[rooster]

Great, now the only people who will ever want to be cops in that area will be absolutely insane psychopaths.

Yup. That was my first thought.

[Saddam Hussein]

They also bullied the local chief out of his job. How the hell is their government fucking this up so badly?

They being the Department of Justice?

[garygreen]

Yep.  Bullied out of his job.  Somehow.

Or maybe he was just shitty at his job and deserved to be fired.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/department-of-justice-report-on-the-ferguson-mo-police-department/1435/

Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans.

[Pete Svarrior]

They being the Department of Justice?

Yes.

Yep.  Bullied out of his job.  Somehow.

Or maybe he was just shitty at his job and deserved to be fired.

If he deserved to be fired, why wasn't he fired? Why is it that they must have talked him into resigning instead? Why resort to scare tactics when the case is so trivial?

Oh, that's right, because omitting public scrutiny is the cool thing to do in America these days. God forbid someone might read the report and notice how little evidence it provides for its extraordinary claims.

[garygreen]

If he deserved to be fired, why wasn't he fired?

I dunno.  Probably a bunch of complicated reasons about which I can obviously only speculate.  I mean, it's not really uncommon for someone to be asked to resign over being outright fired, so whatever those reasons generally are probably apply here.  But you probably read some stuff about it on the internet, so I'll just defer to your good judgement.

Why resort to scare tactics when the case is so trivial?

The DoJ declaring your police department to be systemically racist is hardly trivial.  People lose their jobs over that sort of thing.

Oh, that's right, because omitting public scrutiny is the cool thing to do in America these days. God forbid someone might read the report and notice how little evidence it provides for its extraordinary claims.

Perhaps you could be more specific about which claims you felt lacked support.  Just sort of declaring that the report is bullshit isn't super helpful or persuasive.

[Pete Svarrior]

I dunno.  Probably a bunch of complicated reasons about which I can obviously only speculate.  I mean, it's not really uncommon for someone to be asked to resign over being outright fired, so whatever those reasons generally are probably apply here.

So you don't see anything suspicious about that at all? You openly declared that he was horrible and deserved to be fired, and yet he wasn't fired, but that's a good thing. No dissonance there?

The DoJ declaring your police department to be systemically racist is hardly trivial.  People lose their jobs over that sort of thing.

I'd say it is indeed trivial that he should be fired if these allegations are true, and you appear to agree ("People lose their jobs over that sort of thing."); which makes it particularly suspicious that he was not fired, but instead bullied out of his position.

Of course, the DoJ does not declare the Ferguson PD to be systematically racist (I refer you to the long discussion that already took place here about what the term means), and in fact takes great care to make sure that the problem is that of bias (sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit) among certain members of the police force. But you knew that and you're not interested in that. You're interested in your narrative, and that only.

Perhaps you could be more specific about which claims you felt lacked support.  Just sort of declaring that the report is bullshit isn't super helpful or persuasive.

Okay, I particularly enjoyed the accusation that Ferguson police is revenue-oriented. They point to the fact that the revenue is high, quote a few pieces of communication without actually citing them or showing their context, and happily conclude that Ferguson's police is revenue-oriented.

I also like the accusation of an "aggressive enforcement of the municipal code". Yeah, let's relax on law enforcement in a city that's already overrun with violent criminals.

[Saddam Hussein]

Firing a chief of police is never trivial, especially given that in this case, the person who would ordinarily be responsible for firing him is mired in his own fair share of controversy, and has already resigned himself.  Asking a problematic employee to resign is basically just a compromise.  The employee gets to save some face and/or keep their severance pay or whatever, while the employer gets to skip the hassle of the bureaucratic song and dance that the firing process so often entails.

As for your concerns about the report, I can't say that I agree with you.  For one thing, I don't believe that the lines from the emails about emphasizing revenue collection have been unfairly taken out of context, mainly because if they had, they'd have been called out on it by now.  You also took issue with their criticism of how strictly the police enforce the municipal code because the city is "overrun with violent criminals," but the report makes it clear that the rate of charging people with serious offenses - the "real" crimes, if you will - has remained the same over the recent years.  It's the rate of citations/summonses for minor violations that has skyrocketed.  Those are the violations, of course, that result in fines.  The report also mentions that the investigators talked to cops there who confirmed that they're always under pressure to bring in revenue.  I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that the police are squeezing the city.

[Pete Svarrior]

As for your concerns about the report, I can't say that I agree with you.  For one thing, I don't believe that the lines from the emails about emphasizing revenue collection have been unfairly taken out of context, mainly because if they had, they'd have been called out on it by now.

The context had not been provided, and the primary person to call out on it had just been intimidated into quitting his job. I didn't know that the city manager had also been bullied out of work, but that only makes it more understandable why people would be forced to remain quiet.

If there was nothing to hide regarding the context, the context wouldn't be conveniently hidden.

You also took issue with their criticism of how strictly the police enforce the municipal code because the city is "overrun with violent criminals," but the report makes it clear that the rate of charging people with serious offenses - the "real" crimes, if you will - has remained the same over the recent years.  It's the rate of citations/summonses for minor violations that has skyrocketed.  Those are the violations, of course, that result in fines.

We already looked at the numbers for those in quite some depth. My views are based on cold, hard data, not on what an important organisation said. If new evidence comes to light, I'll review my views.

The report also mentions that the investigators talked to cops there who confirmed that they're always under pressure to bring in revenue.  I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that the police are squeezing the city.

So they were previously firmly standing by their old bosses, and now that those are out of the picture, they are firmly standing by their new bosses. Funny, that. It's almost as if they had to fear for their jobs because their direct superiors have just been threatened out of their jobs.

[Rama Set]

PP-I don't see any evidence for te police chief being bullied. Do you have any you can present?  It just sounds like a suspicion you have right now.

[rooster]

PP-I don't see any evidence for te police chief being bullied. Do you have any you can present?  It just sounds like a suspicion you have right now.

It is very common for people to resign/kicked out/fired when there is perceived racism. No one wants to be associated with that and many organizations think they can save face if they remove a scapegoat.

[Saddam Hussein]

The context had not been provided, and the primary person to call out on it had just been intimidated into quitting his job. I didn't know that the city manager had also been bullied out of work, but that only makes it more understandable why people would be forced to remain quiet.

You keep using words like bullied, threatened, and intimidated.  I'm really not sure what it is that you think happened here, and how it's any different from any other resignation that results from being implicated in a scandal.  Nixon resigned.  Petraeus resigned.  Do you think that's evidence that either of them did nothing wrong?  And it doesn't look to me like anyone is being forced to remain quiet.  Shaw in particular hasn't been shy about voicing his disagreement with the report, and if he felt he was being unfairly quote-mined, it would be a fairly simple matter to prove his innocence to the media, if not to the DoJ.

If there was nothing to hide regarding the context, the context wouldn't be conveniently hidden.

The context isn't "hidden," no more than any quoting in any report or paper means that the context of the source is hidden.

So they were previously firmly standing by their old bosses, and now that those are out of the picture, they are firmly standing by their new bosses. Funny, that. It's almost as if they had to fear for their jobs because their direct superiors have just been threatened out of their jobs.

That doesn't make any sense, given the timing.  This report preceded the resignations.

[Rama Set]

PP-I don't see any evidence for te police chief being bullied. Do you have any you can present?  It just sounds like a suspicion you have right now.

It is very common for people to resign/kicked out/fired when there is perceived racism. No one wants to be associated with that and many organizations think they can save face if they remove a scapegoat.

I agree, but that does not necessarily mean anyone was bullied. Police Chief is a political job and this was resignation it seems, but I don't see any reason why it should be painted with the "bullying" brush. It could quite easily have been a mutually agreed upon decision based on a harsh political reality that neither side really desired.

[Saddam Hussein]

We already looked at the numbers for those in quite some depth. My views are based on cold, hard data, not on what an important organisation said. If new evidence comes to light, I'll review my views.

No, your views aren't based on cold, hard data, they're based on your interpretation of said data.  You're not a robot that flawlessly analyzes raw data and prints out the objective truth.  You're a fallible human being like everyone else, and also like everyone else, how you see these statistics is going to be heavily colored by your own knowledge, experience, emotions, and opinions.  That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, of course, but there's no sense in acting like you're somehow above exhibiting the subjectivity of us mere mortals.

As for the numbers themselves, it seems like you basically stated your position in this post:

Okay, I'm glad that we agree on the searches. I realise I'm beating a dead horse, but I realised something interesting: The search rate is not actually twice as high. It's 1.77 times as high. Compare and contrast with my 170% prediction. So that's searches not just mostly explained, but completely explained.

Okay, let's think about stops. Do you not find it strange that a supposedly racist police force is found to be extremely racist against black people, but not at all racist against any other ethnicity? Look at the disparity indices. They're pretty much identical all across the board - except for blacks.

Now, let's look at the data. Where does the disparity come from?

Moving - We would expect twice as many black stops than white stops, we see four times the number. Part (or all) of that could be attributed to DWB. It could also be that Ferguson's black drivers are just statistically more likely to commit traffic offences. It could make sense, since American whites are generally richer, and are thus somewhat less likely to engage in certain risky behaviours. That said, we don't have enough data to tell for sure.
Equipment violations - A much clearer offence, it would be rather difficult to unjustly do someone for equipment faults that aren't there. And we see a huge disparity between the numbers (blacks stopped 12 times as often as whites! Again, we'd expect around 2 times assuming all factors were equal). In other words, black people maintain their cars worse.
License - That's the bit where we pull them over because we ran their licence plate. Again, a disparity of about 12 times as many black stops. As you pointed out yourself, this is extremely unlikely to be affected by race, since they're pre-determined.
Investigative - This one is iffy. It could be very much down to prejudice, since it's difficult to formally establish "reasonable suspicion". And we do see a high disparity - again, about 12 times as many blacks stopped than whites. This could be significant, if not for the fact that this only amounts to 328 out of 4632 stops (7% of all stops) on blacks.

To summarise: The areas where most of the discrepancy comes from are equipment violations and license look-ups - things which aren't attributable to the person driving the vehicle at all. Most of the discrepancy, by far, comes from number plate searches and shitty equipment.

I'll be honest with you: I'm really struggling to see this supposedly statistically provable bias and oppression. It seems that one demographic provides more reasons to justify stops than the other, and is thus stopped more often.

Your main line of argument here is conjuring up just-so stories about how the racial disparities are totally justified.  Blacks are pulled over much more than whites?  They must be that much more likely to drive recklessly!  Blacks are cited for equipment violations?  They must keep their cars in that much worse condition!  It's not just speculative, it's downright silly, and the disparities are so enormous that your explanations can safely be discounted as almost certainly wrong.  I also bolded a couple of odd claims from you about how the race of the driver is apparently irrelevant to being pulled over for license look-ups or equipment violations, which just isn't true.  That's the whole idea of driving while black, which you're presumably aware of, because you referred to it in your post.  Police have discretion.  They can, within certain broad limitations, pick and choose who to pull over, who to ticket, who to merely warn, who to run the plates of, etc.  Racist cops would definitely pick on black drivers more for both plate checks and equipment violations.  And yes, blacks usually bear the brunt of racism in America.  That's nothing unusual here.

Oh, and here's a quote from you for extra irony points:

These are people who are completely ready to discredit everything they see, and everything they do, just to make things fit their insane conspiracy theory.

Get it?  It's funny because you're so critical of the idea that a small-town police department in the South is institutionally racist, but seem to have no trouble assuming that the highest law enforcement agency in the nation is deliberately pushing misinformation and destroying innocent people's careers just to score a few cheap political points and pander to liberals.  After all, the alternative would be considering the fact that you're the one who's been wrong all this time, and we can't have that, can we?

[rooster]

Damnit Saddam, Missouri is more commonly known as a midwestern state. Just because it's a border state dosen't mean you can chalk it up to being a southern state when it suits you.

[Pete Svarrior]

No, your views aren't based on cold, hard data, they're based on your interpretation of said data. You're not a robot that flawlessly analyzes raw data and prints out the objective truth. You're a fallible human being like everyone else, and also like everyone else, how you see these statistics is going to be heavily colored by your own knowledge, experience, emotions, and opinions. That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, of course, but there's no sense in acting like you're somehow above exhibiting the subjectivity of us mere mortals.

Yes, that's what "based on" means. The distinction stands. I base my argument on the raw data, you base your rebuttal on "important organisation said X". Your rebuttal will remain unconvincing to me.

As for the numbers themselves, it seems like you basically stated your position in this post

Yes.

It's not just speculative, it's downright silly, and the disparities are so enormous that your explanations can safely be discounted as almost certainly wrong. I also bolded a couple of odd claims from you about how the race of the driver is apparently irrelevant to being pulled over for license look-ups or equipment violations, which just isn't true.

I'd like to see some supporting evidence for these claims. I provided an analysis of the data. A response of "no u!" is not going to be effective as a counter-argument.

That's the whole idea of driving while black, which you're presumably aware of, because you referred to it in your post. Police have discretion. They can, within certain broad limitations, pick and choose who to pull over, who to ticket, who to merely warn, who to run the plates of, etc. Racist cops would definitely pick on black drivers more for both plate checks and equipment violations.

Correct. We've already discussed this in quite some depth and I pointed out that I never questioned the fact that there are racist cops in Ferguson. It's really difficult discussing this with you when you're trying so hard to address things I didn't say, or when you claim that I said the opposite of what I said.

Get it? It's funny because you're so critical of the idea that a small-town police department in the South is institutionally racist

I'm critical of it because it contradicts the data.

but seem to have no trouble assuming that the highest law enforcement agency in the nation is deliberately pushing misinformation and destroying innocent people's careers just to score a few cheap political points and pander to liberals.

I made no such claims. You putting these words in my mind is a testament to how thoroughly dishonest you are, and just how disinterested you are in anything other than reinforcing an echo chamber for your own views. I did not accuse the DoJ of deliberately pushing misinformation. I suggested that they did not present enough evidence to convince me - something that you appear to have a problem with, despite the fact that my opinion has very little weigh in any practical terms. In fact, you seem so concerned by it that you feel the need to brand me some sort of conspiracy theorist.

But hey, let's strike the iron while it's hot: Remember when Mike Brown was innocent and Darren Wilson was literally the devil? The same law enforcement agency determined that Wilson acted within reason and that the matter lacks prosecutive merit. Interestingly enough, the no-justice-no-peace side of this debate are having none of it. Strangely enough, the "DoJ said so so it must be true!" defence appears to only work when the DoJ's stance already agrees with your own.

After all, the alternative would be considering the fact that you're the one who's been wrong all this time, and we can't have that, can we?

I said it before several times (including directly to you on IRC, which for some reason had a much bigger impact on you than any previous times), and I'll say it again: if new information comes to light, I'll happily review my views. No new information came to light, and your misconstrued attempts at taunting me are quite unlikely to change my mind, especially when they show that you didn't even read the thread.

Of course, even if I am wrong about this particular detail, I wouldn't have been wrong all the time, but, again, you've made it clear that you're only interested in insulting those you disagree with and not an actual discussion, so you making this jump is probably no surprise to anyone.

[Saddam Hussein]

Yes, that's what "based on" means. The distinction stands. I base my argument on the raw data, you base your rebuttal on "important organisation said X". Your rebuttal will remain unconvincing to me.

No, my rebuttal is based on the fact that your argument consisted of bizarre assertions that you pulled out of your ass, and is therefore worthless.  The appeal to authority is a side argument.

I'd like to see some supporting evidence for these claims. I provided an analysis of the data. A response of "no u!" is not going to be effective as a counter-argument.

Garbage in, garbage out.  A response of "no u!" is pretty much all that's necessary when your analysis boils down to "well black people must be shitty drivers with shitty cars."  The statistics are more than enough to show that while it's not a certainty, it's at least very likely that racial profiling is happening to a huge degree.  Jumping to the conclusion that blacks are simply several times more likely to be committing these minor offenses than whites after looking at these statistics is not a reasonable assumption to make.

I made no such claims. You putting these words in my mind is a testament to how thoroughly dishonest you are, and just how disinterested you are in anything other than reinforcing an echo chamber for your own views. I did not accuse the DoJ of deliberately pushing misinformation. I suggested that they did not present enough evidence to convince me

You accused the DoJ of "bullying," "threatening," and "intimidating" city officials into resigning, "scare tactics," dishonestly manipulating quotes to make them sound incriminating, and trying to "[omit] public scrutiny."  If that's not crying conspiracy, then I don't know what is.

something that you appear to have a problem with, despite the fact that my opinion has very little weigh in any practical terms. In fact, you seem so concerned by it that you feel the need to brand me some sort of conspiracy theorist.

What's that supposed to mean?  No, really, please explain, because I hate to think that now you've resorted to sceptimatic-style ad hominem attacks.

But hey, let's strike the iron while it's hot: Remember when Mike Brown was innocent and Darren Wilson was literally the devil? The same law enforcement agency determined that Wilson acted within reason and that the matter lacks prosecutive merit. Interestingly enough, the no-justice-no-peace side of this debate are having none of it. Strangely enough, the "DoJ said so so it must be true!" defence appears to only work when the DoJ's stance already agrees with your own.

No, I don't, because I never thought or argued that Brown's shooting was unjustified.  In fact, it doesn't look like anyone in this thread did.  There are more than two sides to this debate.

you've made it clear that you're only interested in insulting those you disagree with

honk honk