The Glade 4.0

Not a fan of douchebags open-carrying specifically to freak people out, but this is a pretty stark demonstration of how interactions between cops and black/white civilians frequently differ:



Gotta say - the black guy in that video was literally risking his life there. He's lucky he didn't just get shot.

for any experiment to be consider Valid you can only change one variable however two variables have changed: the officer and the carrier, therefore your experiment is less than valid. we have no evidence that officer B would have reacted different to carrier A It appears to be a different style of cop car as well, implying that there is even a different police force/jurisdiction in play, a third variable in your experiment has changed if that is the case.

Not to mention the fact that one is a incredibly awful sample size.

I am willing to admit that the second scene is totally inappropriate in response, but the with several different variables one cannot say with scientific and logical clarity that it is "Because Race"

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Of course this does not work as "proof" of anything. You can't duplicate the exact same situation, so you'd need to test based on a lot more than one trial. "Sample size too low." Yeah, we get it.

But let's face it, if we could catalogue every instance of people walking around with AR-15s, this is probably fairly representative of the differing reaction they'd get based on skin color in many places in the USA. Can I prove it? No. And it probably doesn't come up that often - there's just not a good reason to walk around with an AR-15 in most places in America.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The issue wasn't (for me amyway) is it a good idea to walk around with an AR 15. It is are the two incidents in the video vastly different solely because of race

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Yes, that's my point. They are probably representative of the differences a white man and a black man would encounter in that scenario.

As you point out, the circumstances are not identical, and the sample size is too small to prove it. The reason the sample size is too small is because there's rarely a good idea to walk around with an AR-15 - so we don't have a sufficient sample to prove the different reactions would be consistent. But I suspect it would be.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yeah those videos look like identical circumstances to me.

All by itself, the fact that the white guy has the rifle slung over his back while the black guy has it down where he can just bring it right up represents a massive degree of difference in threat. A person who knows what they're doing can easily drop to one knee and start engaging all in one motion in 1-2 seconds depending on their dexterity and degree of practice. If you go to deal with someone with an assault rifle who has it at that kind of position they have a fairly good chance of shooting you before you shoot them even if you are completely ready. I've seen special custom slings before designed to hold the rifle in almost that exact position.

By contrast, a weapon slung crosswise across the back is one of, if not the, worst possible position to start an engagement from. About the only way he could have had it in a LESS advantageous position is if he'd had it muzzle up instead of muzzle down. I haven't ever timed it but we're looking at easily 3 or 4 times as long to get the rifle off the back, bring it up, and fire - during which time the officer could easily take control of him without resorting to weapons simply because of the awkwardness of trying to get the rifle off the back. The officer was already very close to him; this is one rare care where less distance works to the officer's advantage.

The reason we know all this is that basically every private ever has had his *** massively chewed for carrying a rifle slung like that if he didn't absolutely have to - like when digging a fighting position - because it confers massive tactical disadvantage. By contrast, black dude was carrying it the way someone intending to use it carries it. When walking down a street in broad daylight, "use it" means "rob or murder someone" or "get into a confrontation with law enforcement". Amazing as it may seem, when you go to talk to someone CARRYING AN ASSAULT RIFLE, the possibility that they may BLOW YOUR **** HEAD OFF WITH IT is a lot more of an influence on your decisions that their skin color.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

All this is true.

I still suspect that the videos are fairly representative of the average differences a black guy and a white guy would experience if carrying an AR-15 around in an open-carry state.

The video, however, fails at proving that. (Even if they had succeeded at creating nearly identical circumstances, it would prove nothing. Sample size is everything.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

These videos fairly illustrate that when black folks carry they are either ignored by police, or allowed to go about their business unhindered. White folks are not allowed the same leeway. I believe this to be true, because that's what my chosen belief system tells me to believe. These videos might not be definitive proof, because: sample size, but that doesn't change the fact that I believe it illustrates the probable disparity in the average treatment of white open-carry morons vs. black open-carry morons.

Black Folks:


Black Folks:


Black Folks:


White Folks:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

So, snark aside, Vind, do you think the actual reality is that cops are less aggressive and less likely to shoot when dealing with black people than they are when dealing with white people?

I like the cops in this one, by the way:


Too often we see the idiots who don't know their own laws.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

In my experience, cops can read just like we can; we know the statistics regarding who is most likely to commit violent crimes because we can read the studies and the statistics. Cops know who is most likely to commit violent crime because of those same statistics as well as interacting with those individuals day in, and day out. After the first couple years on the job, every cop has one overriding desire: to go home at the end of their shift. Through intellect and experience, cops have learned who is most likely to attempt to stop them from attaining that desire, and they act appropriately. Cops are not more likely to shoot black people, in general, but they are more prepared, when confronted with a black male 13-39, to do so. It is undeniable that young black males put themselves in situations where they are much more likely to be shot (by other young black males, or police) than other age, gender and racial groups. It is not merely "Black and White".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Violent crime per capita has been steadily declining since the 1980s, and is now at its lowest level since the 1950s.

The majority of criminals being black is not the same as the majority of blacks being criminals.

Problems with law enforcement, specifically regarding its relationship with blacks, stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the above two points. The fact of the matter is that the population of the United States, including scary minorities, are less inclined to hurt someone than they have been for several generations. Law enforcement needs to acknowledge on a policy level that they are dealing by and large with peaceful, nonviolent, well-meaning citizens who are generally intent on following the law.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

You need to acknowledge that law enforcement officers deal with individual situations as they arise, not averages and trends across the population. Law enforcement policy is, and should be, directed at those situations.

Furthermore, law enforcement is generally NOT dealing with "peaceful, nonviolent, well-meaning citizens who are generally intent on following the law." Those are the people law enforcement officers deal with the least and they are usually the ones making the complaint when they do. Cops do not just happen to interact with people at random for the sheer hell of it. By definition, law enforcement officers are more likely to be dealing with people who are breaking the law.

I have this distinct feeling you actually understand all this but just don't want to give up that feeling of "standing up to authoritah". It might be time though; it doesn't pay the bills. Go design missile for Raytheon or something; big explosions are far more fun than tilting at internet windmills.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You are aware of the NYPD's own stats on the stop-and-frisk policy, right? The vast majority of the people stopped were minorities, and roughly 90% of the people stopped were completely innocent of any crime.

In and of itself, that's not really an area of concern, RD.

For an example, if the NYPD decided to do its "stop and frisk" nonsense in an upper class, well-to-do neighborhood, and they still mostly targeted black people who lived and/or worked in the area, that could be a symptom of some racist policies. It would also be a symptom that someone involved in the strategic overview of this policy was on crack, because there's generally no reason to do that in well-to-do neighborhoods.

If, however, they NYPD decided to do its "stop and frisk" nonsense in a lower-class, crime-ridden neighborhood, and they mostly targeted black people who lived and/or worked in the area, that is more likely a symptom of the area being populated primarily with black people. It would also be much more understandable. You drop your fishnets where there are the most fish. You hunt for criminals where there is the most crime.

Socioeconomic status is always going to be an indicator of crime risk. And unfortunately, for the time being, blacks and whites in the USA are often heavily divided by socioeconomic status.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's all true, Taly, and if the issue was black people who have committed crimes being stopped in higher numbers, it wouldn't be a problem. However, the problem arises in that 90% of the people stopped were totally innocent. That shows the cops were completely incapable of and/or uninterested in determining when there was actually reasonable suspicion to stop someone, so they just picked high crime, largely minority neighborhoods and harrassed people. When you're innocent of any wrongdoing, and you, your friends, your family members, and so on keep getting stopped, questioned, frisked, threatened, ordered around, etc. over, and over for no reason other than your skin color and neighborhood, that's a problem, and you're very quickly going to develop a sense that the cops aren't on your side as a citizen.

Well, that's the problem of the "stop and frisk" policy. They aren't targeting criminals. They're fishing for criminals. They're looking to find people they've overlooked. My point was, the policy is not necessarily racist. If you are going to do it, you're going to target poverty-stricken neighborhoods with high crime rates. This, inevitably, will inconvenience mostly black people. The problem is that the reality of modern socioeconomic status itself is racially skewed, and that's not something we should tiptoe around to avoid offending someone. You still have to target based on percentages, even if those percentages skew toward darker shades of beige than yourself.

You can argue that the stop and frisk thing itself is flawed and stupid. And I'd agree with you. But I don't agree that race has any place in that argument.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm well aware that the NYPD does not constitute "law enforcement" in general, nor did stop and frisk constitute the full extent of its interactions with citizens, nor for that matter is it still in effect.

Also, since innocence is determined at trial based on reasonable doubt whereas stops are made on the street based on reasonable suspicion, it means nothing to say "90% were totally innocent". If they never went to trial, they're obviously legally innocent - that does not imply there was no reason to stop them, just like a finding of not guilty at trial does not retroactively make probable cause for the arrest go away.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."