Monday, January 18, 2016

Who Matters More? Black Folks or Public Employees

Jerry shared this interesting link on the BLM History piece.


DS How to Show BLM


So who's life matters more?  Black Lives or Public Employee Lives?

43 comments:

Sean said...

I find it strange that conservatives can't directly respond to the concerns of BLM folks. Instead, they have to drag in all these other unrelated issues.

We can have discussions about school vouchers all we want, but it's not responsive to the issue of whether police officers are using force appropriately and being held accountable when they cross the line.

Laurie said...

IAWS

John said...

Well I think young Black men are poor, arrested and in prison because the status quo public schools, social workers and their union employees have left them behind. With this hope withheld... Trouble occurs.

Now do you want to treat a symptom like problems occurred during an arrest or do you want to attack a root cause? That is an important question.

Laurie said...

as I definitely don't want to read a rehashing of your favorite anti union talking points I am going to throw in a couple of slightly (at best) related links:

Race and Representation in the Twilight of the Obama Era

What would MLK Say Today?
When it comes to wages and wealth for African Americans, economic freedom is still far from a reality.


maybe the topic should veer in the direction of racism and black lives matter (anything but more bashing of public schools and teacher's unions, please)

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, is it not possible to do both? How are African-Americans going to access the economic mainstream if they cannot get the education they need to do it? If it is racism holding down black achievement in the schools, isn't that a problem with union teachers, since they are all union? If the schools are not giving black kids the tools they need to lead productive lives, why is it so unlikely that they would turn to behavior bringing them into more contact and confrontation with police?

How DO you explain Obama's reluctance to give DC's black students an opportunity?

John said...

Technically I am bashing the politicians who are refusing to give needy minority students money so they can go to the schools of their choice.

Just because they politicians want to maintain the near monopolistic public school system that benefits a group of their primary donors and supporters.

Please remember that these are the same politicians / supporters who worked hard to ensure your school and it's minority student body stay funded at a lower rate than the status quo public schools.

Please feel free to keep avoiding this.

jerrye92002 said...

"We can have discussions about school vouchers all we want, but it's not responsive to the issue of whether police officers are using force appropriately and being held accountable when they cross the line."-- Sean

Actually, it is more responsive than the BLM movement is. The BLM folks do not care about "appropriate and accountable." Here in Minneapolis, they want the video released and NO Grand Jury review. They don't care that the "victim" was victimizing some other black person or threatened police or emergency personnel trying to help. They will refuse any result other than guilty and with the severest penalty-- death but they don't say so-- of the police officer involved.

Time after time we see this, where the police ARE held accountable by the justice system and the BLM people riot refuse the just result, chanting "no justice, no peace." Sure, occasionally innocent black people are shot by police, even intentionally, but the incidence is minuscule compared to the rate at which blacks murder blacks, or blacks murder whites. If BLM, why not work on the BIG matters, instead of the tiny ones?

Sean said...

"Here in Minneapolis, they want the video released and NO Grand Jury review. "

Frankly, they've seen what happens in grand juries from Ferguson to Cleveland to Staten Island. Prosecutors who rely on police testimony for their other cases have a vested interest in not actively seeking police convictions. That's why we need independent prosecutors to investigate allegations of police misconduct.

"Sure, occasionally innocent black people are shot by police, even intentionally, but the incidence is minuscule compared to the rate at which blacks murder blacks, or blacks murder whites. If BLM, why not work on the BIG matters, instead of the tiny ones?"

You're assuming that folks in BLM movement aren't concerned about those issues, which I think you would find to be false if you actually engaged with them. Second, the use of the justice system in a discriminatory manner against one race of folks is a big matter. We know that the incidence of drug use among the races is about the same, yet one race gets arrested disproportionately for it. We know that one race gets sentenced to longer sentences for the same crimes. Those are big issues. When wealthy suburban white teen gets caught with a bag of weed and gets off with a warning or a ticket but inner city black teen goes to juvenile for it, that's a big problem.

To suggest that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time on these sorts of issues AND that white people get to sit around and tell black people what they should be mad about instead of listening to what they experience everyday is insulting and comes off as racist, even if it's not intended that way.

jerrye92002 said...

"You're assuming that folks in BLM movement aren't concerned about those issues,..."

No, I am not assuming, I am simply judging by their actions. Rioting in the streets garners attention, but doesn't persuade. These people are protesting the /facts/ of these cases. For example, the whole "hands up, don't shoot" story was a myth yet it survives today. Justice would have been for the cop to have returned to duty rather than have his and his family's lives threatened to the point he was forced to leave town. The same thing in Minneapolis. If you are threatening another citizen and physically fight the cops trying to help, it is not "justice" to prosecute the police for doing their job of protecting the citizens and themselves.

As for inequality of policing, that has much to do with the inequality of criminal behavior, and rather than the BLM approach of claiming that policing is unequal, black communities should be demanding that their criminal behavior and the root causes of it, like failing schools and the disincentives of welfare dependency, be curbed first and foremost.

John said...

I am always amazed when folks say there is no difference between communities of people in different neighborhoods... The difference is just "racial profiling"...

Yet my community finds no need to have gun shot sensing devices... I have been in central Plymouth now for ~25 years and have yet to hear a shot fired.

John said...

Here was my gift to that MP article...

"Maybe the police are just picking on these neighborhoods because of some racial bias... :-) Maybe we should start installing Shot Spotter mics in the burbs also... :-)

Or maybe more arrests are made in those communities because more crime occurs in the those neighborhoods?" G2A

Now we can argue why there is more crime in poorer neighborhoods all day long. But to deny it is just silly.

Sean said...

"I am always amazed when folks say there is no difference between communities of people in different neighborhoods... "

Once again, John goes to the strawman.

No one is saying that there are no differences. But, again, we should be able to walk and chew gum here. We should be able to address improper police behavior and unequal sentencing at the same time we work on addressing the public schools and other issues in challenged communities. To say that blacks should have to live with the violence of the state being used against them unequally until we address these other issues is absurd. No white community would put up with that.

Sean said...

"The same thing in Minneapolis. If you are threatening another citizen and physically fight the cops trying to help"

If this is in fact what was happening, then the police would be well-served to release the tape and prove it. Unfortunately, we know that the story the police tells is not always accurate. Look at the Walter Scott case (the officer in that case would have gotten away with it if not for the guy with the cell phone), or the foibles a few years back of the Gang Strike Force here.

jerrye92002 said...

"walk and chew gum..."

Well, that is a "chicken and the egg" problem, isn't it? If black communities weren't so crime-ridden, there would be far fewer negative encounters with police. If the police were seen as helping the problem rather than being unfairly and unjustly demonized by people like BLM, maybe the problem would get better. And at a more fundamental level, the government that runs the police department ALSO creates the lousy educations and the welfare dependency that in turn creates the crime-ridden environment.

Reasoning by induction is not going to work, here. You cannot point to a few cases where a white cop kills a black man and say that is the norm. It is simply way too rare, almost always punished if it was not justified, and unfortunately gets distorted, hyped, lied about and then amplified by people like BLM to a point far beyond any reason. Violent thugs are poor choices as saints and martyrs.

John said...

To me it sounds like you are saying the difference is all race related. I strongly disagree.

"Second, the use of the justice system in a discriminatory manner against one race of folks is a big matter. We know that the incidence of drug use among the races is about the same, yet one race gets arrested disproportionately for it. We know that one race gets sentenced to longer sentences for the same crimes."

Now if the two communities were truly the same, then different arrest rates, policing practices and sentences could truly be attributed to a single factor. (ie race in this case) My point is that West Plymouth and N Mpls are 2 different worlds with dozens of factors other than race that are significant.

jerrye92002 said...

On the matter of drug use, the Congress is considering leveling the penalties for crack vs powder cocaine. That law was changed years ago because crack was considered (and actually is) the more dangerous drug. The only reason ever given for reducing crack penalties is that crack is the drug of choice in black communities. So crack is black and "snow" is white. That's racist!

I question the "drug use among the races is about the same." Even if true, I would believe that the criminal activity /surrounding/ drug use is substantially different.

And even different sentences for the same crime cannot be traced entirely to racism, IMHO. Not all crimes of the same legal charge are equal. Slapping a man across the face and "beating him half to death" are both assault. Which was committed by the black thug with a violent record, and which by the white Packers fan offended by an offhand remark?

John said...

Simplest example: 2 young Black men are arrested for smoking pot.

The young man from W Plymouth has 2 professional Parents who show up in court with a lawyer and explain to the judge how concerned they are regarding their son's behavior. And explain exactly what they are going to do to ensure it does not happen again. Judge grants probation and Parents take over.

The young man from N Mpls shows up alone or with one parent. They do not communicate their concern or plan nearly as well, or they become defensive and complain about it being racial harassment. Judge applies a sentence to help the Parent / Child understand that it is illegal behavior.

Now I understand that BLM and their supporters want to make this all about race, however it is not...

John said...

Now here is another case where race was likely a non-factor, yet you know what the "racism promoters" are saying

NY Apartment Shooting

Rookie cop patrolling alone in a violent community spooks and an innocent man is killed. Now would a rookie cop be scared of being shot while walking the stairways of an apartment building in Chaska? Probably not...

jerrye92002 said...

Notice: cop is NOT white. Still, I expect there would be some penalty attached to improperly discharging a weapon, or negligent homicide, or some such. And I would hope the City would compensate the unwed mother of his child a bit. They have the liability, after all. Now, is that "justice" according to BLM standards? Somehow I doubt it. And when a black cop shoots an innocent white kid, like in Utah recently? What do you mean you didn't hear about it?

Sean said...

"You cannot point to a few cases where a white cop kills a black man and say that is the norm."

No one is saying that it is.

"almost always punished if it was not justified"

I don't think the evidence is at all clear on this point.

Sean said...

I've posted links regarding the incidence of drug use and sentencing disparities (studies which control for all sort so factors, by the way) in the past. Go look them up.

"Simplest example: 2 young Black men are arrested for smoking pot."

Thank you for proving my point. Instead of punishing the child based on what they did, you're punishing the child based on what their parents are doing. Because the poor kid doesn't have access to a lawyer or successful parents, you're sending them to jail which is only going to hurt their future prospects.

jerrye92002 said...

"No one is saying that it is."

Seems to me that is EXACTLY what BLM is saying, and it is to the detriment of the black community. See "Ferguson effect."

"I don't think the evidence...."
You're probably right. Perhaps "usually" or "often" would be more appropriate for something which is so rare in the first place that statistics don't mean much. Whereas other combinations of shooter and victim are much more frequent and statistically significant, and ought to concern us accordingly.

jerrye92002 said...

"...Because the poor kid doesn't have access to a lawyer or successful parents, you're sending them to jail..."

But, Sean, you just said this was a POOR kid going to jail. I thought the disparity was because of RACE??

John said...

My point exactly. Look at all the possible factors involved here:

- past record of the offender
- attitude towards the crime
- attitude towards the judge
- capability to communicate
- attitude towards future behavior
- support system available to offender

For better or worse a judge has to take all of these into account when deciding what is the correct sentence.

John said...

This reminds me of the real root cause of these issues.

How do we get to a state where the vast majority of families have 2 responsible adults in the household?

This is critical for financial, role modeling, teaching, education, supervising and many other reasons.

Family Facts

Sean said...

What you're saying, John, is that we should toss these folks -- who through no fault of their own have had a bad upbringing -- and toss them to the junk bin. Cutting a break to the kid that has had a good chance but blew it while punishing more harshly the kid who was behind the 8-ball from the start is how you make the current scenario worse instead of better. You're providing a textbook description of "privilege" here.

John said...

"privilege : a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."

Personally I think you have your baseline all wrong if you seeing having 2 caring hard working responsible parents as a privilege. Personally I think of that as normal and anything less as deficient.

Maybe that is our society's problem, too many people thinking that single parent households are an acceptable norm. Kind of like when Bernie said that a single mom should be able to financially support a household on her income.

I don't think the judge or myself consider applying the legal punishment if a better option is not available is "tossing them in the junk bin".

John said...

Somehow it is necessary for society to teach the child these lessons if the parents are unable and/or unwilling to do so.

Unfortunately like a horse with water, it may be very challenging to get them to drink if they are head strong and resistant.

Sean said...

"Personally I think you have your baseline all wrong if you seeing having 2 caring hard working responsible parents as a privilege."

That's not the part that's the privilege.

"I don't think the judge or myself consider applying the legal punishment if a better option is not available is "tossing them in the junk bin"."

Sure it is. You're excusing the behavior of the one child not on the basis of their behavior, but because of the status of their parents. You're punishing the other because they don't have that same status -- a punishment that will only make it more difficult for them to overcome the disadvantages they already face.

jerrye92002 said...

Somehow the word "incorrigible" comes to mind. The legal justice system is an imperfect scale and punishment a poor tool for correction. Some progress has been made with drug courts, and Mississippi has long had a successful program for non-violent offenders. Perhaps if we had such alternative tools (or better yet got government to quit creating the conditions giving rise to these "unprivileged" people) we would all be better off. But for the incorrigibles-- unrepentant repeat offenders-- our system isn't so much punishment as it is removing such antisocial people from society. BLM wants to give such people a pass based solely on race. I want people treated according to behavior.

John said...

Well then what is the "privilege" that the one boy has? It certainly is not race...

No one is excusing anyone's behavior. The judge is going with the available option with the best chance of success at helping the individual learn from their mistake. Depending on attitude and given no good support system at home, juvi / prison may be it unfortunately... (ie scare them straight)

Sean said...

"Well then what is the "privilege" that the one boy has? It certainly is not race..."

The judgment is not based on the boy and his actions, it's based on his surroundings. That's privilege.

Why does the kid who failed despite the good upbringing not need to be "scared straight"?

John said...

"privilege : a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."

Now I know it is relative... However, do you really see being raised in a 2 parent household where the parents are capable and responsible enough to discipline and guide their children as something "special". (ie a privilege)

Why do you want to call this a privilege? Why not acknowledge that the inner city kid is living in a deficient situation that forces the Judge to adjust their actions accordingly? Do you really think that inner city judge is going to go as hard on a teen who shows true contrition and has 2 concerned parents with him in court?

Who's fault is it if the child comes from a poor single parent home who is incapable or unwilling to do their job well? The judges?

Who says the "good upbringing kid" isn't being scared straight? When I was picked up for minor intoxication way back when, I was sure a lot more concerned about my parent's response than the courts.

Sean said...

I'm not using the dictionary definition of privilege. I'm using the sociological definition. The fact that you're unaware of the term's usage in that context is illuminating in and of itself.

"Why do you want to call this a privilege?"

I've already explained this multiple times.

"Who's fault is it if the child comes from a poor single parent home who is incapable or unwilling to do their job well? The judges?"

No, but it is also not the child's. Punishing a child for factors outside of their control is not fair.

"Who says the "good upbringing kid" isn't being scared straight?"

Why couldn't the other kid be similarly scared straight by the same actions that the good upbringing kid got? This is where your bias comes in. You are projecting your biases on to the scenario. Kid who comes from a two-parent family deserves a break (even though that 2-parent family has apparently already failed him), while the kid who is the product of the unvirutous family structure gets punished to teach somebody a lesson.

Why can't the punishment be determined by the actions and not the ancillary factors?

John said...

Seems they use the same definition.

"Privilege is a special right, or advantage available only to a particular person or group of people."

I think some Liberal Academics seem to be abusing the definition since the majority of us(ie opposite of special) have housing, jobs, parents, education, self confidence, etc.

"The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to social class, race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and disability. Two common examples would be having access to a higher education and housing. Privilege can also be emotional or psychological, regarding personal self-confidence and comfort, or having a sense of belonging or worth in society. It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia."

And now you are saying that Parents are ancillary (defn: "providing something additional to a main part or function") to ensuring that a child learns from the mistakes they made and to ensuring they do not repeat the mistake. Maybe that is where we see the world differently.

The Parents are to be Primary to children learning correctly and growing into mature responsible adults, and the school / justice system are to be ancillary.

By the way, I am up for punishing poor Parents also. If they don't show up for court date, Teacher conferences, etc. Let's find some way to punish them for being irresponsible Parents.

But to say that coming from a good responsible family is a "privilege" is silly Liberal speak that tries to label what should be our base expectation as something "special".

John said...

By the way, I am not projecting anything. I am assuming the Judge is doing the best they can with the situation in front of them. (ie many factors)

You are the one saying that the arrest and sentencing differentials are proof of systemic racism. Remember...

"the use of the justice system in a discriminatory manner against one race of folks is a big matter."

Sean said...

"But to say that coming from a good responsible family is a "privilege""

How can it not be when you are advocating lesser sentences in the criminal justice system for those who come from a good family versus those who don't?

jerrye92002 said...

I think we're getting wrapped around the axle defining "privilege." I would point out that some kids get in trouble because they are "overprivileged," and end up with stiffer sentences, etc. So my suggestion is that we let judges be judges that look at the totality of the crime and criminality, and assign punishment or rehabilitation or restorative justice, or anything else in their toolkit.

What we do NOT want is to excuse any and all behavior just because someone is black. The charge of "driving while black" is sometimes cited as an injustice, but "assaulting an officer while black" should demand real justice, not becoming a exemplar and movement leader.

John said...

I am not advocating lesser sentences for anyone.

I am advocating different sentences dependent on the circumstances. That is why Judges are given the flexible sentencing authority they are.

The goal is not to just punish the criminal based on some table that was created by a bureaucrat somewhere. That is why we have Judges who evaluate the whole situation before sentencing.

If the criminal is not sorry, they don't show the judge respect, the parents do not bother to show up, etc. Of course those people will get a different sentence.

jerrye92002 said...

And I would be the first to tell you that if a judge is being (consistently, obviously)"unfair" based on race of the defendant, I want that judge off the bench. I've seen a "hanging judge" at work, one who sentenced 30 drug offenders to the maximum in the space of about two hours. Black, white, it didn't seem to matter. He stays, IMHO. It might not be "justice" (I think it was) but it wasn't racial. What's wrong with that? Why is BLM not interested in true justice, and only a mockery of it?

Sean said...

"I am advocating different sentences dependent on the circumstances."

Yes, so long as the circumstances are related to the crime. A person's family status has nothing to do with the crime of drug possession.

jerrye92002 said...

So are you saying that family circumstance and social environment have no bearing on drug use? That doesn't jibe with what our liberal friends have been saying for so long. And our conservative friends believe that family and a social "support system" are critical to getting people OFF drugs. Surely we can't all have it both ways.

And I don't know how often the crime is "simple" drug possession. Often that is incidental to robbery, possession for sale, or more heinous crimes more difficult to prove. Sentences should consider these "related" crimes. But not race.

John said...

Mitigating Factors 1
Mitigating Factors 2