Bangkok Herps

It appears the DOJ report on Ferguson is actually a complete fraud.

" Sorry: The Justice report doesn’t prove disparate treatment, let alone discrimination."

http://nypost.com/2015/03/09/ferguson-fake-out-justice-departments-bogus-report/

Tell that bullshit to him, you might wake up, in a hospital. In fact, try saying it to my face.

Oh oh! Internet Tough Guy Alert!

Enough with the threats already. Embarrassing!

John Lott!!! The right wing's favorite gun rights's guy and random politics mouthpiece who made up fake studies, fake data, and even created a fake internet persona in order to trump up his own research! This is the same guy who tried to claim that Obama was voiding all the Black Republican votes in Florida, right? In Michelle Malkin's words, he shows, "extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his own work". You know Michelle Malkin, the popular far-right columnist, right? When she's already tossed him under the bus, I can't believe there are actually people who would still take him seriously. Then again, this is the New York Post we're talking about here. lol

If you read the report, and then read Lott's article, you'd realize that it was nonsense. You say it shows the report is a "complete fraud", yet Lott at no point ever addressed 90% of the report, including the massive list of constitutional violations of the 1st, 4th, and 8th Amendments in Ferguson that would hold true no matter whether any of Lott's claims about the numbers were true or not. There was also ample evidence for violation of the 14th Amendment that would hold true even if Lott's claims about possible other explanations for a small portion of the evidence held accurate. The DOJ showed discriminatory results at every stage in the process, not simply at people being pulled over, and that effect held true even when the data was normalized for other demographic factors and the reason the stop was made (something Lott never addresses). Lott doesn't address why Black people in Ferguson were searched far more often even though White people in Ferguson were more likely to be found with contraband on them. Lott doesn't address why speeding tickets in Ferguson made without radar proof showed 50% more bias against African-Americans than speeding tickets made with radar proof, or why crimes based on officer judgement calls (like "Manner of Walking" and "Failure to Comply") showed far more anti-Black bias than serious crimes that have to be proved with evidence, like DUIs. He doesn't address the biased record of dismissals and voiding of cases. Not to mention that the federal numbers themselves are emblematic of a larger problem.

And Lott's speculation on the emails was already proven false, as three of the people involved were still working with the department to this day and have already been fired or force to resign in the last week. I'm sure Lott knows that, but his tendency to leave out anything which disproves his case and misrepresent that data he has is only in line with...his entire career to this date.

Tell that bullshit to my black classmate that is on an airport commission, or to another that is in an upper level education administration department job, or to the lady that is a bank branch manager, all from a very modest background.

I understand anyone can have difficulties, and that's good that we help them. But, before you had the child, did it not occur to you, that it was going to cost money? How about a little self responsibility.

Blaming whitey isn't the answer, well except for Al Sharpton, he's made a good living at it.

Al Sharpton is a fool, but that has nothing to do with anything.

I am not surprised that you used the "self-responsibility" line, quite close to the "personal responsibility" line that the city officials used against Black people in Ferguson...at the same time that they were fixing tickets for each other's White friends.

If you read the report, there's quite a bit about how Black people often tried to take responsibility, but how the city made it as difficult as possible for them to do so. I'll give you some quotes soon.

Beechguy - when do you think the last time was that the Ferguson PD used those dogs on a White person?

The last time they thought it was necessary to detain a white suspect, or to protect the police officer.

I guess that just doesn't happen in Ferguson, then. At least it didn't happen a single time in the years of reports handed over to the DOJ by the Ferguson PD.

"Why, if there is so much evidence to prove your point, why didn't they file it with a judge? And don't even start with the "higher standards" thing. Because that's not true."

It seems that you haven't read the report and don't understand the process.

If the Ferguson Police Department contests the report, then yes, it will be filed with a judge. But the Ferguson Police Department has said that it will abide by the report and beginning making the necessary changes. The point of DOJ reports like this one is to fix police departments and improve public safety, not process unnecessary litigation. Processing unnecessary court cases at the expense of public safety is what Ferguson does.

To throw your question back out you, if there isn't evidence to prove the point, then why doesn't Ferguson file it with a judge? There would be almost unlimited money raised by conservatives to challenge this case and win points against Holder and Obama if conservatives actually thought they could win it.

On a different note, there are plenty of court cases pending against the Ferguson PD right now, that have been filed by the individuals involved. They have already lost some of those cases and are certain to lose more. Again, those cases are mentioned in the report.

Also, I believe that to this point five police officers have not been fired or forced to resign for misconduct, as has one city court official. And more are likely coming. Again, if their firings were unjust, why aren't they contesting the case and winning?

A report of police discrimination conducted by DOJ Attorney General Holder and any of this biased staff or even if contracted could never be anything less than highly questionable. Holder has shown racial bias to the extreme in the case of the New Black Panthers caught on video carrying clubs at a voting station... Holder let them off with a slap on the wrist. Holder has also made many other statements revealing his racial bias in favor of blacks and against whites. Nothing he would conduct can be taken seriously. Holder is bankrupt when is comes to racially blind justice ... Holder is hypocritical - he calling anyone else a racist is laughable ...

6 likes for another off-topic race-based dog whistle. What a surprise.

You do realize that the incident happened under the Bush Administration and it was the Bush Administration that dropped the criminal charges, right? The only thing that happened under the Obama Administration was that the civil charges were also dropped.

Here's some reading material from a few conservatives:

A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'

No proof in New Black Panther Case: Official

New Black Panther Case: A Conservative Dissent

Note that those three articles are from Publico, CBS, and National Review, all of which are centrist or openly right-leaning.

But once again, this is a meaningless off-topic red herring and I'm not going to respond any further to attempts to ignore the actual report we're talking about. What two guys did in Philadelphia 7 years ago cannot possibly be proof that the police in Ferguson obeyed the law. By your logic, because of the Black Panther case, Ferguson police should be allowed to get away with anything and no federal case against them shall ever be legitimate. That's just stupid.

Holder didn't make up anything in the report...and if you'd actually read it, you'd see that Holder didn't call anyone in it a "racist".

There is nothing to suggest this was a racially motivated attack. That particular area has a high Indian population and that is a dangerous park after dark. Poor woman made an error of judgement. RIP. Australia is one of the most racially tolerant places to live in the world.

Are you saying that Aboriginal racism is worse most everywhere else?

Statements like the above come from ignorance of the facts. A lot of people sadly believe what they read and see in the media. I was raised in Australia and went to school and university with aboriginals. It is true that in the past aboriginal children were taken from their parents as also happened in both the US and indeed in the UK in the past. I suspect it happened in many countries when governments were not so enlightened. However in my generation we have made many attempts to help these people but their culture is alien to western culture and we have had many failures and a few successes. We will continue to try and help them. I guess the alternate is to let them return to living subsistence lives on kangaroo and goanna?

I have to plead partial ignorance on this subject. My direct knowledge of the Aboriginal situation comes from a few movies and the articles I've read online.

However, I have quite a few Australian friends (mostly White), and their impression is that the vast majority of what White Australians did to aboriginals was openly evil. Not just taking people from their parents, but a huge variety of measures that resulted in enormous death and loss of land and livelihood. I would suspect that yes, the vast majority of aboriginals would be in a situation much closer to "happy" if you indeed had let them live life as they were living it.

If you really want to help someone, a better way to go about it is to offer them the "help" as an alternative and let them take it or leave it. Once you've forced it upon them, or destroyed their other options, it's hard to call it "help" anymore.

Just so you know that it's not always so bad, the Ferguson PD did find instances in which they were able to get control of the situation without having to resort to excessive force...you know, much calmer, controlled situations where they were able to think through their actions and respond carefully:

During our investigation, FPD officials told us that their police tactics are responsive to the scenario at hand. But records suggest that, where a suspect or group of suspects is white, FPD applies a different calculus, typically resulting in a more measured law enforcement response. In one 2012 incident, for example, officers reported responding to a fight in progress at a local bar that involved white suspects. Officers reported encountering “40-50 people actively fighting, throwing bottles and glasses, as well as chairs.” The report noted that “one subject had his ear bitten off.” While the responding officers reported using force, they only used “minimal baton and flashlight strikes as well as fists, muscling techniques and knee strikes.” While the report states that “due to the amount of subjects fighting, no physical arrests were possible,” it notes also that four subjects were brought to the station for “safekeeping.” While we have found other evidence that FPD later issued a wanted for two individuals as a result of the incident, FPD’s response stands in stark contrast to the actions officers describe taking in many incidents involving black suspects, some of which we earlier described.

Good thing that no one had bracelets on so that they didn't have to resort to the taser, and I guess that none of the subjects was as dangerous as a 14-year-old boy so the dogs were unnecessary.

Knocked Out: Is America Becoming South Africa?

"There is a new game spreading across urban America, my friends, and you cannot buy it from Nintendo. It’s called the “Knockout Game.” Caution: If you lose, it could cost you your life. But don’t expect the liberal media to report it. You see, it is perpetrated by blacks against whites. That kind of news simply doesn’t wash, especially under the Presidency of Barack Obama."

America is becoming like South Africa

"THANKS BE TO "PRESIDENT OBAMA, AMERICA NOW LOOKS LIKE SOUTH AFRICA AFTER NELSON MANDELLA

The media calls them “flash mobs”. Isn’t that quaint? Flash Mobs? Aren’t those the dancing folks? Bull sh*t. These are not “flash mobs”. These are organized gangs of black thugs and criminals attacking whites and white owned businesses...

...To think that this is random stretches the furthest bounds of credulity and requires a suspension of disbelief bordering on comatose. The spark of these attacks is planned and some of them were actually organized on social media sites. Do you remember which president got elected using social media sites?

http://www.conunderground.com/black-mobs-terrorizing-whites-as-planed/

Future primitive: America parallels South Africa, Exclusive: Erik Rush sees chilling prescience in Ilana Mercer's 'Into the Cannibal's Pot'

"One of the most distressing things I encounter on a regular basis from Americans is the belief that it can’t happen here and that scenarios representing incomprehensibly radical, dystopian transformations of our society are not only preposterous, but the product of delusional minds. More often than not, when I speak of such things I am referencing the fundamental transformation of America President Obama and his Marxist co-conspirators are foisting upon us.

Europhobia The Racism of Anti-racists

""In a climate of Euro-phobia, we have every legitimate reason to fear and resist a substantial racial/ethnic shift. Assimilating non-European immigrants into America's traditional Euro-culture is difficult. Europhobia makes it nearly impossible. As many of the newcomers absorb this hostility, European-Americans will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps physical danger. We are under no moral obligation to accept these risks either for ourselves or our children.

The "Game" is in play, and all most people want to do is describe the rules, who is breaking the rules, who made the game in the first place, or stupidly play along in the game and think they can win, or even get along with the other players, when in fact the game is rigged, and a lot of those players are playing another "Game" (The real Game) below the surface of the table which the game is being played on... and they certainly do not have your best interests in mind.

Anyone who thinks this Obama-fueled, Marxist form of discrimination will fade away is fooling themselves. A fire can't die when the wood keepers continue to fuel it.

Anyone who feels that deep deep down there is something very wrong going on in this world and blames it on the whites, is either severely confused, brainwashed or my bitterest enemy.

Is this really the material you read? You post a bunch of anti-Black stories from extremist blog sites...to what end? I don't know you, but you look like you're in full-on "Let's scare people with the idea of a Black-White race war!" mode. And on top of that, several of those sites imply that Obama is plotting the race war!

Other people are calling out MSNBC for being, liberal, and yet you can post that without any of those same people peeping up at all?

This is who you are. Claiming that organized gangs of Black thugs organized by President Obama's forces are targeting White people. Claiming that America is turning into Africa and will become a Black-dominated society. Referencing the Holocaust and Pol Pot's Killing Fields in association with Obama's America.

Isn't there a single one of the anti-DOJ side who will at least call this man out for his blatant ridiculousness? You blame Obama for negatively impacting race relations...but you stay silent when people post that trash???

Has anyone here been attacked by Black mobs roaming the countryside? Do you actually believe that Obama's forces are using social media to start a race war against White people? Do you read extremist blogs like World Net Daily and ConUnderground, or radical groups like the "American Immigration Control Foundation", and actually believe they are telling the truth?

Here are some of the "sour moments" that every department has. This is a tiny sample of the 15 pages of unnecessary force allegations listed in the report. Notice that every one of these incidents is from the last five years, in a small town of only 21,000 people. Does your town have police acting in this manner on a regular basis?

FPD’s pattern of excessive force includes using ECWs in a manner that is unconstitutional, abusive, and unsafe. For example, in August 2010, a lieutenant used an ECW in drive-stun mode against an African-American woman in the Ferguson City Jail because she had refused to remove her bracelets. The lieutenant resorted to his ECW even though there were five officers present and the woman posed no physical threat.

Similarly, in November 2013, a correctional officer fired an ECW at an African-American woman’s chest because she would not follow his verbal commands to walk toward a cell. The woman, who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, had yelled an insulting remark at the officer, but her conduct amounted to verbal noncompliance or passive resistance at most. Instead of attempting hand controls or seeking assistance from a state trooper who was also present, the correctional officer deployed the ECW because the woman was “not doing as she was told.”

In January 2013, a patrol sergeant stopped an African-American man after he saw the man talk to an individual in a truck and then walk away. The sergeant detained the man, although he did not articulate any reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. When the man declined to answer questions or submit to a frisk—which the sergeant sought to execute despite articulating no reason to believe the man was armed—the sergeant grabbed the man by the belt, drew his ECW, and ordered the man to comply. The man crossed his arms and objected that he had not done anything wrong. Video captured by the ECW’s built-in camera shows that the man made no aggressive movement toward the officer. The sergeant fired the ECW, applying a five-second cycle of electricity and causing the man to fall to the ground. The sergeant almost immediately applied the ECW again, which he later justified in his report by claiming that the man tried to stand up. The video makes clear, however, that the man never tried to stand—he only writhed in pain on the ground. The video also shows that the sergeant applied the ECW nearly continuously for 20 seconds, longer than represented in his report. The man was charged with Failure to Comply and Resisting Arrest, but no independent criminal violation.

In 2013, FPD stopped a man running with a shopping cart because he seemed “suspicious.” According to the file, the man was “obviously mentally handicapped.” Officers took the man to the ground and attempted to arrest him for Failure to Comply after he refused to submit to a pat-down. In the officers’ view, the man resisted arrest by pulling his arms away. The officers drive-stunned him in the side of the neck. They charged him only with Failure to Comply and Resisting Arrest.

In August 2011, officers used an ECW device against a man with diabetes who bit an EMT’s hand without breaking the skin. The man had been having seizures when he did not comply with officer commands.

We reviewed many incidents in which it appeared that FPD officers used force not to counter a physical threat but to inflict punishment. The use of canines and ECWs, in particular, appear prone to such abuse by FPD. In April 2013, for example, a correctional officer deployed an ECW against an African-American prisoner, delivering a five-second shock, because the man had urinated out of his cell onto the jail floor. The correctional officer observed the man on his security camera feed inside the booking office. When the officer came out, some of the urine hit his pant leg and, he said, almost caused him to slip. “Due to the possibility of contagion,” the correctional officer claimed, he deployed his ECW “to cease the assault.” The ECW prongs, however, both struck the prisoner in the back. The correctional officer’s claim that he deployed the ECW to stop the ongoing threat of urine is not credible, particularly given that the prisoner was in his locked cell with his back to the officer at the time the ECW was deployed. Using less-lethal force to counter urination, especially when done punitively as appears to be the case here, is unreasonable.

For example, in April 2014, an intoxicated jail detainee climbed up on the bars in his cell and refused to get down when ordered to by the arresting officer and the correctional officer on duty. The correctional officer then fired an ECW at him, from outside the closed cell door, striking the detainee in the chest and causing him to fall to the ground. In addition to being excessive, this force violated explicit FPD policy that “[p]roper consideration and care should be taken when deploying the X26 TASER on subjects who are in an elevated position or in other circumstance where a fall may cause substantial injury or death.” FPD General Order 499.04. The reviewing supervisor deemed the use of force within policy.

In December 2011, officers deployed a canine to bite an unarmed 14-year-old African-American boy who was waiting in an abandoned house for his friends. Four officers, including a canine officer, responded to the house mid-morning after a caller reported that people had gone inside. Officers arrested one boy on the ground level. Describing the offense as a burglary in progress even though the facts showed that the only plausible offense was trespassing, the canine officer’s report stated that the dog located a second boy hiding in a storage closet under the stairs in the basement. The officer peeked into the space and saw the boy, who was 5’5” and 140 pounds, curled up in a ball, hiding. According to the officer, the boy would not show his hands despite being warned that the officer would use the dog. The officer then deployed the dog, which bit the boy’s arm, causing puncture wounds.

According to the boy, with whom we spoke, he never hid in a storage space and he never heard any police warnings. He told us that he was waiting for his friends in the basement of the house, a vacant building where they would go when they skipped school. The boy approached the stairs when he heard footsteps on the upper level, thinking his friends had arrived. When he saw the dog at the top of the steps, he turned to run, but the dog quickly bit him on the ankle and then the thigh, causing him to fall to the floor. The dog was about to bite his face or neck but instead got his left arm, which the boy had raised to protect himself. FPD officers struck him while he was on the ground, one of them putting a boot on the side of his head. He recalled the officers laughing about the incident afterward.

The lack of sufficient documentation or a supervisory force investigation prevents us from resolving which version of events is more accurate. However, even if the officer’s version of the force used were accurate, the use of the dog to bite the boy was unreasonable. Though described as a felony, the facts as described by the officer, and the boy, indicate that this was a trespass—kids hanging out in a vacant building. The officers had no factual predicate to believe the boy was armed. The offense reports document no attempt to glean useful information about the second boy from the first, who was quickly arrested. By the canine officer’s own account, he saw the boy in the closet and thus had the opportunity to assess the threat posed by this 5’5” 14 year old. Moreover, there were no exigent circumstances requiring apprehension by dog bite. Four officers were present and had control of the scene.

In one case, FPD failed to open an investigation of an allegation made by a caller who said an officer had kicked him in the side of the head and stepped on his head and back while he was face down with his hands cuffed behind his back, all the while talking about having blood on him from somebody else and “being tired of the B.S.” The officer did not stop until the other officer on the scene said words to the effect of, “[h]ey, he’s not fighting he’s cuffed.” The man alleged that the officer then ordered him to “get the f*** up” and lifted him by the handcuffs, yanking his arms backward. The commander taking the call reported that the man stated that he supported the police and knew they had a tough job but was reporting the incident because it appeared the officer was under a lot of stress and needed counseling, and because he was hoping to prevent others from having the experience he did. The commander’s email regarding the incident expressed no skepticism about the veracity of the caller’s report and was able to identify the incident (and thus the involved officers). Yet FPD did not conduct an internal affairs investigation of this incident, based on our review of all of FPD’s internal investigation files. There is not even an indication that a use-of-force report was completed.

In November 2013, an officer deployed a canine to bite and detain a fleeing subject even though the officer knew the suspect was unarmed. The officer deemed the subject, an African-American male who was walking down the street, suspicious because he appeared to walk away when he saw the officer. The officer stopped him and frisked him, finding no weapons. The officer then ran his name for warrants. When the man heard the dispatcher say over the police radio that he had outstanding warrants—the report does not specify whether the warrants were for failing to appear in municipal court or to pay owed fines, or something more serious—he ran.

The officer followed him and released his dog, which bit the man on both arms. The officer’s supervisor found the force justified because the officer released the dog “fearing that the subject was armed,” even though the officer had already determined the man was unarmed.

As these incidents demonstrate, FPD officers’ use of canines to bite people is frequently unreasonable. Officers command dogs to apprehend by biting even when multiple officers are present. They make no attempt to slow situations down, creating time to resolve the situation with lesser force. They appear to use canines not to counter a physical threat but to inflict punishment. They act as if every offender has a gun, justifying their decisions based on what might be possible rather than what the facts indicate is likely. Overall, FPD officers’ use of canines reflects a culture in which officers choose not to use the skills and tactics that could resolve a situation without injuries, and instead deploy tools and methods that are almost guaranteed to produce an injury of some type.

FPD’s use of canines is part of its pattern of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, FPD’s use of dog bites only against African-American subjects is evidence of discriminatory policing in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and other federal laws.

I grabbed those quotes from much larger sections that gave a great deal more examples as well as Ferguson court statistics and legal presidents for the unconstitutionality of many of the police actions. The passages quoted did not appear in the same order in the original report.

I've read it. It's very biased, only tries to prove the point it started with. It's statistics are skewed. It asks the perps, not witnesses, what happened.

That's simply false. The vast majority of the report is pulled directly from police reports, court records, and internal documents. The "perps", as you call them, were interviewed a small minority of the time (can you imagine how difficult it would have been for the DOJ to try to track down the 'perps' in 90,000 citations for interviews?).

In the "Justice Department's Ferguson Report" thread, I posted exact quotes from the report, which shows both how the report relied on officer accounts and the qualified language that the report used whenever a citizen's account is mentioned.

Isn't it telling that hawker9000, the other anti-DOJ guy who has now claimed to have read the report, still had to admit, " But they are undoubtedly true stories, so not much the department can say." He just tried to excuse the stories away with "every department has its sour moments". It's not surprising that the two of you have come up with opposite excuses to try to wish the report away - throw it all at the wall and see what sticks, right?

Perhaps you innocently misread the report, and didn't realize that they were pulling from the policemen's own descriptions?

Or maybe you're right. Why don't you give us a few examples of incidents in which the DOJ "asks the perps, not witnesses, what happened".

Beechguy - when do you think the last time was that the Ferguson PD used those dogs on a White person?

Just read the report and stop sounding so foolish.

This is maybe the fifth thread where the DOJ report has been mentioned, and not ONCE has any of the detractors found a single thing to criticize in the actual report. Because they still haven't read it, and if they did, they'd realize that the police department was condemned by its own words and actions.

'Sounding pretty foolish there yourself, sport.

'Read the report. All 105 spellbinding pages of it. Sort o' doubt you have though. 'Not even the remotest semblance of objectivity to it. The entire premise of it is that despite their very best efforts, the DOJ finally had to clear the police officer in the Michael Brown shooting, and so found itself in desperate need of a "parting shot" with which to trash the Ferguson PD and get its punches in. And so they dug up some anecdotes with which to do so. But they are undoubtedly true stories, so not much the department can say. I can just imagine the agenda-driven, snarling, sneering, fangs-out DOJ hellions who invaded Ferguson with a mission to dig up as much dirt as possible, rather than perform anything that might be confused with a fair assessment. I don't expect there's a department in the nation that doesn't have its own sour moments. Much of the report and recommendations touch on the "lack of diversity" in the department, which of course is entirely the department's fault, and nothing to do with the actual applicant population and qualifications... Also not enough "community outreach", blah-blah-blah. Also problems with local courts and a ticket-fixing judge. 'Not sure what that's got to do with the FPD.

Pure tit for tat on the part of a frustrated DOJ. 'Failed to get an indictment on the police officer despite pretty much having promised the black community it would do so, so resorted to smearing the entire police department, Ferguson itself really, instead. Naturally, the black exceptionalists rush to embrace it.

What they couldn't achieve in a courtroom where you actually have to prove stuff, and allow an open hearing of the other side of the story, they sunk into an uncontestable "government report" instead.

First off, hawker, I wasn't speaking to you. You're the first person to actually say something about the report itself.

Second, yup, did read the report, and apparently a lot better than you did, considering how badly you misrepresent and misunderstood it.

Most of your response is about Officer Wilson, which is odd, because the report has nothing to do with Officer Wilson. Sort of shows where you were coming from when you read it.

The "lack of diversity" is in the report, but it's not "much" of the report - it is rarely mentioned in the course of 105 pages, and the report specifically states that diversity alone is not the answer, as police of any race can be liable to the exact same issues that are highlighted in Ferguson.

It is not an "uncontestable" government report, if you had really read the whole thing you would realize that one of the first options the city has is to contest the report. If they disagree with it, they can refuse to follow any of the federal recommendations, and they can go to court. Of course, Ferguson has stated that they will comply, because anyone who has read that report and who doesn't think that the feds have already proved their case is willfully blind.

I'm glad that you acknowledge that the stories in the report are true. Laughable that you dismiss them as run-of-the-mill for police departments - if you think that the stuff in that report is just "sour moments", then you must have a really, really low opinion of police.

However, it's not just a bunch of stories. Every story in that report merely illustrates the statistics and department policies that headline every section. The report is proven with the department's own policies and their own numbers, showing that they were told to do the unconstitutional, rights-denying things they do in the stories.

* Arresting and detaining people who are not suspected of a crime is constitutionally illegal.

* Ordering citizens not to execute their free speech rights and then arresting them if they do so is constitutionally illegal.

* Using dogs and tasers on people who have not shown violence and exhibit no threat merely because they won't follow your orders is a huge abuse of power.

* Setting up a department revenue program that has no relationship to stopping crime, no relationship to public safety, but is entirely designed to fill the city's coffers (by the own admission of the city officials designing it) in a manner that severely injures the Black community is constitutionally illegal.

If you call community outreach, "blah blah blah", then you're simply uneducated when it comes to policing.

It wasn't just a ticket-fixing judge, by the way. The mayor, court clerks, prosecutor, and the judge were ALL implicated in ticket-fixing...which is likely part of the reason why White people were 70% more likely than Black people to have their cases dismissed. When you consider that Black people were twice as likely to be pulled over, twice as likely to be searched when pulled over, 30% less likely to have contraband on them, yet 2.5 times more likely to be arrested...the fact that they were so much less likely to have their cases dismissed was yet more evidence of a systemic problem. Especially when you see the specific things that Black people were getting tickets for, how impossible it was for them to challenge the tickets even when evidence was clearly in their favor, and the ways which defense attorneys were threatened with jail time simply for questioning witnesses on the stand.

You failing to understand what the courts had to do with it...that really takes the cake. From page 1 it is clear that there was a conspiracy between the city officials, the police, and the court in order to grind as much money as possible out of the city's poorest residents. The city made infraction fees as high as they could, ordered the police to issue as many tickets as they could, made the court system as difficult to navigate as can be believed, and then charged multiple illegal fees to anyone who didn't navigate the system correctly, then had the police issue arrest warrants to anyone who missed a payment or a court date. They openly acknowledged that their judge cut off witnesses and didn't even pay attention to cases, but refused to get rid of him because he was good for revenue. That system led to 9,000 warrants being issued for a city of only 21,000 people in 2013 alone, when most of the violations were just things like people's grass being too long, "manner of walking" violations, simple parking tickets, non-dangerous traffic tickets, and frequent and illegal "Failure to Obey" citations. The city knew what they were doing was outside of the reasonable bounds of the law, because once the DOJ started investigated, the city of Ferguson began retracting the illegal fees left and right before the DOJ even issued their report.

POLL: Race Relations Worse Under Obama

3.7.2015

A new poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe race relations have worsened over the course of the presidency of Barack Obama, the first half-black man elected to the White House.

The CNN poll found 39 percent believe relations between blacks and whites have gotten worse, not better, since Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. Just 15 percent say relations have improved. In an interesting finding, 45 percent of whites think relations have worsened while just 26 percent of blacks think so.

The survey of 1,000 adults was taken last month, before a Department of Justice report released this week found racial bias in the Ferguson, Mo., police department.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/poll-race-relations-worse-under-obama

Yes, you're definitely right Chuck! From your own link, look at what was said:

"45 percent of whites think relations have worsened while just 26 percent of blacks think so."

So, the White people think that race relations are worse, not the Black people. So has obviously been White people, not Black people, who have been targeted with the heightened racial language. Now, WHO BENEFITS FROM THAT?

I showed indisputable evidence that Republicans had used the race issue for 40 years in order to attract anti-Black votes, because there are a lot more anti-Black votes up for grabs then there are Black votes up for grabs.

Yes, race relations in many ways have worsened over the last 6 years, because the anti-Black contingent has spent six straight years using the image of a Black president to drum up their support over and over again, as this very thread proves over and over again.

They even take exact evidence for that, like the link you just posted, and try to turn it into something anti-Obama even though there's not one piece of evidence to blame Obama, rather than anti-Obama Republicans for the trend. In fact, both the numbers (Whites, not Blacks, being targeted) and the motive (already discussed in depth) prove just the opposite.

This is how deluded this side is. They will even jump on top of things that prove the very opposite of what they're trying to claim.

I find it interesting that people automatically assume Obama to be "black" when he is in fact only HALF black. Given that his mother is white and he appears to have been raised without his father present ( am I wrong on that? ) would his outlook on life not be more "white" than "black"?

I agree with everything you say here.

Obama was almost entirely raised by White people - about half the time by his White grandparents and the other half by his White mother, with a Black father and an Indonesian step-father only present for brief periods. He also was raised primarily in Hawaii, which doesn't have a very large Black community.

Now, of course most other people treated him as a Black boy and Black man, and he would identify with the experience of Black people in America in some ways, so it seems likely that his outlook in life would be a cultural mix. But there certainly seems to be more White influence than Black influence in his life, especially in the developmental stages.

But this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. So I am at a loss to understand why you ignored everything I said and replied with a completely off-topic meditation on Barack Obama's upbringing. As far as I can tell, there's only one relevant quote:

"This is how deluded this side is. They will even jump on top of things that prove the very opposite of what they're trying to claim."

Were you just trying to prove me right?

< Inflammatory comment removed >

Given that the report was made by the Holder led task force of the DOJ, I would consider it to be biased from the get go, so no point in reading it. Holder has proven himself to be racially biased in the past.

I'd like to note the following: chuckd, Ulysses G. and CMNightRider like this

Every single person who has criticized the report has self-admitted complete ignorance about the report.

Despite four threads discussing the subject, not once has anyone found a single lie or "bias" in the report itself.

Anyone who actually read the report would realize that it is almost entirely made up of incidents and numbers pulled directly from the Ferguson Police Department's own reports.

Let me repeat the again: THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AND OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE OPENLY ADMITTED TO IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S OWN DOCUMENTS.

Occasionally citizen statements are given, but 9 times out of 10 the police department's own report is enough to condemn them. The only significant space taken up the report is the numerous citations and quotes from court cases that are needed to prove that the FPD's actions are unconstitutional.

Yet thaibeachlovers, chuckd, Ulysses G., and CMNightrider openly acknowledge that they haven't read the report, they're not going to read the report, and they were biased against the investigation long before the report came out.

As a result, they're proving in post after post that they are completely wrong in nearly everything they say about the actual contents of the report. Even if the report were indeed biased, it would benefit them to read it so they stopped making inaccurate, stupid-sounding statements about what they think is in it.

The celebration of self-ignorance. And we wonder why there are problems in this world.

The DoJ Report on the Ferguson police department has some revealing and incriminating data and info for anyone interested enuff to even peruse it.

It's a Byzantine criminal justice system in Ferguson. Once a black citizen gets pulled in, s/he finds it impossible to get out easily or cleanly....or alive. And the FPD has been busy pulling in citizens 24/7.

Fire 'em all, start over again from scratch. Included in the findings of the DoJ Report....

Ferguson's black citizens accounted for 95 percent of all jaywalking fines and warrants.

In order to pay for the local court system (and not motivated by public safety), the city of Ferguson engaged in "illegal and harmful practices" of charging residents high court fees and fees on nonviolent offenses (like jaywalking).

Some people have come to refer to this practice as "taxation by citation."

http://www.uexpress.com/donna-brazile/2015/3/5/the-price-of-freedom-is-vigilance

The homicide cop was unaware of any convenience store incident at the time he drove past his target while hollering at him to stop jaywalking, aka "drive-by policing."

Prez Obama's remarks about the DoJ Report and the sad trail of events in Ferguson have the strongly positive side of raising the Report to the national consciousness. It's there for even the most hard nose keyboardbanger on the right to see but they will never read the Report.

The Report documents how the police had been shaking down the black poor as the agents of the municipal government for the illicit purpose of issuing traffic and pedestrian citations and other bottom feeder revenue streams while the municipal courts enforced the scams against the residents of Ferguson.

So once again The Man is abusing the law and the Constitution while laughing and clicking off racist emails. Then when a black man blows a fuse over a drive by order by a cop to stop jaywalking something happens.

"The Man is abusing the law and the Constitution while laughing and clicking off racist e-mails," lol. I guess "The Man" must mean police officer. How is laughing and sending racist e-mails abusing the law and Constitution? The last time I checked, it is okay to laugh at work. As far as sending racist e-mails at work, that is certainly inappropriate but abusing the law and Constitution?

You refuse to read the report.

So you continue to post ignorance, and everyone who has read the report can see that.

Yet you somehow either don't realize how ignorant you sound, or you don't care.

In the report are numerous and detailed citations of the Police Department violating the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments as a matter of department policy. The report carefully details the actions that violate the constitution (primarily from the cops' own incident reports), details the Supreme Court cases that show that such actions are a violation of the constitution, and relate the chain-of-command policies that allowed such violations to become a daily problem for the Ferguson PD.

Once again, it's not about emails. The blatantly racist emails were 1 page out of a 102 page report.

But you don't know that. Because even though you've commented on the report in four different threads, you still refuse to read it.

Just read the report and stop sounding so foolish.

This is maybe the fifth thread where the DOJ report has been mentioned, and not ONCE has any of the detractors found a single thing to criticize in the actual report. Because they still haven't read it, and if they did, they'd realize that the police department was condemned by its own words and actions.

I have done this walk several times and it is an unsafe area after dark..It is so unfortunate that this lady took the risk as racism does prevail. There have been several incidents in Melbourne as well against Indian Students to such an extend that the Australian Government was seriously concerned about the bad image. Australia generates roughly 15 Billion dollars from the education sector and these incidents can harm this lucrative business. Unfortunately racism is everywhere, even among the T.V members as one can see how many racist comments are posted everyday against Thais, Chinese and other Asian nationalities.

Sadly, it's true that these attacks have brought Australia a bad image abroad. I have an Australian friend who traveled to India for a few months last year. Some Indians, when they found out he was from Australia, called it a wonderful, wealthy country and said they hoped to move there. Other Indians, when they found out he was from Australia, talked about the horrible attacks that had happened there and said what a terrible and racist country it was.

I don't know what the statistics are, but my assumption that there were very few overall and that the average Indian isn't in the risk in the least. But it's certainly been enough to affect Australia's image even as far away as India.

It's not an insignificant percentage, ChuckD. But you seem to be going far off-topic now. Obama was a disappointment to many people, myself included, enough so that I refused to vote for him in 2012 and was quite public about that. But that's neither here nor there.

The claim made was that Obama has purposely exacerbated racial tension in order to pump up his Black and far-left Liberal voting base.

If that were true, then wouldn't a lot more than 25% of Black people feel that race relations were getting worse?

Instead, it's heavily White people who are saying that...which indicates that whoever is driving the division, it's the White people, not the Black people, who are the focus of their efforts.

I proved quite clearly that over the last 40 years, it's been the Republicans who have had more to gain by highlighting racial tension and who have tried to exploit it politically for votes.

Once again, though, this is way off topic. The actual topic is the Ferguson report, which every single one of the anti-Obama detractors has still failed to read.

Look, look, we're STILL talking about Officer Wilson, even though the thread has nothing to do with him.

Because people who want to remain ignorant are afraid to acknowledge that there is 102 pages of clear corruption, abuse, and discrimination just sitting in front of them, waiting to be read in the report which this thread is actually about.

Oh, really? They eliminated the "liars" and "idiots". Like witness 40? After which the prosecutor was forced to admit that he allowed people to testify who he knew were lying. Not sure how some brilliant know it all like you missed this (maybe because you were too obsessed with what Al Sharpon was doing?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/20/ferguson-prosecutor-says-he-knew-some-witnesses-were-clearly-not-telling-the-truth-they-testified-anyway/

Yeah...I am the one in the bubble.....lol. I am clearly far more knowledgeable regarding this situation than you. What Obama said was a fact. Unfortunately, we may never know what happened.

Yeah.....witness 40 had all of her sh*t together........

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/witness-40-ferguson-grand-jury-racist-liar-report-article-1.2047404

You can continue with your own research if you care. However, people like you never seem to. Because the facts might contradict what you "wish" was true.

What's there to research? However, it would be interesting to know how much money the government spent to discover a couple of e-mail jokes about Obama, and to come to the conclusion Darren Wilson didn't do anything wrong. Enjoy your life in the bubble.

Bald-faced lie. Only 1 page of the 102 page report talked about the emails. You still haven't read the report, because your MO is that wallowing in ignorance is preferable to looking for truth.

I found these quotes from Jock's link particularly telling.

"All nine of those found guilty of crimes in the area of Rochdale, Greater Manchester, had conspicuously Asian names."

" Of these, 49% were white and 46% Asian: the proportion of Pakistani Asians remains unknown. However, in a country where Asians constitute 7% of the general population, this is a striking figure."

"Of the 52 suspects charged, 83% were Asian Pakistani, 11% Asian other and 6% white British. These are shocking statistics and the over-representation of Asian offenders within this dataset certainly merits attention."

I'm definitely done here. When people mock others for actually knowing what they're talking about, are only arguing to promote their hateful agenda, and just keep repeating the same cherry-picked talking points even when proven that even the source they're pulling those points from doesn't agree with them, what's the point of saying anything?

People who want to have a discussion have seen the evidence. People who want to remain in ignorance and hate no matter what anyone else says will continue to do so.

But you can't explain why I'm wrong and you are right. Sounds like you just lost the argument. Arrivederci!

Really? I can do it this easy.

Black people are only about 10% of the voting population in America, and they were already voting 90%+ for Democrats before they'd ever heard of Barack Obama. Therefore Obama can gain an extra 1-2% from their votes at most.

While White people are 70%+ of the voting population, split between Republicans and Democrats, and many of both parties have racial animosity to some degree. Therefore Obama could lose a lot from their votes.

Encouraging racial animosity between Whites and Blacks would be idiocy for Obama because he has FAR more to lose among White votes than he has to gain among Black votes.

Does that explain well enough for you?

Want to have a different way of explaining why you're wrong? Studies show that Obama lost more votes than he gained by being Black: According to the study, Obama gained about 1% of the vote that he wouldn't have had otherwise by being Black, but lost about 5% of the vote that he would have had if he wasn't Black, resulting in a net loss of about 4%.

Political scientists Charles Tien, Richard Nadeau, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck recently reported a survey study that compared early-2012 estimates of Obama’s racial penalty to the one they calculated just before the 2008 election (here). In 2008, focusing on those survey respondents who said that they expected candidate Obama to favor blacks if he was elected, the researchers generated a 5-point estimate of the racial penalty – the percentage of voters who would have voted Democratic if the Democratic candidate had been white. That calculation seemed prescient. Although Obama won the 2008 election with 53% of the popular vote, given the economic situation and the large victory that Democrats scored in the 2008 congressional elections, history suggests that Obama should have had won in a landslide, with perhaps 58% of the vote.

Replicating their 2008 survey in 2012, Tien and colleagues predict that the “price” Obama will pay in November will be about 3.3 points – less than in 2008 but consequential nonetheless.

POLL: Race Relations Worse Under Obama

3.7.2015

A new poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe race relations have worsened over the course of the presidency of Barack Obama, the first half-black man elected to the White House.

The CNN poll found 39 percent believe relations between blacks and whites have gotten worse, not better, since Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. Just 15 percent say relations have improved. In an interesting finding, 45 percent of whites think relations have worsened while just 26 percent of blacks think so.

The survey of 1,000 adults was taken last month, before a Department of Justice report released this week found racial bias in the Ferguson, Mo., police department.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/poll-race-relations-worse-under-obama

Yes, you're definitely right Chuck! From your own link, look at what was said:

"45 percent of whites think relations have worsened while just 26 percent of blacks think so."

So, the White people think that race relations are worse, not the Black people. So has obviously been White people, not Black people, who have been targeted with the heightened racial language. Now, WHO BENEFITS FROM THAT?

I showed indisputable evidence that Republicans had used the race issue for 40 years in order to attract anti-Black votes, because there are a lot more anti-Black votes up for grabs then there are Black votes up for grabs.

Yes, race relations in many ways have worsened over the last 6 years, because the anti-Black contingent has spent six straight years using the image of a Black president to drum up their support over and over again, as this very thread proves over and over again.

They even take exact evidence for that, like the link you just posted, and try to turn it into something anti-Obama even though there's not one piece of evidence to blame Obama, rather than anti-Obama Republicans for the trend. In fact, both the numbers (Whites, not Blacks, being targeted) and the motive (already discussed in depth) prove just the opposite.

This is how deluded this side is. They will even jump on top of things that prove the very opposite of what they're trying to claim.

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*

* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

The data that you found was for sexual offences committed in the UK.

As I said before, I would expect the highest number of perps in the UK to be white.

Try looking for stats on grooming gangs. Which is the essence of the thread.

Here is a report from 2012, before the vast majority of the cases highlighted in this thread were in the public domain.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/08/asian-sex-gangs-on-street-grooming

YOU were the on who told me to focus on numbers for sexual assaults in the UK!!! You were the one who called out for all sexual assaults, not me. When I proved you wrong, you moved the goalposts...unsurprisingly.

Now you're focusing on one particular modus operandi of sexual assault, and your proof is very weak, as I'll show below from your own link. But even if your proof was correct, what's the point of proving that people from one culture use a different method than people from another culture? There's still people from every culture sexually assaulting children, and the children are still abused no matter what the methodology is.

If I turned your numbers around and showed that the average White British sex offender was abusing a younger child than the average Pakistani British sex offender, would that prove that White culture was more evil because it led to the abuse of younger and more vulnerable children?

If I proved that White Brits in Thailand were far more likely than native Thai men in Thailand to travel specifically for the purpose of committing serial sexual abuse, to pay money for child sexual abuse, and to include physical abuse in their sexual abuse, what would that now prove above Brits?

Would it prove that British culture was corrupt and evil in comparison to Thai culture?

Or would it just show that the particular factors in this situation lead to a disproportionate but small overall % of British men committing a certain kind of evil act in this particular case, while saying nothing about British culture across the rest of the world or the vast majority of British men who don't touch children when they're in Thailand?

And if that's true, if the British abusers in Thailand do not represent the other Brits in Thailand and do not reflect on overall British culture, why wouldn't the same thing be true regarding a tiny % of Muslims in England? (a few dozen men out of one million Pakistani-origin Brits)

Now, for your source. First off, you ignored the very first line of your own source:

Despite the conviction of nine Asian men for child exploitation in Rochdale and worrying signs in the statistics, racial profiling won't help potential victims

On top of that, they don't know the numbers yet at all. The 46% was only 46% of 1/3 of the data of one type of offense - in other worlds, approximately 15%, and only 15% of that type of assault alone. They didn't have the other two-thirds of the data at all. So you're making a bogus claim when 1/3 of the data isn't even available. The 83% was cherry-picked - it was only 83% of five investigations involving 52 men - in other words, about 45 offenders out of the thousands of men who commit sexual assault in the UK every year.

Also from your own link:

The current obsession with "Asian sex gangs" focuses too narrowly on one dimension to this crime, making the emergent profile of the "Pakistani groomer" misleading. It is also unhelpful: there are more than 1 million Pakistanis in Britain. Are we going to order surveillance on all the adult males, take their fingerprints, get their DNA profiles? After all, a tiny minority may be abusing children. Racial profiles are notoriously problematic. Their application raises serious ethical issues and risks isolating the non-deviant majority. Ask anyone with an Arabic-sounding name "randomly" selected for extra searches by US airport security. Not always that accurate in the first place, these profiles are also liable to change, and quickly.

It goes on to say that the data is patchy and incomplete, as well as the fact that there may be other important factors that we haven't considered due to the lack of data.

And that's your big link that you could come up with.

Maybe the actual answer is that poor people commit sexual assaults more frequently, and there are just more Muslims who happen to be poor. Maybe the actual answer is that young men commit sexual assaults more frequently, and Muslims are more represented about younger men than older. Maybe the actual answer is, like you say, that Asians are more likely to commit sexual assault regardless of religion, and Muslims are more highly represented among Asians?

Maybe this, maybe that.

Just a futile exercise in deflection again.

'"Once again, you haven't factored in any possible correlating variables, haven't shown the slightest sense that there's a meaningful correlation to this variable and not just a shared correlation to another variable."

What on earth are you talking about?

'correlating variables' blah blah. Do you really talk like that?

As always, trying to take the onus off Islam, when everyone can see that's the main factor in these crimes.

Yet again, you selectively quoted my words to distort their intent. That's against board rules, right? I said that all three of those "maybe" statements were likely true, but you cut that out.

You think it's okay to state unproven conjecture as fact, but criticize me for using the "maybe".

And yes, because I was trained as a scientist and understand statistics, I know what "correlating variables" are and I can talk like that if I need to. How can you possibly claim, "everyone can see that's the main factor" when you prove right here that you have no idea how to even identify a factor separate from other factors?

Why do you mock me for using the correct vocabulary and knowing what I'm talking about?