-
You asked and we delivered! AMPReviews now provides the option to upgrade to VIP access via paid subscription as an alternative to writing your own reviews. VIP Access allows you to read all the hidden content within member-submitted reviews AND gives access to private VIP-only forums in each city. You can upgrade your account INSTANTLY by visiting the Account Upgrades page in your own user profile and using a valid credit card to purchase a subscription. You can get to this page by clicking the link in any review, by clicking the red "See the Details Now" banner on the home page, and by clicking the Purchase Private Details link in the navbar at the top of every page
Rude Clients at AMPs
- Thread starter lokithewolf
- Start date
Hey KD - Percentage wise, sure less percentage of crime is committed relative to the total (larger) population of whites. There is a higher total number of crimes committed by whites, but that makes perfect sense because of the larger population of >200 million people.
If your question is how did this come to be, then I would just state that it is an outcome of history. If you displace and enslave over 12 million people over a 200 year period, then structurally oppress them under Jim Crow for another hundred years, then deny the vast majority of them a proper education for another generation, you will create more deviants than another group that was just "poor". That's a super oversimplified view of to address "how can this be" as poverty is only a single factor.
That history will also shape opinions about the group, including the opinions of LE.
As for the Manhattan Institute, they are the conservative group that advocated heavily for aggressive LE tactics. To the point on race and crime, the Manhattan Institute claims to have helped the country by influencing the reduction of high crime rates through high-incarceration rates. What they don't point out is that even though brown skinned people commit less total crimes (due to being a smaller percentage of the population), they are arrested and incarcerated at higher rates than their lighter counterparts. The Manhattan Institute does not refute that math. They do argue heavily against the so called "Ferguson effect" that put a spotlight on the aggressive LE tactics that went awry in that city.
The larger point is that there may be different outcomes with LE based in how you look. It is not a conspiracy of racist LE as gets overhyped by the media. It seems to be linked to mental presupposition about how people look that influences snap judgements.
That is what Harvard, MIT and other universities are studying for the broader population (not just LE). And that's why three letter agencies are trying to better train local LE on avoiding snap judgements.
If your question is how did this come to be, then I would just state that it is an outcome of history. If you displace and enslave over 12 million people over a 200 year period, then structurally oppress them under Jim Crow for another hundred years, then deny the vast majority of them a proper education for another generation, you will create more deviants than another group that was just "poor". That's a super oversimplified view of to address "how can this be" as poverty is only a single factor.
That history will also shape opinions about the group, including the opinions of LE.
As for the Manhattan Institute, they are the conservative group that advocated heavily for aggressive LE tactics. To the point on race and crime, the Manhattan Institute claims to have helped the country by influencing the reduction of high crime rates through high-incarceration rates. What they don't point out is that even though brown skinned people commit less total crimes (due to being a smaller percentage of the population), they are arrested and incarcerated at higher rates than their lighter counterparts. The Manhattan Institute does not refute that math. They do argue heavily against the so called "Ferguson effect" that put a spotlight on the aggressive LE tactics that went awry in that city.
The larger point is that there may be different outcomes with LE based in how you look. It is not a conspiracy of racist LE as gets overhyped by the media. It seems to be linked to mental presupposition about how people look that influences snap judgements.
That is what Harvard, MIT and other universities are studying for the broader population (not just LE). And that's why three letter agencies are trying to better train local LE on avoiding snap judgements.
KD, I make a small fortune every year because of my exceptional math skills. I am much better at applying math than I am at teaching it.
A basic summary for you would be that there are a lot more poor white people than black people (13%) because their are a lot more white people (50%) living in this country.
attached is a simple google search that correlates being poor and crime. there is a ton of this information on the internet.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
A basic summary for you would be that there are a lot more poor white people than black people (13%) because their are a lot more white people (50%) living in this country.
attached is a simple google search that correlates being poor and crime. there is a ton of this information on the internet.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
"A basic summary for you would be that there are a lot more poor white people than black people (13%) because their are a lot more white people (50%) living in this country."
Well you're catching on, that's a start. Exactly what i told you--more whites are poor in this country, higher percentage of the population or not. These are the numbers.
So why don't the vast majority of poor people (black or white or whoever) in this country turn to crime? As a percentage of the population, very few do.
It's a conscious decision that is made to become a criminal, you can excuse it all you want but it always comes back to that.
Back during the depression in my parents towns nearly EVERYONE was poor. Yet there was no crime. People left their doors unlocked at all times.
How could this be? According to you they would have every reason to turn to crime, yet few if any did.
Well you're catching on, that's a start. Exactly what i told you--more whites are poor in this country, higher percentage of the population or not. These are the numbers.
So why don't the vast majority of poor people (black or white or whoever) in this country turn to crime? As a percentage of the population, very few do.
It's a conscious decision that is made to become a criminal, you can excuse it all you want but it always comes back to that.
Back during the depression in my parents towns nearly EVERYONE was poor. Yet there was no crime. People left their doors unlocked at all times.
How could this be? According to you they would have every reason to turn to crime, yet few if any did.
CB, so what you are saying is that there are a lot more poor white people than black people, yet the link I posted on murder shows clearly that 30% of the murders were committed by whites, 36% by blacks, and 34% by hispanic/other. So 70% of the murders are committed by non-whites! In a country where there are many more poor whites!
Heather Macdonald from MI reports:
A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer.
In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians, the study found.........
A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer.
In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians, the study found.........
I told you my teaching skills suck.
Here is a great summary. It is not fake news, poverty and crime are highly correlated, It is not a race thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Here is a great summary. It is not fake news, poverty and crime are highly correlated, It is not a race thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
KD - I'm not sure why you believe I'm promoting a victim class. I stated that history has created a larger percentage in that pool of deviants. I don't argue with math and I would think that you would agree on that point. We can debate on whether you believe it was causality or not based on what I presented. I literally can't believe that you think the only factor at play is poverty.
And... I'll refrain from talking about Heather Macdonald. She has a loose association with MI and even they don't want to get 100% behind her stated positions.
As for her quote, I already stated that there is a predisposition to pull the trigger on a brown civilian. The "racist LE" narrative was created by the media and it is a polarizing distraction. The MIT study in particular showed a statistically insignificant amount of improvement when the LE holding the gun was brown. LE's tenure and not being alone on the beat was statistically proven to result in less shootings by LE.
If you take a moment and review the the last chart I presented, it speaks against Heather's claim that the trigger is always pulled as a result of violent suspects. LE chiefs are asking for Federal help because they are tired of inexperinced LE breaking the rules of engagement, aggressively looking for something wrong, adrenaline taking over, and a drawn weapon creating a bad outcome. Did you know that one of the things LE was taught to look for in the original "aggressive LE tactics" training manual was a messy car? Heaven forbid your two young children made a mess after the McD's drive thru.
But somehow, the three letter agencies seem to capture the worst deviants and bring them to justice.
And please give a read to the data that @charliebrown is presenting. Not just the headlines, but the link to the 17-page report and the raw data. If you go past the media quotes, you'll find some interesting reads.
And... I'll refrain from talking about Heather Macdonald. She has a loose association with MI and even they don't want to get 100% behind her stated positions.
As for her quote, I already stated that there is a predisposition to pull the trigger on a brown civilian. The "racist LE" narrative was created by the media and it is a polarizing distraction. The MIT study in particular showed a statistically insignificant amount of improvement when the LE holding the gun was brown. LE's tenure and not being alone on the beat was statistically proven to result in less shootings by LE.
If you take a moment and review the the last chart I presented, it speaks against Heather's claim that the trigger is always pulled as a result of violent suspects. LE chiefs are asking for Federal help because they are tired of inexperinced LE breaking the rules of engagement, aggressively looking for something wrong, adrenaline taking over, and a drawn weapon creating a bad outcome. Did you know that one of the things LE was taught to look for in the original "aggressive LE tactics" training manual was a messy car? Heaven forbid your two young children made a mess after the McD's drive thru.
But somehow, the three letter agencies seem to capture the worst deviants and bring them to justice.
And please give a read to the data that @charliebrown is presenting. Not just the headlines, but the link to the 17-page report and the raw data. If you go past the media quotes, you'll find some interesting reads.
The ironic part about this discussion is that young Arab (American born) men have been literally terrorizing AMPs in the past 2-3 years. They are raiding the cash registers kicking in doors ripping panties off and delivering TKOs and Ryu style upper cuts to Mamasans that resist the robbery attempt.
But the Big Black Man is still the primary fear. "No Blacku Manu too violent, No AA no NEGROSSsssSssssSssss!!!!"
But your ass still getting robbed beat up and your cheeks spread against your will.....
Bitches need to wake up, and maybe watch a few seasons of Oz....
But the Big Black Man is still the primary fear. "No Blacku Manu too violent, No AA no NEGROSSsssSssssSssss!!!!"
But your ass still getting robbed beat up and your cheeks spread against your will.....
Bitches need to wake up, and maybe watch a few seasons of Oz....
Hold the hysteria:
Seth Barron---
"...
And it is certainly true that 86% of the people arrested for weed are black or Latino, though they comprise only 51.4% of the total population of New Yorkers and, according to most research, use the drug at roughly the same rates as whites, though with different patterns of usage.
But to categorize these arrests as overt evidence of societal racism — or as Al Sharpton said Tuesday at City Hall, "the criminalization of blacks" — is to miss the larger context of crime and policing in the city.
Marijuana arrest rates aren't especially unusual when you look at the communities they take place in. Asked to explain the basis on which marijuana enforcement is carried out across New York, the NYPD insists that it takes a reactive posture: Arrests are driven by community complaint. In a hearing in February, Chief Dermot Shea made the point that a combination of 311 and 911 calls, as well as concerns made at community meetings or to community affairs officers, are the primary considerations in collaring pot smokers.
At a press conference Tuesday, Council Speaker Corey Johnson brandished a number of maps comparing complaint data (based on calls) and arrests for marijuana. Johnson insisted the data "shows the enormous disparity that exists, precinct by precinct, neighborhood by neighborhood," and that "the numbers don't add up."
But the data doesn't really say what the advocates want it to. By and large, complaints do track arrests, and where they don't, race is not a primary factor.
It is true that different precincts show different levels of marijuana-specific complaints and arrests. Some areas with a high concentration of pot complaints and arrests — central Brooklyn, Harlem, Washington Heights, the South Bronx — are primarily black and Latino. These neighborhoods have relatively high crime, so it is plausible that the police could just be trolling for pot smoke and making pretextual arrests.
But other neighborhoods, like Astoria, Queens, and Chinatown, have similarly high rates of complaints and arrests for marijuana, but are largely white and Asian; Astoria has one of the lowest rates of serious crime in the city.
Similarly, the 105th Precinct in eastern Queens, which is mostly black, is not a high-crime area, though it too has a large number of marijuana complaints and arrests. All of these neighborhoods are working-class communities where average citizens — the overwhelming majority of whom indisputably do not smoke marijuana in public — are annoyed by groups of people who gather on stoops or corners or parks to hang out, play music, gamble, drink and smoke pot.
Councilman Fernando Cabrera, at the February hearing, struck a contrarian note, saying, "people in my community, when they call 311 or 911, want a response . . they are disturbed when they go outside and people are smoking pot." Cabrera pointed out that his district is overwhelmingly Latino, so the question of disproportionality isn't a factor: The complaints aren't race-based, because everyone is the same race. But the complaints are real.
While 86% of marijuana arrests sounds bad when blacks and Latinos are only 51.4% of the population, the same imbalance exists across the spectrum of criminal activity. Based on victim reports, 84.7% of rape suspects in 2016 were black or Latino, robbery suspects were 93.4% black or Latino, and shooting suspects were 97.6% black or Latino.
Are cops really making subjective, discretionary arrests for pot out of racial bias, at a lower rate than the rate of serious crime by racial group?
None of this is to say that pot should not be made legal, or that prosecutors should or should not charge people arrested for it. Those are social choices, and there may be excellent reasons for quasi-legalization. But there is no evidence that current enforcement is based on racial bias."
Seth Barron---
"...
And it is certainly true that 86% of the people arrested for weed are black or Latino, though they comprise only 51.4% of the total population of New Yorkers and, according to most research, use the drug at roughly the same rates as whites, though with different patterns of usage.
But to categorize these arrests as overt evidence of societal racism — or as Al Sharpton said Tuesday at City Hall, "the criminalization of blacks" — is to miss the larger context of crime and policing in the city.
Marijuana arrest rates aren't especially unusual when you look at the communities they take place in. Asked to explain the basis on which marijuana enforcement is carried out across New York, the NYPD insists that it takes a reactive posture: Arrests are driven by community complaint. In a hearing in February, Chief Dermot Shea made the point that a combination of 311 and 911 calls, as well as concerns made at community meetings or to community affairs officers, are the primary considerations in collaring pot smokers.
At a press conference Tuesday, Council Speaker Corey Johnson brandished a number of maps comparing complaint data (based on calls) and arrests for marijuana. Johnson insisted the data "shows the enormous disparity that exists, precinct by precinct, neighborhood by neighborhood," and that "the numbers don't add up."
But the data doesn't really say what the advocates want it to. By and large, complaints do track arrests, and where they don't, race is not a primary factor.
It is true that different precincts show different levels of marijuana-specific complaints and arrests. Some areas with a high concentration of pot complaints and arrests — central Brooklyn, Harlem, Washington Heights, the South Bronx — are primarily black and Latino. These neighborhoods have relatively high crime, so it is plausible that the police could just be trolling for pot smoke and making pretextual arrests.
But other neighborhoods, like Astoria, Queens, and Chinatown, have similarly high rates of complaints and arrests for marijuana, but are largely white and Asian; Astoria has one of the lowest rates of serious crime in the city.
Similarly, the 105th Precinct in eastern Queens, which is mostly black, is not a high-crime area, though it too has a large number of marijuana complaints and arrests. All of these neighborhoods are working-class communities where average citizens — the overwhelming majority of whom indisputably do not smoke marijuana in public — are annoyed by groups of people who gather on stoops or corners or parks to hang out, play music, gamble, drink and smoke pot.
Councilman Fernando Cabrera, at the February hearing, struck a contrarian note, saying, "people in my community, when they call 311 or 911, want a response . . they are disturbed when they go outside and people are smoking pot." Cabrera pointed out that his district is overwhelmingly Latino, so the question of disproportionality isn't a factor: The complaints aren't race-based, because everyone is the same race. But the complaints are real.
Almost nobody goes to prison just for having or smoking pot.
Advocates for ending pot arrests want to end the "era of mass incarceration," which has disproportionately impacted minorities. But almost nobody goes to prison just for having or smoking pot. The NYPD arrests almost 20,000 people annually for smoking marijuana, but on an average day there are only four people in jail in New York City for a pot charge, including people serving a jail sentence, or who are being held for parole violations or outstanding warrants.While 86% of marijuana arrests sounds bad when blacks and Latinos are only 51.4% of the population, the same imbalance exists across the spectrum of criminal activity. Based on victim reports, 84.7% of rape suspects in 2016 were black or Latino, robbery suspects were 93.4% black or Latino, and shooting suspects were 97.6% black or Latino.
Are cops really making subjective, discretionary arrests for pot out of racial bias, at a lower rate than the rate of serious crime by racial group?
None of this is to say that pot should not be made legal, or that prosecutors should or should not charge people arrested for it. Those are social choices, and there may be excellent reasons for quasi-legalization. But there is no evidence that current enforcement is based on racial bias."
Again, as I said above more than once, I would want to know the attitude/language/physical reactions of those being questioned for pot possession before being arrested.
You remember the recent incidents I referred to -- of people throwing buckets of water on cops?
I don't recall any whites or northeast asians in those crowds...
You remember the recent incidents I referred to -- of people throwing buckets of water on cops?
I don't recall any whites or northeast asians in those crowds...
Physically assaulting or even intimidating IS though.
Listen, I get it.
You are most probably hard working, law abiding and respectful.
But I would call out whites who behave badly. And I often do. I certainly would not want to live next door to Hammerskin types.
Why can't you do the same for blacks who behave badly? Would you want to live next door to the bloods?
Listen, I get it.
You are most probably hard working, law abiding and respectful.
But I would call out whites who behave badly. And I often do. I certainly would not want to live next door to Hammerskin types.
Why can't you do the same for blacks who behave badly? Would you want to live next door to the bloods?