CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[Soupnazi630]

You have no idea how the real world works

Yes equal rights exist in the real world and you have failed to demonstrate or prove otherwise.

Proofing is not wrong.

Um, guy, pulling people over for the color of their skin is wrong.. period..

and cops seem to think this is okay.

There is no evidence that they think it is ok or that they do this.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no evidence that they think it is ok or that they do this.

You mean all the surveys and records that prove them do...

Hey, check this out, some of that great police work.

 

[MacTheKnife]

You have no idea how the real world works

Yes equal rights exist in the real world and you have failed to demonstrate or prove otherwise.

Proofing is not wrong.

Um, guy, pulling people over for the color of their skin is wrong.. period..

and cops seem to think this is okay.

Of course it is ok....in fact very desirable. Simply because it has been proven that it reduces crim

You have no idea how the real world works

Yes equal rights exist in the real world and you have failed to demonstrate or prove otherwise.

Proofing is not wrong.

.
Um, guy, pulling people over for the color of their skin is wrong.. period..

and cops seem to think this is okay.

There is no evidence that they think it is ok or that they do this.

Racial profiling works...it has been proven to reduce crime. To think otherwise may be politically correct but it is stulpid..............Not profiling people is foolish and dangerous

 

[JoeB131]

Of course it is ok....in fact very desirable. Simply because it has been proven that it reduces crim

We have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world. Racist cops don't prevent crime.. in fact, communities are less likely to talk to the cops because they don't want to get some poor kid shot for something stupid.

Racial profiling works...it has been proven to reduce crime. To think otherwise may be politically correct but it is stulpid.............

No, stupid is the law discriminating against people and then wondering why no one trusts the cops.

That's what gets you citizens who don't report crimes, people who don't want to be witnesses, and juries that pretty much don't believe a damned thing the cops say on the stand.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Of course it is ok....in fact very desirable. Simply because it has been proven that it reduces crim

We have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world. Racist cops don't prevent crime.. in fact, communities are less likely to talk to the cops because they don't want to get some poor kid shot for something stupid.

Racial profiling works...it has been proven to reduce crime. To think otherwise may be politically correct but it is stulpid.............

No, stupid is the law discriminating against people and then wondering why no one trusts the cops.

That's what gets you citizens who don't report crimes, people who don't want to be witnesses, and juries that pretty much don't believe a damned thing the cops say on the stand.

The negroes committ crime at a highly disproportinate rate...undisputable...even obama admitted it.

Thus they need to be policed in a disproportinate manner....case closed. To claim otherwise is liberal bigotry.

 

[JoeB131]

The negroes committ crime at a highly disproportinate rate...undisputable...even obama admitted it.

Thus they need to be policed in a disproportinate manner....case closed. To claim otherwise is liberal bigotry

"the nergroes"... it's only a matter of time before the illustrate their racism and illiteracy.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The negroes committ crime at a highly disproportinate rate...undisputable...even obama admitted it.


chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html

Thus they need to be policed in a disproportinate manner....case closed. To claim otherwise is liberal bigotry

"the nergroes"... it's only a matter of time before the illustrate their racism and illiteracy.

The negroes committ crime at a highly disproportinate rate...undisputable...even obama admitted it.

Thus they need to be policed in a disproportinate manner....case closed. To claim otherwise is liberal bigotry

"the nergroes"... it's only a matter of time before the illustrate their racism and illiteracy.

The negroes committ crime at a highly disproportinate rate...undisputable...even obama admitted it.

Thus they need to be policed in a disproportinate manner....case closed. To claim otherwise is liberal bigotry

"the nergroes"... it's only a matter of time before the illustrate their racism and illiteracy.

Major Findings





Click here for the PDF version.
Click here to read on Scribd.

• The evidence suggests that if there is police racial bias in arrests it is negligible. Victim and witness surveys show that police arrest violent criminals in close proportion to the rates at which criminals of different races commit violent crimes.
• Both violent and nonviolent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.

Crime rates

• There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
• In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a nonblack to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

Interracial crime

• In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

Urban centers

• In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting”—defined as firing a bullet that hits someone—a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
• If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
• In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

Police shootings

• In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
• In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.

The 1999 version of “The Color of Crime” is located here. The 2005 version can be found here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course it is ok....in fact very desirable. Simply because it has been proven that it reduces crim

We have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world. Racist cops don't prevent crime.. in fact, communities are less likely to talk to the cops because they don't want to get some poor kid shot for something stupid.

Racial profiling works...it has been proven to reduce crime. To think otherwise may be politically correct but it is stulpid.............

No, stupid is the law discriminating against people and then wondering why no one trusts the cops.

That's what gets you citizens who don't report crimes, people who don't want to be witnesses, and juries that pretty much don't believe a damned thing the cops say on the stand.

You have a series of robberies in an area and the witnesses all report the perpetrators as being white guys. It would make no sense for the cops to give extra scrutiny to black guys in that area. But the reverse is also true. If the witnesses all report the perpetrators as being black guys, then it makes sense for the cops to give extra scrutiny to black guys in that area and racism has nothing to do with it.

The vast majority of terrorist activity in recent years has been committed by middle eastern looking guys or those who have been radicalized by and emulate them. There have been zero incidents of little old ladies, especially ones in wheel chairs, implicated in any of that sort of crime, let alone terrorist acts. To give the same degree of scrutiny to little old ladies, especially ones in wheel chairs, as is given to middle eastern looking guys just to be 'fair' is a laughable waste of time and resources, not to mention inconvenience to people who are 100% no risk to anybody.

Sure run everybody through metal detectors and xray their carry ons. Probably no terrorist has been discovered in that way, but knowing that it is a policy is probably a deterrent. But ethnic profiling is in no way racist if middle eastern looking guys are viewed with more suspicion than are little old ladies in wheel chairs. And it better protects the vast majority of middle eastern looking guys who are not terrorists too.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Of course it is ok....in fact very desirable. Simply because it has been proven that it reduces crim

We have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world. Racist cops don't prevent crime.. in fact, communities are less likely to talk to the cops because they don't want to get some poor kid shot for something stupid.

Racial profiling works...it has been proven to reduce crime. To think otherwise may be politically correct but it is stulpid.............

No, stupid is the law discriminating against people and then wondering why no one trusts the cops.

That's what gets you citizens who don't report crimes, people who don't want to be witnesses, and juries that pretty much don't believe a damned thing the cops say on the stand.

You quickly forgot that your smear about racist cops is a myth which was massively debunked.

Your entire premise is rooted on the existence of racism on a wide spread scale which you MISERABLY failed to demonstrate or support with evidence

This undermines and destroys the rest of your post.

How is it wrong to seek a white guy while searching for a serial killer? Typically serial killers are white guys. That is racial prodiling.

It works, it is accurate and it helps to bring criminals to justice. However in your view it is racist and discriminatory and should never be allowed. Instead we should let the Ted Bundy's and Boston stranglers and other serial murderers be allowed to murder unmolested while we look for the wrong guy.

Of course other types of criminals tend to fit different profiles including racial profiles


But because you scream it is racist, law enforcement is not allowed to recognize reality.

 

[JoeB131]

You quickly forgot that your smear about racist cops is a myth which was massively debunked.

No, I didn't.. I just stopped talking to you because you keep repeating the same stuff. Moving on to someone who has something to say.

You have a series of robberies in an area and the witnesses all report the perpetrators as being white guys. It would make no sense for the cops to give extra scrutiny to black guys in that area. But the reverse is also true. If the witnesses all report the perpetrators as being black guys, then it makes sense for the cops to give extra scrutiny to black guys in that area and racism has nothing to do with it.

We aren't talking about stopping guys who match a description in an APB. We are talking about the wonderful practice by big city cops to pull over black folks for minor traffic infractions hoping to find something more serious. And yeah, this sometimes leads to tragedies like Walter Scott or Philandro Castille.

Sure run everybody through metal detectors and xray their carry ons. Probably no terrorist has been discovered in that way, but knowing that it is a policy is probably a deterrent. But ethnic profiling is in no way racist if middle eastern looking guys are viewed with more suspicion than are little old ladies in wheel chairs. And it better protects the vast majority of middle eastern looking guys who are not terrorists too.

Have any terrorists been caught that way? The three terrorists who were caught post 9/11 were the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber and the dirty bomber. The Shoe bomber was a white guy who converted to Islam, the dirty bomber was a Hispanic who converted... and the Underwear bomber was a Nigerian national. So the profiling of middle eastern dudes wouldn't have caught ANY of those guys.

 

[Foxfyre]

You quickly forgot that your smear about racist cops is a myth which was massively debunked.

No, I didn't.. I just stopped talking to you because you keep repeating the same stuff. Moving on to someone who has something to say.

You have a series of robberies in an area and the witnesses all report the perpetrators as being white guys. It would make no sense for the cops to give extra scrutiny to black guys in that area. But the reverse is also true. If the witnesses all report the perpetrators as being black guys, then it makes sense for the cops to give extra scrutiny to black guys in that area and racism has nothing to do with it.

We aren't talking about stopping guys who match a description in an APB. We are talking about the wonderful practice by big city cops to pull over black folks for minor traffic infractions hoping to find something more serious. And yeah, this sometimes leads to tragedies like Walter Scott or Philandro Castille.

Sure run everybody through metal detectors and xray their carry ons. Probably no terrorist has been discovered in that way, but knowing that it is a policy is probably a deterrent. But ethnic profiling is in no way racist if middle eastern looking guys are viewed with more suspicion than are little old ladies in wheel chairs. And it better protects the vast majority of middle eastern looking guys who are not terrorists too.

Have any terrorists been caught that way? The three terrorists who were caught post 9/11 were the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber and the dirty bomber. The Shoe bomber was a white guy who converted to Islam, the dirty bomber was a Hispanic who converted... and the Underwear bomber was a Nigerian national. So the profiling of middle eastern dudes wouldn't have caught ANY of those guys.

We don't really know how many intended terrorist attacks by whatever groups have been thwarted do we. And I was very specific in referencing middle eastern looking guys and those who emulate them. So you could have a point that profiling has not been successful in stopping all attacks. And I could have a point that some intended attacks have indeed been prevented. Every now and then one of those attacks that was intercepted and stopped actually makes it into the newspapers but that is pretty rare.

As for more diversity on police forces, statistics indicate more diversity would have little or no effect. Officers of color are actually marginally more likely to kill a black suspect during commission of a crime or cases of resisted arrest than white cops are. But no big deal is ever made about those, nor is there anger when a black cop shoots somebody who is white. Instead the whole focus seems to be labeling white cops as motivated solely by race.

And the implication is pretty strong that traffic stops would probably shake out pretty much the same way if an intellectually honest study was done about those dynamics.

There are bad cops out there. I have known some. There are some very good cops of all colors out there. I have known some of those too. To point to an anecdotal incident showing some asshole out of the roughly 775,000 active duty police officers there are in the country and saying that is what is happening is just plain dishonest.

I will concede that many completely innocent black people do get pulled over at a much disproportionately higher rate than white motorists. And this is problematic though it is much more likely to be based on statistics than it is on any inherent racism. The fact is, in the early 20th century, black Americans in all classes were among the most law abiding of citizens. In the early 21st century they are committing crimes at a higher rate than white people. And that no doubt affects the attitudes of police officers regardless of their race.

.FactCheck: do black Americans commit more crime?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh I most certainly did prove you

Shush. The adults are talking.

As for more diversity on police forces, statistics indicate more diversity would have little or no effect. Officers of color are actually marginally more likely to kill a black suspect during commission of a crime or cases of resisted arrest than white cops are. But no big deal is ever made about those, nor is there anger when a black cop shoots somebody who is white. Instead the whole focus seems to be labeling white cops as motivated solely by race.

Yes, because usually, the behavior is pretty outrageous in those few cases. YOu have a case like LaQuan McDonald, where the police outright LIED about the incident, tried to buy off the family, and the FOP and city fought for four years to protect the cop involved even though they have him on videotape shooting this kid 16 times even after he was lying on the ground.

Or Tamir Rice, where a cop who had been fired or rejected from other police departments was given a job, jumped out of his car and shot a 12 year old playing with a toy.

Or Sandra Bland, who was arrested for a minor traffic violation, claimed that she assaulted a cop (video showed she didn't) and mysteriously died in police custody.

Yup. These are the things that black folks are upset about... and they should be. Now, if you can find a case where a black officer killed a white person that has such egregious behavior, by all means, post it.

Now all that said.. I think 99% of cops are great guys doing a difficult job for okay pay. But you have that 1% of bad apples like the officers mentioned above, and the system feels the need to protect them. The officer in the McDonald Shooting had 20 complaints of excessive force by civilians before he shot that kid. One involved a $400,000 payout.

The fact is, in the early 20th century, black Americans in all classes were among the most law abiding of citizens. In the early 21st century they are committing crimes at a higher rate than white people. And that no doubt affects the attitudes of police officers regardless of their race.

I would argue the opposite... they get arrested more crimes because the police are always on their case. Again, here in Chicago, I met a young man who spent 10 years in prison because the cops beat a confession out of one of his friends, the DA went with it, his public defender didn't challenge it. That's the kind of stuff we need to fix.

I don't disagree that wrong behavior by ANYBODY in government, and especially those with the kinds of authorities that cops, prosecutors, judges, etc. are given, should be dealt with even handedly but severely.

But wrong behavior is not based on skin color any more than crime is based on skin color. And if black gangs/thugs et al are committing disproportionately more crime, it only makes sense that a disproportionate number of black members will be arrested.

More so-called diversity on police forces will not address the problems that exist. No amount of citing of anecdotal cases disputes that. You see far more racism directed at black police officers coming from black people than what exists on police forces.

Here is pretty much my point of view as seen through the eyes of a black police officer. It is pretty lengthy but anybody who has time to read it will be more educated on the subject:
The Black Cops You Never Hear About

 

[there4eyeM]

The entire Diversity push from the Left is so people focus on our few differences instead of our vast similarities. It is purely to divide, keep us at odds, and weak.

Whether or not that is what's intended, it is certainly the effect. The problem is worsened with the same tactics from the other side.
What is needed is an "enlightened center", those of us ready to accept the positive attributes of various social experiments and apply them very, very carefully to avoid upsetting what is, after all, a highly efficient and productive society now.

 

[there4eyeM]

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

Perhaps, but American society is not based on dictates from other than the people, who included great variations of diversity.

We cannot overestimate the contribution of cultural diversity to this country. The 'founders', for example, were kindred spirits with the the French thinkers from Montaigne to Voltaire (often reading them in the original language). These in turn were joined by Hobbs, Locke & co. Protestant puritanism and Roman Catholic forgiveness. There were chasms of potential differences, yet these married in a recipe for a very successful nation. Lots of mistakes. Lots of problems, but by any measure, successful.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

Perhaps, but American society is not based on dictates from other than the people, who included great variations of diversity.

We cannot overestimate the contribution of cultural diversity to this country. The 'founders', for example, were kindred spirits with the the French thinkers from Montaigne to Voltaire (often reading them in the original language). These in turn were joined by Hobbs, Locke & co. Protestant puritanism and Roman Catholic forgiveness. There were chasms of potential differences, yet these married in a recipe for a very successful nation. Lots of mistakes. Lots of problems, but by any measure, successful.

For sure. The reason it took 11 long years from the beginning of the American Revolution until the Constitution would be signed in 1787 was because the Founders did NOT all think alike, did NOT put importance on all the same things in the same way, did NOT emphasize the same principles. Because there was so much give and take, consideration of all the possibilities and potential consequences, so much compromise and struggle to find common ground, and so much encouragement for everybody to provide his two cents, we have the amazing document that the Constitution now is.

No single person, group, ideology, religion, business model, societal structure etc. etc. etc. is ever going to recognize all the potential pitfalls and blessings as will having all points of view, insights, concepts, possibilities expressed. Even after 11 years of struggle and debate, the Founders appreciated the possibility that something they agreed on might not work as intended or that circumstances could change so they wisely provided a means to amend or change the Constitution. They also wisely made sure that no single center of power or ideology would have ability to do that.

Forced diversity will almost always produce more negatives than positives.

But intellectual diversity is essential for real education, critical thinking, and best solutions and plans to happen. Only the most narrow minded and intolerant do not encourage it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes BOY this adult.is talking to you and you need to listen.

How- hum... we were done with you pages ago... shh... the grownups are talking.

More so-called diversity on police forces will not address the problems that exist. No amount of citing of anecdotal cases disputes that. You see far more racism directed at black police officers coming from black people than what exists on police forces.

Well, let's try it and see what happens...

Take Chicago (Please). 52% of the PD is white, despite only making up 32% of the population. In the Van Dyke case, after he plugged 16 shots into a kid carrying a boy-scout knife, all the other white cops filled out falsified reports claiming he attacked the officer, they went about and destroyed all the videotape in nearby businesses, and stuck with that story for more than a year.

The city council attempted to pay off the family. ONly because one tape managed to survive do we know what really happened at all, and because civilian witnesses complained.

Oh, yeah, there was a female Hispanic officer who disputed the official account even after they tried to forge her name on a report. She reports that the rest of the PD is shunning her for telling the truth.

There are a lot of problems, and the lack of diversity is one of them. The other is that the FOP Police Union treats these thug cops like honored members.

Another anecdote presented as evidence for your argument? As if anecdotal evidence is a valid argument considering a whole demographic or segment of society? But okay let's go with that for a minute.

Again you are assuming that the corruption is because the majority of Chicago police officers are white. If the reverse was the situation and you assumed the corruption is because the majority is black, you would be blatantly racist yes? So is an assumption that corruption is because of a white majority.

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

Now is the corruption because there are so many black people? Or there are too many white people? Or maybe race has nothing to do with it?

Actually in 2017, 30.5% of the Chicago population was black. So if you are right that 52% of the Police Dept. is white, how is that disproportionate? I don't know how you can legitimately make that argument.

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

And I maintain that the problems we have are not due to racial diversity or lack of racial diversity but rather lies in the character of people in general. And more or less diversity will not fix that.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Yes BOY this adult.is talking to you and you need to listen.

How- hum... we were done with you pages ago... shh... the grownups are talking.

More so-called diversity on police forces will not address the problems that exist. No amount of citing of anecdotal cases disputes that. You see far more racism directed at black police officers coming from black people than what exists on police forces.

Well, let's try it and see what happens...

Take Chicago (Please). 52% of the PD is white, despite only making up 32% of the population. In the Van Dyke case, after he plugged 16 shots into a kid carrying a boy-scout knife, all the other white cops filled out falsified reports claiming he attacked the officer, they went about and destroyed all the videotape in nearby businesses, and stuck with that story for more than a year.

The city council attempted to pay off the family. ONly because one tape managed to survive do we know what really happened at all, and because civilian witnesses complained.

Oh, yeah, there was a female Hispanic officer who disputed the official account even after they tried to forge her name on a report. She reports that the rest of the PD is shunning her for telling the truth.

There are a lot of problems, and the lack of diversity is one of them. The other is that the FOP Police Union treats these thug cops like honored members.

Another anecdote presented as evidence for your argument? As if anecdotal evidence is a valid argument considering a whole demographic or segment of society? But okay let's go with that for a minute.

Again you are assuming that the corruption is because the majority of Chicago police officers are white. If the reverse was the situation and you assumed the corruption is because the majority is black, you would be blatantly racist yes? So is an assumption that corruption is because of a white majority.

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

Now is the corruption because there are so many black people? Or there are too many white people? Or maybe race has nothing to do with it?

Actually in 2017, 30.5% of the Chicago population was black. So if you are right that 52% of the Police Dept. is white, how is that disproportionate? I don't know how you can legitimately make that argument.

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

And I maintain that the problems we have are not due to racial diversity or lack of racial diversity but rather lies in the character of people in general. And more or less diversity will not fix that.

Absolutely on target

Well said.

 

[JoeB131]

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

It took four years and a lot of effort to convict him, and as you say, he's the first guy in 40 years to be convicted of that kind of misconduct. Do you think he's the only cop in 40 years to engage in that kind of misconduct?

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

The fact is, all Jason's fellow WHITE cops all sat around and conspired to cover for him. You talk to any of his fellow cops, they STILL think he's a martyr. (One of my relatives is a friend of his... We don't talk anymore.) Maybe if they had to work alongside black cops, didn't go back to their suburban homes at night, they'd act more like a community police force and less like an occupying army.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The truth of the matter is that today a cop is more apt to shoot a white guy than a black because he knows if he shoots a black there will be all sorts of investigtions because blacks are a federally protected race....whereas some poor white guy has no one to look out for him...their families often too poor to even be able to get a lawyer.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

It took four years and a lot of effort to convict him, and as you say, he's the first guy in 40 years to be convicted of that kind of misconduct. Do you think he's the only cop in 40 years to engage in that kind of misconduct?

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

The fact is, all Jason's fellow WHITE cops all sat around and conspired to cover for him. You talk to any of his fellow cops, they STILL think he's a martyr. (One of my relatives is a friend of his... We don't talk anymore.) Maybe if they had to work alongside black cops, didn't go back to their suburban homes at night, they'd act more like a community police force and less like an occupying army.

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.