Obama is close to being Impeached

[chickened]

I know, I put that there for a reason I do not agree that whites only commit white collar crime. I was just showing the absurdity of how a statement can mean the same with whites or blacks.

I know you did not call me a racist but others have and I will ask this question, when does racism begin?, when the government funds a study to get stats on which race commits more crimes? or when they put that info in a textbook available to all schools? or when someone quotes those stats in a discussion?

Unless there's stats somewhere that prove all "white collar" crime is committed by white people, the assumption that it is, is racist, actually.

 

[RHRanch]

I know, I put that there for a reason I do not agree that whites only commit white collar crime. I was just showing the absurdity of how a statement can mean the same with whites or blacks.

I know you did not call me a racist but others have and I will ask this question, when does racism begin?, when the government funds a study to get stats on which race commits more crimes? or when they put that info in a textbook available to all schools? or when someone quotes those stats in a discussion?

I posted a link from the FBI on the stats. Neither the stats on white committing white collar crime nor the stats on disproportionate arrest rates of black for other crimes means anything about the races themselves - they are all accountable by the population that the sample (criminals) are being drawn from. If the population is mostly one race, then a sample from that pop will be made up of mostly that race...

You know, as a student I may receive grants to do a study, but that is not going to make me falsify my findings... I have done some small independent projects, and I reported what I found. Like it or don't, its what came out of the research. I don't know for sure if you are suggesting that research done on the academic level by individuals are falsified to suit a liberal or other agenda... but it sounded like it. There are conflicts when groups fund studies with a vested interest in an outcome, for example, a pharmecuetical company wanting approval for a drug may falsify or supress evidence, I am not saying it can't happen. But I think its just easier for you to suggest that these stats mean nothing to you so you don't have to consider the alternative - that you may be incorrect in your assumptions. You do use stats when they suit you, I may add. For example, you have no problem citing FBI crime stats for blacks, but object when FBI stats incriminate whites.

 

[Royd]

I knew you wouldn't get it. LOL I didn't give you opinions, its researched and proven, profiling accounts for the disproportionate number of blacks arrest and conviction rates. You could argue that "they get caught for other reasons", but it would just be the same old arguments already debunked by researchers in my field of study. Whites are overrepresented in white collar occupations, so the majority of white collar criminals (in this country) are white. Of course not all of them, but the majority. Therefore, when white collar crime is prosecuted (which is seldom), whites are more heavily represented. Since the pool is mostly white, you get more whites arrested for white collar crime. The fact that cops profile is just that, a fact - using logic to understand how that practice influences the racial makeup of those arrested is logic as well. It has nothing to do with politics, it is what it is, and it is real. It troubles me that you are so rigid that even if someone who has studied something provides you with information, that you refuse to even consider that it may have some merit. Being able to consider other opinions and change your mind when you receive new information is a good quality, and allows individuals to grow and learn... Consider being more open.

Look on the bright side. For every Ying there's a Yang....Cops profile, TSA doesn't. They'll gladly strip search an 80 yr. old Jewish woman, from Miami, or physically assault a 6 yr. old child or someone in a wheelchair.

 

[chickened]

I just did a Google on what you said and there are way too many answers to post here that say the opposite of what your study says. I will cut and paste them if you like but I assure you it is as broad of a range as anything racial seems to be.

This one was interesting.

http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

For someone to go to prison, four things have to
happen. The police must arrest him for a felony,
charges must be filed, he must plead or be found
guilty, and a judge must sentence him to prison.
Racial bias could enter at any stage.
Blacks are certainly more likely to be arrested
than other groups. According to the Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR), blacks accounted for 27 percent of
arrests in 2002, even though they were only 13 percent
of the population, whereas whites and Hispanics
(W&H) accounted for 71 percent of arrests, but
were 81 percent of the population. This means that
when all crime categories are added together, blacks
were more than twice as likely to be arrested as
W&H. Blacks were four times more likely to be arrested
for violent crimes, and no fewer than eight
times more likely to be arrested for robbery.4
Many people believe blacks are arrested so often
because police target them unfairly. Brian Nichols,
the Atlanta gunman, seems to think police are arresting
blacks en masse whether they are guilty or
not. Many local authorities have passed laws to correct
what they believe to be police bias.5 Police argue
that they are targeting criminals, not non-whites,
and that they arrest large numbers of minorities only
because minorities are committing a large number
of crimes.6
The best test of police bias is to compare an independent
and objective count of the percentage of
criminals who are black with the percentage of arrested
suspects who are black. If they are about the
same—if, for example, we can determine that half
the robbers are black, and we find that about half
the robbers the police arrest are black—it is good
evidence police are not targeting blacks unfairly.
But what information do we have about the race
of criminals other than arrest reports? The best independent
source is the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS). For the most recent report, the
government surveyed 149,040 people about crimes
of which they had been victims during 2003. They
described the crimes in detail, including the race of
the perpetrator, and whether they reported the crimes
to the police. The survey sample, which is massive
by polling standards, was carefully chosen to be representative
of the entire US population. By comparing
information about races of perpetrators with racial
percentages in arrest data from the Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR) we can determine if the proportion
of criminals the police arrest who are black
is equivalent to the proportion of criminals the victims
say were black.
UCR and NCVS reports for the years 2001
through 2003 offer the most recent data on crimes
suffered by victims, and arrests for those crimes.
Needless to say, many crimes are not reported to the
police, and the number of arrests the police make is
smaller still. An extrapolation from NCVS data gives
a good approximation of the actual number of crimes
committed in the United States every year. The
NCVS tells us that between 2001 and 2003, there
were an estimated 1.8 million robberies, for example,
of which 1.1 million were reported to the
police. The UCR tell us that in the same period police
made 229,000 arrests for robbery. Police cannot
make an arrest if no one tells them about a crime,
so the best way to see if police are biased is to compare
the share of offenders who are black in crimes
reported to the police, and the share of those arrested​

who are black

I knew you wouldn't get it. LOL I didn't give you opinions, its researched and proven, profiling accounts for the disproportionate number of blacks arrest and conviction rates. You could argue that "they get caught for other reasons", but it would just be the same old arguments already debunked by researchers in my field of study. Whites are overrepresented in white collar occupations, so the majority of white collar criminals (in this country) are white. Of course not all of them, but the majority. Therefore, when white collar crime is prosecuted (which is seldom), whites are more heavily represented. Since the pool is mostly white, you get more whites arrested for white collar crime. The fact that cops profile is just that, a fact - using logic to understand how that practice influences the racial makeup of those arrested is logic as well. It has nothing to do with politics, it is what it is, and it is real. It troubles me that you are so rigid that even if someone who has studied something provides you with information, that you refuse to even consider that it may have some merit. Being able to consider other opinions and change your mind when you receive new information is a good quality, and allows individuals to grow and learn... Consider being more open.

 

[RHRanch]

I just did a Google on what you said and there are way too many answers to post here that say the opposite of what your study says. I will cut and paste them if you like but I assure you it is as broad of a range as anything racial seems to be.

This one was interesting.

http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

For someone to go to prison, four things have to
happen. The police must arrest him for a felony,
charges must be filed, he must plead or be found
guilty, and a judge must sentence him to prison.
Racial bias could enter at any stage.
Blacks are certainly more likely to be arrested
than other groups. According to the Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR), blacks accounted for 27 percent of
arrests in 2002, even though they were only 13 percent
of the population, whereas whites and Hispanics
(W&H) accounted for 71 percent of arrests, but
were 81 percent of the population. This means that
when all crime categories are added together, blacks
were more than twice as likely to be arrested as
W&H. Blacks were four times more likely to be arrested
for violent crimes, and no fewer than eight
times more likely to be arrested for robbery.4
Many people believe blacks are arrested so often
because police target them unfairly. Brian Nichols,
the Atlanta gunman, seems to think police are arresting
blacks en masse whether they are guilty or
not. Many local authorities have passed laws to correct
what they believe to be police bias.5 Police argue
that they are targeting criminals, not non-whites,
and that they arrest large numbers of minorities only
because minorities are committing a large number
of crimes.6
The best test of police bias is to compare an independent
and objective count of the percentage of
criminals who are black with the percentage of arrested
suspects who are black. If they are about the
same—if, for example, we can determine that half
the robbers are black, and we find that about half
the robbers the police arrest are black—it is good
evidence police are not targeting blacks unfairly.
But what information do we have about the race
of criminals other than arrest reports? The best independent
source is the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS). For the most recent report, the
government surveyed 149,040 people about crimes
of which they had been victims during 2003. They
described the crimes in detail, including the race of
the perpetrator, and whether they reported the crimes
to the police. The survey sample, which is massive
by polling standards, was carefully chosen to be representative
of the entire US population. By comparing
information about races of perpetrators with racial
percentages in arrest data from the Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR) we can determine if the proportion
of criminals the police arrest who are black
is equivalent to the proportion of criminals the victims
say were black.
UCR and NCVS reports for the years 2001
through 2003 offer the most recent data on crimes
suffered by victims, and arrests for those crimes.
Needless to say, many crimes are not reported to the
police, and the number of arrests the police make is
smaller still. An extrapolation from NCVS data gives
a good approximation of the actual number of crimes
committed in the United States every year. The
NCVS tells us that between 2001 and 2003, there
were an estimated 1.8 million robberies, for example,
of which 1.1 million were reported to the
police. The UCR tell us that in the same period police
made 229,000 arrests for robbery. Police cannot
make an arrest if no one tells them about a crime,
so the best way to see if police are biased is to compare
the share of offenders who are black in crimes
reported to the police, and the share of those arrested​

who are black

that article actually has no information that contradicts what I said. Read it carefully, it only suggests that you could compare the stats from a large survey with arrest rates to see if blacks were being unfairly targeted or not. I will also add that I do personally know that blacks are unfairly targeted based on personal experience over the past 20 years. A great number of my friends and family are black and it is common for them to be surveyed, questioned and otherwise profiled. Interestingly, this only happens to me, when I am with a black friend or relative. As a white person, I go about my business unquestioned and am not the subject of suspicion. I could much more easily get away with criminal behavior ranging from traffic violations to theft because the cops ignore me. They profile blacks, and give me the freedom to commit crimes. You know, if i can find it, I will post a study in which police were made to stop cars randomly - guess what happened? They arrested a higher overall % of criminals of all races due to not profiling. Basically, profiling allows criminals to get away.

 

[galanie]

I know, I put that there for a reason I do not agree that whites only commit white collar crime. I was just showing the absurdity of how a statement can mean the same with whites or blacks.

I know you did not call me a racist but others have and I will ask this question, when does racism begin?, when the government funds a study to get stats on which race commits more crimes? or when they put that info in a textbook   available to all schools? or when someone quotes those stats in a discussion?

 

Unless there's stats somewhere that prove all "white collar" crime is committed by white people, the assumption that it is, is racist, actually.

You are right, I called no one a racist. I think racism begins when you make assumptions based on race alone. You see, I've heard that same old tired arguement about white collar crime again and again and never with any references to fact. So it always looks to be something someone is parroting because they heard it somewhere else. It's like the assumption that "all white folks are rich."

I am white, as I'm sure you've guessed,but I worked with many races for 30 years in the Postal Service. Racism is rampant among minorities this way but it's never thought of as that. Of course. Only whites can be racists, right? Though most that I knew were not (at least openly), of any race other than white, there were always some. I understand though that while whites will be openly racist more often than not, minorities will only do so behind white people's backs. And maybe that's racist too, but that's my observations. I've heard "white" racist jokes and they are mostly just as stupid and un-funny as racist jokes aimed at blacks, hispanics, and asians.

 

[galanie]

that article actually has no information that contradicts what I said.  Read it carefully, it only suggests that you could compare the stats from a large survey with arrest rates to see if blacks were being unfairly targeted or not.  I will also add that I do personally know that blacks are unfairly targeted based on personal experience over the past 20 years.  A great number of my friends and family are black and it is common for them to be surveyed, questioned and otherwise profiled.  Interestingly, this only happens to me, when I am with a black friend or relative.  As  a white person, I go about my business unquestioned and am not the subject of suspicion.  I could much more easily get away with criminal behavior ranging from traffic violations to theft because the cops ignore me.  They  profile blacks, and give me the freedom to commit crimes.  You know, if i can find it, I will post a study in which police were made to stop cars randomly - guess what happened? They arrested a higher overall % of criminals of all races due to not profiling.  Basically, profiling allows criminals to get away. 

Correct, but what happens when racial profiling is outlawed entirely? When a "Mid Eastern" person is fingered as having commited a crime and plenty of white people are targetted by airline security and brought aside for scans. Like me. And my underage daughter. Twice. In one trip. Having boarded a plane exactly twice the whole trip.

 

[RHRanch]

Correct, but what happens when racial profiling is outlawed entirely? When a "Mid Eastern" person is fingered as having commited a crime and plenty of white people are targetted by airline security and brought aside for scans. Like me. And my underage daughter. Twice. In one trip. Having boarded a plane exactly twice the whole trip.

Well I am not arguing one way or another pro or against profiling. All I am saying is that profiling skews the statistics that so many point to as evidence of higher rates of "black criminality". You just can't accept the numbers about the high rates of black arrests/etc., without considering how profiling makes those %'s appear. My white 80 year old grandmother flys quite a bit, and she always gets searched and questioned because her replaced knee sets off the metal detectors. Maybe we should consider profiling when it makes sense. In the case of criminal profiling in the larger world, it makes no sense to fixate on one racial group when we know all racial groups are committing crimes (most likely at similar rates based on their socio-economic class, etc) I mean, isn't the TSA screening a joke, anyways? They don't really pay that much attention to whats in checked luggage and pulling out random old ladies makes no sense... But pulling random middle easterners out isn't helpful either because its inefficient - there are tons of middle eastern people, but only a certain type is the problem. An another thing, we have had terrorist problems with non-middle eastern people just about as often as often trying to blow up planes. Usually they are young men. Maybe profiling young men would make more sense.

 

[galanie]

I mean, isn't the TSA screening a joke, anyways?  Yes, completely. And it's been proved easy to bypass.

.  Maybe profiling young men would make more sense.

In the case you cite, probably so. My point is, when you completely do away with "profiling" you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Deviant]

so how about this weather we are having? In the 80's and it's just March