The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Exactly. How did police ever do their jobs when everybody was white?

They should focus on behavior, not looks. There's also a deep history of police focusing on the poor and protecting the rich. When you call for help, guess who's area they show up in first?

Don't even get me started on the crimes of the rich, white or otherwise.

Yet imagine a hypothetical society. It's made up of blue and green people.

Police are banned from discriminating, so they use objective measures like radar to decide who to pull over (> speed limit = pull over, <= speed limit = let them go).

Using the radar, it just happens that 80% of the drivers they pull over are green and 20% are blue.

Are the police biased against green people?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yet imagine a hypothetical society. It's made up of blue and green people.

Police are banned from discriminating, so they use objective measures like radar to decide who to pull over (> speed limit = pull over, <= speed limit = let them go).

Using the radar, it just happens that 80% of the drivers they pull over are green and 20% are blue.

Are the police biased against green people?

Not if all of that information is readily available. Radar records and bodycam footage.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's a false equivalency.

It stopped being about property crime vs. lives 24-48 hours after all of this began, when the body count of innocent victims of the civil unrest quickly exceeded the body count (1) of the incident people are (rightly) protesting.

Just like the Rodney King riots which claimed over 60 lives and led to 2500 people being injured.

You do realize that the people looting and rioting are not the same people that are protesting....right? There's plenty of evidence out there to show protestors actively trying to stop looting and rioting.

It's not difficult to see that there are protestors and then there are others taking advantage of the situation for their own personal benefit.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You're right, but it's interesting that you would bring statistics into this.

Young black males may not be any more or even less into drugs than their young white male counterparts, but they are statistically WAY more likely to be involved in property crime and violent crime than young white males in (probably) every single metro and city in the United States.

Does that mean that racial profiling of them is OK? I am not saying that it is. Just putting that out there because it's where the 2+2=4 leads based on whay you said.

Originally Posted by lio45

I think data actually would say that young black males are more likely to commit crimes than young males of other races. (And as you are no doubt aware, the entire concept of profiling is founded on the idea of using such data and putting it to work in order to make the best possible use of finite resources.)

Sure, and similarly, being young, or male, or muscular/fit, or dressed like a thug, or in a dark alley at night, are not strictly speaking violations of anything, yet they're still obvious "risk factors" when compared to being old, or female, or in a wheelchair, or in broad daylight, and the police can't be expected to always ignore all of those if we want them to do their work.

Yes, it's true that certain groups commit certain crimes at higher rates, so it stands that that would be reflected in higher arrest/conviction rates.

That doesn't mean that profiling without any additional evidence beyond a person's age/race/gender is acceptable, however. If young white males are more likely to speed than elderly black females for example, it's understandable that they would receive speeding tickets at a greater rate. On the other hand, it wouldn't be okay for a cop to pull over a young white guy who isn't speeding on the basis that his demographic is more likely to have at some point committed a speeding offence.

The larger issue in any case, where black people is concerned, is that they're not only more likely to be charged for something at which they don't do at a higher rate (as mentioned earlier - drug usage rates are about equal between whites and blacks, however blacks are arrested for possession at a much higher rate), but that they're also more likely to receive a harsher sentence for the same crime as if it were committed by a non-black person.

It's not an error of policing that not all crime stats match the population rates of their respective demographics; however, it is a problem when the law is not administered equally.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

You do realize that the people looting and rioting are not the same people that are protesting....right? There's plenty of evidence out there to show protestors actively trying to stop looting and rioting.

It's not difficult to see that there are protestors and then there are others taking advantage of the situation for their own personal benefit.

It's a highly complex, multi-faceted situation.

Cops need to do crowd control for large groups of peaceful and not-so-peaceful demonstrators. That spreads their resources thinly in some areas of the city - they can't be everywhere at the same time.

In a way, even the presence of large numbers of peaceful protestors can be said to enable the looters and vandals.

If you read the reports on the Vancouver and Montreal riots (and other riots too), one of the big takeaways is that innocuous bystanders contribute in a huge way to the problem. They provide "cover" for the hooligans.

That's why cops often order crowds to disperse even if 99.9% of the people aren't doing anything wrong.

Now I am not saying that this means peaceful protests should be banned, or even that cops in certain U.S. are managing all of this well.

Heck, if I were American I probably would have attended the peaceful daytime protests.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a highly complex, multi-faceted situation.

Cops need to do crowd control for large groups of peaceful and not-so-peaceful demonstrators. That spreads their resources thinly in some areas of the city - they can't be everywhere at the same time.

In a way, even the presence of large numbers of peaceful protestors can be said to enable the looters and vandals.

If you read the reports on the Vancouver and Montreal riots (and other riots too), one of the big takeaways is that innocuous bystanders contribute in a huge way to the problem. They provide "cover" for the hooligans.

That's why cops often order crowds to disperse even if 99.9% of the people aren't doing anything wrong.

Now I am not saying that this means peaceful protests should be banned, or even that cops in certain U.S. are managing all of this well.

All of this is to say that if people weren't protesting due to police violence there wouldn't be looting or rioting, but that doesn't mean the protesters are they themselves doing the physical looting. Perhaps if police weren't so violent andheavy-handed Americans wouldn't have to protest for systemic changes to their police activities and culture.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Heck, if I were American I probably would have attended the peaceful daytime protests.

You should attend the Ottawa rally on Friday.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Yes, it's true that certain groups commit certain crimes at higher rates, so it stands that that would be reflected in higher arrest/conviction rates.

That doesn't mean that profiling without any additional evidence beyond a person's age/race/gender is acceptable, however. If young white males are more likely to speed than elderly black females for example, it's understandable that they would receive speeding tickets at a greater rate. On the other hand, it wouldn't be okay for a cop to pull over a young white guy who isn't speeding on the basis that his demographic is more likely to have at some point committed a speeding offence.

The larger issue in any case, where black people is concerned, is that they're not only more likely to be charged for something at which they don't do at a higher rate (as mentioned earlier - drug usage rates are about equal between whites and blacks, however blacks are arrested for possession at a much higher rate), but that they're also more likely to receive a harsher sentence for the same crime as if it were committed by a non-black person.

It's not an error of policing that not all crime stats match the population rates of their respective demographics; however, it is a problem when the law is not administered equally.

Sensible comments.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

All of this is to say that if people weren't protesting due to police violence there wouldn't be looting or rioting, but that doesn't mean the protesters are they themselves doing the physical looting. Perhaps if police weren't so violent andheavy-handed Americans wouldn't have to protest for systemic changes to their police activities and culture.

Not as extreme as right now but any given time there seems to be more than enough property and violent crime and other forms of mayhem going on in the U.S. even when people aren't pissed off about an unlawful violent death at the hands of cops.

We can debate the chicken and egg aspect of this until the cows come home.

Does heavy-handed policing actually lead to higher crime? I dunno.

Do areas with historically low crime rates generally have "nicer" cops? I dunno either.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

But at the same time, profiling can be deeply unfair and you can be harassed a lot for no reason if you just happen to fall in the wrong group. It might be fairer to ban reliance on some of these factors for profiling in the name of fairness even if they are real. There's an attempt to do this in a bunch of areas of Canadian law.

The optimal compromise is probably "unofficial profiling", i.e. letting cops use their judgment, while making sure they know they are getting watched and that the data on their activity gets archived somewhere (i.e. if the only thing you're doing is pulling over blacks who all have perfect records, unsuspicious vehicles, and irreproachable behavior, then that's eventually going to raise a flag).

I recall once the manager of a supermarket in Sherbrooke came to us (three guys, in an aisle, looking at stuff and wondering what to get for supper) to gratuitously warn us "I'm watching you three, don't try to steal anything". We were about 20 years old at the time, and were dressed in t-shirts and jeans with holes as we all had just done a full day of potentially dirty outside activity (mountainbiking or hiking, don't recall) so I guess we looked up to no good.

That supermarket is located at one of the city's main mass transit hubs so a lot of the international students the city gets (Sherbrooke is almost a "college town", the universities are the main business in town and they're the main thing attracting outsiders to the city) are car-less and therefore shop there; many of the blacks in Sherbrooke are international students from Francophone Subsaharan Africa (who dress well and speak elegant French with sophisticated outre-Atlantique accents) and I often see some of them in that exact supermarket where I "got profiled". I can guarantee they - unlike me - won't ever get that treatment.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see data showing that Sherbrooke cops (who are BTW total assholes) don't harass blacks, because profiling data shows them that Sherbrooke blacks tend to be a highly educated group; it's more fruitful for the cops to instead profile young white males who look like they're the type that could be up to bad things.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a highly complex, multi-faceted situation.

Cops need to do crowd control for large groups of peaceful and not-so-peaceful demonstrators. That spreads their resources thinly in some areas of the city - they can't be everywhere at the same time.

In a way, even the presence of large numbers of peaceful protestors can be said to enable the looters and vandals.

If you read the reports on the Vancouver and Montreal riots (and other riots too), one of the big takeaways is that innocuous bystanders contribute in a huge way to the problem. They provide "cover" for the hooligans.

That's why cops often order crowds to disperse even if 99.9% of the people aren't doing anything wrong.

Now I am not saying that this means peaceful protests should be banned, or even that cops in certain U.S. are managing all of this well.

Heck, if I were American I probably would have attended the peaceful daytime protests.

If you have a street full of people and are concerned by a few people with bad intentions the logical thing to do is split the police up into teams of two and have them walk around in the crowd.

Having them stand in some type of military formation and shields set to clear the street is a setup for a confrontation with the protesters. Normally you can't legally do that so you need to invent a new law (8:00 curfew) to provide a justification for doing it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by casper

If you have a street full of people and are concerned by a few people with bad intentions the logical thing to do is split the police up into teams of two and have them walk around in the crowd.

Having them stand in some type of military formation and shields set to clear the street is a setup for a confrontation with the protesters. Normally you can't legally do that so you need to invent a new law (8:00 curfew) to provide a justification for doing it.

It's great to have so many experts on police work (especially crowd control) on here!

Has anyone here actually ever been involved in this stuff?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's great to have so many experts on police work (especially crowd control) on here!

Has anyone here actually ever been involved in this stuff?

Oh please, you respond to posts with broad questions and when people attempt to provide an answer to your questions you decide to belittle. You're better than that.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Does heavy-handed policing actually lead to higher crime? I dunno.

What we've learned in the past week is that heavy-handed policing leads to peaceful protesters being gassed for a photo-op (Washington), free press media being attacked (Minneapolis, Louisville, Washington), kettling of protesters on bridges and highways (New York, Dallas), and gassing protesters into active traffic (Portland).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

You should attend the Ottawa rally on Friday.

I won't.

I have to work on Friday and it's shaping up to be a pretty busy day.

Even if I had the time I probably wouldn't go as it's a march on the U.S. embassy with the focus on George Floyd. While I am disgusted by the circumstances of his death I don't see what my role as a Canadian is in the internal affairs of another country.

Plus, as you surely know I am also of the view that many (most?) Canadians are already way too involved involved emotionally and psychologically in U.S. domestic issues. As if they were our own domestic issues. So I don't see why I'd add my presence to what promises to be a fairly large crowd to begin with, and add fuel to the fire of those who say things like "all Canadians need to really care a whole lot about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination!"

The last march I took part in dealt with environmental issues.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

What we've learned in the past week is that heavy-handed policing leads to peaceful protesters being gassed for a photo-op (Washington), free press media being attacked (Minneapolis, Louisville, Washington), kettling of protesters on bridges and highways (New York, Dallas), and gassing protesters into active traffic (Portland).

Yeah, that aspect of it sucks and is unacceptable.

But does heavy-handed policing on an everyday level (outside of periods of civil unrest) lead to higher crime rates?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by lio45

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see data showing that Sherbrooke cops (who are BTW total assholes) don't harass blacks, because profiling data shows them that Sherbrooke blacks tend to be a highly educated group; it's more fruitful for the cops to instead profile young white males who look like they're the type that could be up to bad things.

I'm wondering if you know (someone123) whether it's the same in places like a typical Nova Scotia college town (Wolfville?) ... if all the blacks who are there are reasonably wealthy university students coming from outside of town and who have a 0.00% chance of being Crips or Bloods, then locally-tailored police profiling will result in cops leaving them alone all the time. Meanwhile, the local population which is basically all white is where the entirety of the "criminal element" is, so that's who gets profiled.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, that aspect of it sucks and is unacceptable.

But does heavy-handed policing on an everyday level (outside of periods of civil unrest) lead to higher crime rates?

Of course it does. Police on the ground have a ton of discretion on how they interact with people, whether they decide to arrest them, etc.

Provoke everybody and a certain percent will lash back at you. Then you can beat them a few times and take them in for resisting arrest.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Oh please, you respond to posts with broad questions and when people attempt to provide an answer to your questions you decide to belittle. You're better than that.
.

So I guess that means your answer is no?

My point is that many people seem to be forgetting that these cops are trained for crowd control based on tactics that have been developed over many decades, and also that come from the sharing of best practices and experiences between police forces all over the world.

Our keyboard warriors seem to think that the strategy has been drawn up on a napkin in a donut shop 10 minutes before.

I don't disagree that it has not been optimally rolled out in a lot of cities due to a number of factors, not the least of which is that the police themselves are the target, as opposed to political leaders at a meeting, or simply drunk sports fans whose celebration got out of hand.

So lots of cops are losing their cool. More than they usually would.

And BTW I do have some personal experience with this. A teeny tiny bit. (Not being sarcastic BTW. It's not that extensive in terms of experience. But I've been directly exposed to what goes on behind the line.)

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yet imagine a hypothetical society. It's made up of blue and green people.

Police are banned from discriminating, so they use objective measures like radar to decide who to pull over (> speed limit = pull over, <= speed limit = let them go).

Using the radar, it just happens that 80% of the drivers they pull over are green and 20% are blue.

Are the police biased against green people?

That's the way it should work, objectively, but the police also know which group are committing most of the crime from experience, so they are subconsciously biased.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's great to have so many experts on police work (especially crowd control) on here!

Has anyone here actually ever been involved in this stuff?

Some basic training on it. And exposure to ROEs for deployments. Is that enough? Or am I still too "keyboard warrior" for you?

Arguing that only those with knowledge of policing can discuss policy and the impact of policing is truly a disturbing stance, given the history in this area. I, wouldn't argue, that I as a military member should not have my actions discussed by public because few have done the same. Cops are public servants. With that paycheque comea the public's right to judge.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

That's the way it should work, objectively, but the police also know which group are committing most of the crime from experience, so they are subconsciously biased.

The real area of disagreement here is to what degree this bias is something that we have to try to eliminate vs how much of it is okay and even helpful (to their job).

(In someone123's example, a police officer who's aware of the data showing that green people commit all the crimes will likely be using resources better than another one who has to respect a quota of 50% green arrests/50% blue arrests.)

Again, as I like to point out, the police have a HUGE subconscious bias against males, and also a HUGE subconscious bias against the young, while having equally huge subconscious biases in favor of females and in favor of the old.

Any intellectually honest conversation re: police profiling would include suggestions on what exactly to do about that.