Charles Barkley speaks out

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No.

I'm saying that it's a separate (but related) issue. I'm saying that racial profiling exists, and that a crime problem in many black neighborhoods exists, and that these two things play off each other in complicated ways.

The simplistic view of this topic taken by some here is depressing.

goat

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So what? It's still profiling.

I also know that, at the moment, a disproportionate number of potential terrorists are of Arab descent. Targeting Arabs in our airports therefore may be an efficient way to combat terrorism. But it's still profiling.

Many of you seem to have a really difficult time coming to grips with the fact that effective policing and racial profiling are not entirely exclusive of each other. And your hesitation to call it what it is makes this conversation silly.

goat

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You have become incapable of reading my posts.

Somehow you have started inserting into my posts things you expect to see, rather than paying attention only to what I actually put there. I wasn't broadsiding anything. Barkley was the one doing the broadsiding, and I was merely pointing out the logical inconsistency with said broadside, while also claiming that this issue is in reality very complex.

You did the same thing with the Darren Wilson threads, responding to my posts by attacking things I never actually wrote.

goat

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I Read It - He Offered Less Than Anecdotes

He made the same bald claim you quoted - "white flight, followed by deed restrictions and zoning against public housing"

He cited/quoted no deeds or ordinances.

Like you, he just said "it IS the way i said it is."

The reason I asked is because he then said the same areas became populated by a majority of African-Americans anyway, as in "the deed restrictions and ordinances did not have the desired effect." Perhaps the deed restrictions and zoning ordinances were myths? Its been at least 50 years since such deed restrictions were legal anywhere, and I'd suggest that zoning restrictions about public housing - or even multi-family housing - have more to with property value than race.

 

[Rockfish1]

Swell


You just disproved white flight. Who knew that it never happened? Instead communities intermingled in peace and harmony, and there are no segregated neighborhoods. Your Pulitzer Prize is waiting for you to collect it.

 

[hoosboot]

I'm flummoxed

"If my suburb experienced a sharp rise in white (trash) supremacists, I would be just as likely to leave as if were overcome by Blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. if I perceived a deterioration in safety, education quality, home value, etc."

It's good to know that you'd be just as likely to leave if your neighborhood were overcome by black, Asians, Latinos, or white (trash) supremacists.

 

[Rockfish1]

i don't know what to say to a post like this

You've got your facts completely wrong, of course, but when I suggest that white people engage in introspection, and they respond that their neighborhood rent-a-cops are tougher on them than white cops are on black people in the real world, I conclude that I'm wasting my time.

I asked you to think outside your little box, and instead you've shown that you can't imagine any other world. I don't know if you live in a gated community, but you obviously live in a gated reality.

 

[RerunStubs]

Being black is not a geographic location

Racial profiling is targeting blacks because of skin color. Targeting blacks because that is where the violence and lawless behavior is is not RACIAL profiling it is BEHAVIOR profiling.*

What? If your point is that neighborhoods with relatively higher percentages of black people have higher levels of crime, there's little evidence that the racial composition of a neighborhood dictates once you control for the poverty rate.

And in any event, I'm not sure how you can call being in a particular neighborhood "behavior profiling." I would think that would require an assessment of someone's actual behavior.

 

[mjvcaj]

Sounds like you need another break from the Cooler

I'd love to hear about how soft black cops are on black people in the "real world".

 

[mjvcaj]

LOL

You got me hoos. That's what I get for typing before I think.

 

[hootch1]

Blacks

are five times more likely to be jailed for pot than whites even though usage is roughly equivalant.

I have been told on this site it is a matter of better policing. How would you explain the discrepancy?

 

[hoot1]

mjccaj, Since when is wealth a measure of...

..of how well a person has done in respect to "their standard of morals, values, and cultural respect"?

Seems to me buying a home in a middle or upper class neighborhood is a measure of income and net worth. I cannot imagine a scenario whereby a banker says, "Yes Mr. Jones you certainly have the income and down payment to buy a home in an upper class neighborhood, but you haven't proven to me that your moral standards meet our expectations".

Everyday scores of homeowners in middle and upper class neighborhoods are found guilty of white collar crimes. Not too long ago one of my neighbors was sent to a federal prison for embezzlement and left behind a young show girl exotic dancer who had been living with him to fend for herself. His house went through a bank repossession.






This post was edited on 12/3 9:08 PM by hoot1

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here is what I read. You are clear and clearly mistaken

"Barkley claims both 1) that cops are not targeting blacks for being black and 2) that cops are justified when they target blacks for being black. Those two points are mutually exclusive. To bring up the problem of crime in the black community as a possible reason for the disproportionate response of police to blacks is to assume that there is in fact a disproportionate response."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What is false about that?

They are mutually exclusive. One is a claim that racial profiling doesn't happen. The other is a claim that police are justified when they racially profile. Both claims cannot be true. They are contradictory.

I suppose it's possible that I misunderstood Barkley, but in that case, I'd point out two things:

1) I said in my very first reply that I read the entirety of his comments as NOT actually claiming profiling doesn't happen.
2) That's not at all what you decided to accuse me of, anyway.

I'm a pretty smart guy, but I can't fathom how you jump from the paragraph you cite here to the criticism you lobbed at me at the beginning.

goat

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Speaking of reading posts correctly

I didn't say it was false. I said you made a mistake, meaning you didn't understand Barkley's point.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Okay.

I think you're wrong, but that's a reasonable criticism that logical people can disagree about. It's the fluff around that where you went into my essentially being brainwashed by race-baiters that I really have a problem. You strongly suggested that I was making some broad claims that I wasn't really making. I think I was very clear - even in the portion of my original post that you yourself cited - that I was pointing out the fact that this issue is complicated with multiple moving parts. I wasn't making any kind of broad statement about cops being racist at all. I was pointing out that racial profiling IS racial profiling, regardless of the motivation behind it, but that doesn't equate to racism. As I said in reply to someone else in this thread, targeting Arabs in airports for extra screening is racial profiling, but we might engage in that type of profiling, not because we hate Arabs, but because said profiling is exceptionally efficient. My criticism of Barkley was that he seemed to be falling into the trap - and I feel you fell into the same - of convincing himself that justified profiling isn't actually profiling. That's just not true. Justified or not, it's still profiling, and we can't truly address this complicated issue without owning up to that.

goat

 

[mjvcaj]

White collar crime

Much different than violent crime or even burglary/theft, despite being worse in many cases. All about perception hoot.

 

[NPT]

Don't get me wrong

I wasn't saying that you're wrong by any means. If I read your post correctly it sounds like there are quite a few blacks in your area so a black person driving through the neighborhood would not be something rare. If that is so then the officer had absolutely no right to question your partner. Even if it was something rare in your neighborhood I don't think the officer had a right to question him but I could understand it more easily because I'm sure they are trained to look for the things that look out of place.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I Did Not "Disprove White Flight"

As usual, you can't debate in a civil fashion, or without claiming someone said something they did not say.

Never mind.

Enjoy your "win."

 

[Ladoga]

Try answering this

I suspect you have no clue about how law enforcement operates in allocating resources though it is what you've been raving about. You avoided it yesterday. You still haven't learned.

Have you ever been anywhere remotely associated with law enforcement planning and research? Law enforcement resource allocation? Development of manning over geographic areas of responsibility?

Obviously not. The higher the volume of demand on law enforcement, the smaller the district. I ran districts in all white and all black neighborhoods that were extremely small - 11 blocks by 11 blocks in an almost all white extreme high crime area and 8 blocks by 5 blocks in a high population, high crime almost all black neighborhood. The size of the 8 x 5 district was also effect by a major waterway that ran through the area with limited bridges present.

Meanwhile, moving outward from those inner city areas, districts with lower crime rates had much larger areas, a couple as large as 6 square miles. It was to try to have the same amount of demand in each area. The planning effort involved allocating the capacity to respond to demand on resources and never was there any consideration of race. NEVER.

CO calls it behavior. I would amend that only to call it allocation of resources to be capable of responding to behavior driven demand. The bad guys don't call the police for assistance or crime reports. The good citizens of the area/victims call the police. How much the demand occurs determines the allocation of response capability.

NEVER was there any consideration of the race of those demanding assistance or those whose conduct caused the demand.
This post was edited on 12/4 8:43 AM by Ladoga

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Has anybody posted the language of one of those "deed restrictions"?

I didn't think so.