dagblog - Comments for "We Brought Over-Policing On Ourselves"

Of course poverty is a prime

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:49:43 +0000

In reply to I said that if you are black

Of course poverty is a prime driver of crime. It's also a prime driver of poor health, failing schools, substance abuse, homelessness, child abuse, and social other ills. But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say oh well, we can't fix any of the issues until we solve poverty. They're all interrelated, and we have to address all them.

Ftr, I haven't used the term "black on black crime" except to echo you. I don't use the term because I agree with you focusing on black criminals is not helpful. But the second part, focusing on black victims of crime is essential. And if you dismiss the victims by saying whatever, it's just a few gangsters killing each other and anyway, crime doesn't affect middle class black people like the Obamas, then you are effectively saying that black lives matter but black quality of life doesn't.

PS The Obama lived in Kenwood

I'm am not saying that race

rmrd0000 — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:17:07 +0000

In reply to Your response seems to make a

I'm am not saying that race is unimportant. I'm saying that black on black crime leads to focus on solutions from the legal system. Saying that schools are "Separate and Unequal" addresses one of the root cause as of crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/arne-duncan-school-funding-disp...

Spend more money on schools and will need to spend less on prisons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/arne-duncan-prison-school-spending_5...

AllLivesMatter is not controversial. The reason that Black Lives Matter causes pushback is many people do not believe the black lives actually matter. BLM gets characterized as a terrorist organization by some.

Responding to BLM by saying all lives matter is like responding to MLK's "I have a dream" with "No Dr. King, all dreams matter. You should focus on black on black crime first."

Your response seems to make a

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:04:07 +0000

In reply to I said that if you are black

Your response seems to make a strong case for Bernie Sanders" original response to BLM which was to say that all lives matter and then tie [much of] the solution to the problems of racism and black crime to an adjustment to the economic system so that a fair share of the nations wealth goes to the bottom 90% and gives everyone within that 90% a fair shot at a fair share of that wealth.

I said that if you are black

rmrd0000 — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:22:59 +0000

In reply to I think the trouble here is

I said that if you are black and live in Hyde Park, crime is a TV event for you. The Obamas lived in Hyde Park. Other blacks live in Hyde Park. They enjoy the same low crime rate. Rep. Elijah Cummings lives in Mount Vernon in Baltimore. Cummings walked over to the riots and walked back home after trying to calm things down. Your black on black crime does not impact blacks living in certain areas.

I said the problem in the urban crime areas is poverty, lack of jobs, and poor education. The Kerner report and every other reputable study of urban crime emphasizes the same issues. If you want to address crime, address those issues. That should be the focus. Black on black crime suggests that we can arrest our way out of the problem. We want the same issues addressed. I think black on black crime is a term that diverts our attention of the cause of the problem. The problem is generations of poverty and a system that does not put any true focus on breaking the poverty cycle. Crime is the end product of generational poverty and poor education. To cure the problem, identify the cause.

If you say that ending generational poverty is the issue, we bring a different set of resources than when we say black on black crime. Black on black crime gets you a focus on police and arrests. It criminalizes blacks , even innocent blacks.

I cannot understand why you do not see black on black crime as a term that does not address the cause of high crime but focuses on the result of poverty. If you want to address poverty, name it. If you want to continue the cycle of a school to prison pipeline, keep focused on black on black crime.

I think the trouble here is

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:57:00 +0000

In reply to Crime is crime. Criminals are

I think the trouble here is that you're focusing on the first B in black-and-black crime. I'm focusing on the second. BLM is solely focused on the suffering of black people at the hands of police officers. The point of the article is remind us that black people also suffer at the hands of criminals. Indeed, they suffer far more from crime than from police brutality, directly or indirectly.

Your claim that "crime is mainly a TV event" is an insult to anyone who has ever been a victim of crime, who has been shot, robbed, beaten, or raped, whose children have been corrupted by drug dealers, whose buildings have been vandalized, whose neighborhoods have been burned, who don't feel safe going outside at night.

Want to know about crime in Hyde Park? Not the sensational shootings on WGN but the everyday crime that matters only to the victims and their loved ones? The stats are right here. These are only the police reports; the actual incidences are much higher. Btw, Hyde Park is a relatively well-off, white, crime-free oasis with crime rates of 0.6 (violent), 2.6 (property), and 0.9 (quality of life). Click over to Grand Crossing a few blocks away with crime rates of 2.5/4.9/3.4. Do you want to live in Grand Crossing? Why not? Because the police there are too racist? Please.

Of course, white people are victims too. And criminals. Crime is crime, why can't we just leave the race out of it? If this were France, we would. There is no race in France, did you know? And therefore no racism. The fact that unemployment, poverty, and other social problems disproportionately affect dark-skinned French people is not to be discussed.

But we do things differently in the U.S. We have a proud tradition of recognizing that race matters. That's why the movement is called BLM not ALM. We talk about black unemployment, black poverty, black schools, black neighborhoods, and black victims of police brutality. It's important to talk about these things in order challenge and defeat racism and racial inequality.

So if we're talking about racial inequality in all these different areas, then why is it verboten to talk about crime inequality? Not the criminals. Who cares about the criminals? I'm worried about the victims. Why don't black crime victims matter? Why should we not acknowledge that a city where black Grand Crossing has a 2.5/4.9/3.4 crime rate and white Lincoln Park has 0.3/2.7/0.7 has some serious racial inequality?

Crime is crime. Criminals are

rmrd0000 — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:16:18 +0000

In reply to What do you mean by the "myth

Crime is crime. Criminals are criminals. Black criminals prey on black people. White criminals prey on white people. In the aftermath of the Watts riots, the Kerner commission noted that the problems arose from issues of race, poverty, and living conditions. The situation has t changed.

For blacks in Hyde Park in Chicago and Mount Vernon in Baltimore, crime is mainly a TV event. Black on black crime suggests that all blacks are criminals or crime victims. Dealing with poverty, education, and employment will go a long way in addressing poverty-based crime.

Edit to add:

Nothing magical has happened because people say black on black crime. In fact, because black people are not valued, it makes it less likely that any action will occur. In addition, it creates situations where all blacks are threats to police because of all that mythical black on black crime, generally known as crime committed by people representing a fraction of the black community. Black on black crime is mythical and of no value.

What do you mean by the "myth

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:41:03 +0000

In reply to My point is that the majority

What do you mean by the "myth" of black on black crime? That black people don't commit crimes against black people. The recognition that blacks are victims too is an antidote to the far more mythical and far more unhealthy black on white crime narrative that Republicans like to promulgate.

My point is that the majority

rmrd0000 — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:54:44 +0000

In reply to The article Michael linked is

My point is that the majority of black citizens are not committing crimes, yet black on black crime allows every black person to be treated like a thug or whore by the police and the public. Police need to target the criminal element. The police perpetuate the "us" versus "them" meme. Police departments label the people who protest police abuse as savages. The police unions demand the killers authorized to carry guns are placed back on the street to kill again. Criminals go the jail. Abusive police remain on the streets.

Only a minority of the black community is criminal, but we use terms that demonize the entire community and desensitize the white community when police abuse occurs. Because any black person is a threat, all black people are at risk of abuse. Tennis star James Blake was minding his own business when he was assaulted by an undercover cop. Blake was docile. If Blake had been more aggressive and fought the plain-clothes officer, Blake could have been shot. The police commissioner would have called the shooting a tragic mistake. The commissioner would state theat Blake and the suspect looked like twins, even though the resemblance between the two men was a figment of the commissioner's imagination.

A minority of blacks are involved in criminal activity, but every black person is supposed to give up rights for public safety. The myth of black on black crime is a public health threat.

I think the guy in the NYT

NCD — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:22:26 +0000

In reply to I have a hard time getting

I think the corrections officer in the NYT article I linked gets paid more than enough. A union that defends a guy like that is, I believe, an organization that should be exposed (as the NYT did in this piece) and condemned. they give a bad name for unions everywhere and function only to prevent psycho officers who commit crimes from being fired.

Politicians are often too chickenshit and people could give a crap of course, to do anything but kick the can, or in the case related - the inmates balls, down the road.

I have a hard time getting

Michael Maiello — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:34:55 +0000

In reply to Fortner makes the simple

I have a hard time getting worked up about anybody unionizing, whether public or private employees. People have the right to associate. I think part of the problem is that we just don't pay cops, prison guards and the like enough to get high quality people into those professions and nobody wants to pay more for it. Well, you get what you pay for and then the system has all sorts of reasons to protect the arrangement.