Reading the NYT is just like reading the WSJ. You learn to recognize the bias, embellishments and pure spin. That said, they both continue to be the most widely read newsprint in the world.

 

[Samson]

I think the statistics speak for themselves--that there IS more crime among blacks and Latinos. I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered.

As usual, however, my "opinion" on the entire matter is that nothing will change until the root causes for those problems are changed, and we'll all be dead and buried before that ever happens.

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious...

as for your "I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered." it's another example of the famous joke NYTimes headline:

"Asteroid destroy's earth: Women and minorities hardest hit. ..."


It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.

Reading the NYT is just like reading the WSJ. You learn to recognize the bias, embellishments and pure spin. That said, they both continue to be the most widely read newsprint in the world.

PHHHHHTTTTTT....Try Again

When has The WSJ been scandelised with false reporting?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the statistics speak for themselves--that there IS more crime among blacks and Latinos. I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered.

As usual, however, my "opinion" on the entire matter is that nothing will change until the root causes for those problems are changed, and we'll all be dead and buried before that ever happens.

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious...

as for your "I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered." it's another example of the famous joke NYTimes headline:

"Asteroid destroy's earth: Women and minorities hardest hit. ..."


It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.

Reading the NYT is just like reading the WSJ. You learn to recognize the bias, embellishments and pure spin. That said, they both continue to be the most widely read newsprint in the world.

It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.[/QUOTE]

The comparison of the NYT and WSJ is unfair: the Journal does not allow editorial tenor to invade news presentation. I have seen news articles absolutely deflate one of the editorials on the same day. Often.


As far as readership: WSJ and then USA

"USA Today is a national American daily newspaper published by the Gannett Company. It was founded by Al Neuharth. The newspaper vies with The Wall Street Journal for the position of having the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United States, something it previously held since 2003. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the paper has 1.8 million copies as of March 2010[2] compared to the Wall Street Journal's 2.1 million though this figure includes the WSJ's 400,000 paid-for, online subscribers. USA Today remains the widest circulated print newspaper in the United States."
USA Today - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MaggieMae]

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious...

as for your "I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered." it's another example of the famous joke NYTimes headline:

"Asteroid destroy's earth: Women and minorities hardest hit. ..."


It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.

Reading the NYT is just like reading the WSJ. You learn to recognize the bias, embellishments and pure spin. That said, they both continue to be the most widely read newsprint in the world.

PHHHHHTTTTTT....Try Again

When has The WSJ been scandelised with false reporting?

What's that got to do with the truth behind my simple statement? I'm not talking about "scandals" at all. (And yet in spite of any NYT "scandal" it remains widely read. Go figure.)

Since Murdoch took over the WSJ, it's editorial page is extremely biased toward the right, and many of its article headlines are contorted to imply what THEY want the reader to accept.

 

[MaggieMae]

Notice that Samson has his usual firm grip on the obvious...

as for your "I don't know why the NYT would take up such an issue easily countered." it's another example of the famous joke NYTimes headline:

"Asteroid destroy's earth: Women and minorities hardest hit. ..."


It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.

Reading the NYT is just like reading the WSJ. You learn to recognize the bias, embellishments and pure spin. That said, they both continue to be the most widely read newsprint in the world.

It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.

The comparison of the NYT and WSJ is unfair: the Journal does not allow editorial tenor to invade news presentation. I have seen news articles absolutely deflate one of the editorials on the same day. Often.


As far as readership: WSJ and then USA

"USA Today is a national American daily newspaper published by the Gannett Company. It was founded by Al Neuharth. The newspaper vies with The Wall Street Journal for the position of having the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United States, something it previously held since 2003. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the paper has 1.8 million copies as of March 2010[2] compared to the Wall Street Journal's 2.1 million though this figure includes the WSJ's 400,000 paid-for, online subscribers. USA Today remains the widest circulated print newspaper in the United States."
USA Today - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

Is USA Today still free? It also has been rocked by bad reporting (Samson's note). Is this what you want to debate? Which has the widest circulation? Or the bias expressed by the WSJ, which is practically acknowledged by Murdoch himself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Equal protection is provided by the stop and frisk program.

It is typical liberal pap to claim other than that.

Conservatives believe that data should inform policy while liberals believe that feeling is as good as knowing. This is a perfect example of the difference.

When victims identify perps as black or hispanic, that is the description of individuals who should be stopped and questioned.. Problem solved.

Were you appointed or elected to speak for all conservatives and liberals?

What a vapid, even for you, comment.

I speak as a conservative, and label you based on characteristics you evince.

When you say 'conservatives believe' you are not speaking for yourself you are assuming you can define what conservatives believe.

I would say that the conservatives for example who think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science class are subscribing to your theory that data should inform policy. Conservatives who believe that cutting taxes will increase tax revenues are believing anything but.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So-called stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. If police are disproportionately stopping people of color that are not committing crimes, as the record indicates, then they are being unreasonably suspicious, or racially profiling,

by simple mathematics.

I can see where simple applies...to you.

Based on this post either you cannot comprehend the OP, or you have not read it.

I have seen other posts of yours, so I don't believe that it is the former, and, using the theorem of the 'World's First Consulting Detective,' that once you remove the impossible, whatever remains must be the solution...you haven't bothered to read the OP.

Another characteristic identifiable with your 'group.'


Consider this remedial: "The actual crime rates reveal that blacks are being significantly understopped, compared with their representation in the city’s criminal population,..."
See if you can guess the source.

If you are black and not a criminal, then your only relation to the black criminals is your color. It is not your obligation under the Constitution to be treated differently because you are black, if you are law abiding, no matter what other blacks may be doing.

Like I said, if you want racial profiling, amend the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Were you appointed or elected to speak for all conservatives and liberals?

What a vapid, even for you, comment.

I speak as a conservative, and label you based on characteristics you evince.

When you say 'conservatives believe' you are not speaking for yourself you are assuming you can define what conservatives believe.

I would say that the conservatives for example who think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science class are subscribing to your theory that data should inform policy. Conservatives who believe that cutting taxes will increase tax revenues are believing anything but.

And, of course, that would be expected from a non-Conservative certainly not attempting to put Conservatives in a good light. How clever and original.
You must have earned the Liberal Merit Badge.

It appears that your response to having been soundly spanked in this thread is to use sleight of hand to change the subject.

I suggest that, since you enjoy the beating, you begin one or both threads as follows:
1. What a Conservative believes, and/or

2. The effect of tax cuts.

And, try to be more above board in your responses.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reading the NYT is just like reading the WSJ. You learn to recognize the bias, embellishments and pure spin. That said, they both continue to be the most widely read newsprint in the world.

It seems that the liberal template supercedes all common sense or truth.

The comparison of the NYT and WSJ is unfair: the Journal does not allow editorial tenor to invade news presentation. I have seen news articles absolutely deflate one of the editorials on the same day. Often.


As far as readership: WSJ and then USA

"USA Today is a national American daily newspaper published by the Gannett Company. It was founded by Al Neuharth. The newspaper vies with The Wall Street Journal for the position of having the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United States, something it previously held since 2003. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the paper has 1.8 million copies as of March 2010[2] compared to the Wall Street Journal's 2.1 million though this figure includes the WSJ's 400,000 paid-for, online subscribers. USA Today remains the widest circulated print newspaper in the United States."
USA Today - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The OP is an expose of the NYTimes.