Specific examples of police brutality are in great demand, and yet the supply is woefully short.
Hence they (the BLM crew) must explode the importance of the extremely rare instances, pretend that they are endemic, then ignore or obfuscate the criminality of the "victims." JUST ONCE show me a Black victim of police violence who is in fact completely innocent. They do exist, but as said above, the supply is very short.
If the BLM crew is looking for "equality," they will be disappointed. The only equality they can have is the one they already do have - the one guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no "systemic racism." That is a catch-all phrase that cannot be defined by examples because none exist. Show me an applicant for ANYTHING who is turned down because of his or her race. Doesn't happen any more, except in small irrelevant companies that are a dime a dozen. If one turns you down, there are ten others with the Welcome Mat out for you.
All men are created equal. But that refers to OPPORTUNITY and not RESULTS. You are responsible for your own results. Deal with it.
Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons across the country at nearly five times the rate of whites.
www.sentencingproject.org
Report to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance
www.sentencingproject.org
The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Statistics don't show that, blacks are not just more likely to be arrested, they are also more likely to get sentenced harsher.
Racial profiling is not just pervasive but also discriminatory in its nature.
when you commit crimes you get arrested ... and when you keep committing crimes become a habitual scum bag repeat offender you get more time in jail.
And yet that's not what the report shows.
Same crimes,
harsher sentences.
The problem is your reports (and I've read several like them) compare apples to oranges.
A young white guy gets busted with some coke, and a black guy gets busted with the same amount.
The white guy when busted surrenders to police and cooperates fully. While being processed, he doesn't give them any hard time. He ends up in court, very well dressed, new hair cut, and pays attention to the proceedings. When allowed to speak, he apologizes to the court, tells them he simply made a very stupid mistake. The judge (who has his criminal record) only sees that one charge.
The black guy when busted run from the cops. In the process, he tries to get rid of the evidence. When the cops catch up to him, he starts fighting them. When the police find the bag he threw away, he states it isn't his, even though one of the officers seen him throw the bag. When he gets to the station, he refuses to cooperate. He ends up in court looking like he just left a bar. He's rolling his eyes during the proceeding, not looking at the judge or the prosecutor, shaking his head back and forth. The judge not only watches his disrespect for the court, but looks at is criminal record which is lengthy, especially for a guy his age.
Can you tell me why these two different judges would give both offenders the same sentence?
So your counter-argument against a report filed to the UN a report that you don't dispute the facts of is a hypothetical anecdote that would at best count as an excuse? Can you tell the difference between the strengths of our argument?
My point is that you (and these studies) only look at the bottom line. There is a lot of in-between that is ignored. I've been to court. I was in a judges chamber when he interviewed the police on the conduct of the person involved; he interviewed me. It was not pleasant, and it was a black guy. The judge did not favor him very much based on what we told him.
We don't penalize people simply on the thing they are being in court for. If it were that easy, and everybody got the same penalty regardless of circumstance, then we would only need a printer to spit out the same sentence no matter what each and every time.
We have judges for a reason. The judge has to weigh everything in a case, not just the charge itself. In my example above, a judge is not likely to throw the book at a guy who got caught up in a bad situation, making him a felon, and spending the best years of his life in prison for a simple mistake. Conversely, he's not going to give a guy a break who's been in and out of the slammer repeatedly, especially if it's the same kind of crime.
Since this subject rears it's ugly head from time to time, I'm going to throw you a bone here. One day I asked a friend of mine, who works in the justice system in downtown Cleveland if he thought blacks get harsher sentences than whites? He said he had no statistics available, but his opinion is that yes, depending on the judge, at times they do.
But guess what? The judges he was referring to were black judges. It makes sense. If a white judge had animosity to black people in general, the worst thing he could do for a black community is get that criminal back out on their streets. The best thing he could do is lock up that criminal for as long as possible.
A black judge is the opposite. He or she may live in those black communities, or perhaps family or friends. The best thing that black judge could do is throw the book at a black criminal. They want to rid their society of such people, not give them a slap on the hand for them to return and cause more trouble.