DOJ Ferguson Report

OK...this isn't officially a rant. More of a question. The DOJ released the report of their investigation into the Ferguson police department. Here is the link:

FoxNews

And here is a paragraph related to my question:

The Justice Department also found that blacks were 68 percent less likely than others to have their cases dismissed by a municipal court judge, and that from April to September of last year, 95 percent of people kept at the city jail for more than two days were black, according to the officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record before the report is made public.

So here is my question. When they say something like this talking about percentages of blacks vs percentages of whites...do they consider the crime, the attitude of the criminal or the level of violence? Or do they just look at race? For example...I could factually state that 20% of orange people stay in jail less than 10 days but 80% of green people stay in jail more than 10 days. That could be a fact (if there were orange and green people). But what it may not say is that the 80% of green people may have committed a violent crime, with a gun and tried to punch the cop.

Follow me?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Follow me?

Yeah... I'm pretty sure I do.

2010 census

As of the 2010 census, there were 21,203 people, 8,192 households, and 5,500 families residing in the city. The population density was 3,425.4 inhabitants per square mile (1,322.6/km2). There were 9,105 housing units at an average density of 1,470.9 per square mile (567.9/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 67.4% African American, 29.3% White, 0.5% Asian, 0.4% Native American, 0.4% from other races, and 2.0% from two or more races. Hispanic and Latino of any race were 1.2% of the population.

Ferguson, MO

Hmmm

Very Suspicious Indeed !!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Follow me?

Yeah... I'm pretty sure I do.

I'm assuming you're being a smart-ass...but it is a legitimate question. When you say these people got this but these people got that, are they comparing comparable situations or don't they take that into consideration?

Yes, all the data needs to be present before anyone can form an opinion, but that will not deter people from forming one anyway.

One point to add from USAToday, which was missing from the Fox News report:

African Americans account for 67% of the population in Ferguson, but they accounted for 85% of the drivers stopped by police, 90% of the people issued tickets and 93% of the people arrested, a three-year examination of suspect stops found.

Link - www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Yes, all the data needs to be present before anyone can form an opinion, but that will not deter people from forming one anyway.

One point to add from USAToday, which was missing from the Fox News report:

African Americans account for 67% of the population in Ferguson, but they accounted for 85% of the drivers stopped by police, 90% of the people issued tickets and 93% of the people arrested, a three-year examination of suspect stops found.

Link - www.usatoday.com...

OK...and I'm not implying this is true, just an example. If I interview one black man and one white man and hire the black man because he is more qualified...someone can state that I "refused to hire 100% of the white men that applied". In the case of the DOJ report, would the details matter in claiming the police were bias, or just the racial percentages? Or doesn't anyone know.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

As someone who has investigated discrimination in the past, I can assure you that the DOJ takes all of the stats and demographics into consideration before issuing a finding.

Discrimination can be anywhere on a spectrum from overt to disparate impact. The DOJ probably even has comparable stats for cities or towns with similar demographics. Certainly enough data to draw a clear picture....whether people like it or accept it or not.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

As someone who has investigated discrimination in the past, I can assure you that the DOJ takes all of the stats and demographics into consideration before issuing a finding.

Discrimination can be anywhere on a spectrum from overt to disparate impact. The DOJ probably even has comparable stats for cities or towns with similar demographics. Certainly enough data to draw a clear picture....whether people like it or accept it or not.

Thank you. Something I've always wondered when the statistics are presented. Especially when the news is so twisted by opinion.

a reply to: kosmicjack

OK, but then does that mean they released all the finding or only the ones they wanted to create a certain impression?

It's like the famous leftist talking point about there being more whites on food stamps than blacks. Of course there are, there are far more whites in the US than there are blacks, but if you look at percentage of their respective populations, there are more blacks as a percentage of the total black population on food stamps than there are whites as a total percentage of their population, meaning any given white you see is less likely to be on SNAP than any given black you see.

So, did the DoJ find clear evidence of bias or are they just releasing numbers to create that impression? After all they are under pressure to turn up something in order to justify Michael Brown. They couldn't come up with something to justify Trayvon.

I'm not saying there isn't any there, there, but at the same time I have a really hard time trusting anything coming out of this government.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Let's take jaywalking, which Michael Brown was stopped for...

They could have looked at all the jaywalking cases for a certain time period. How many ticketed individuals were black, how many white? How many ticketing officers were white or black? How often do black officers ticket for for jaywalking versus white officers? How often did white officers ticket blacks and vice versa? Is it consistent with the demographics of the police department versus the city of Ferguson? Is it consistent with similar cities? Of those stopped, how many were ticketed versus arrested...what was the racial breakdown of that stat? Of those arrested, how long did the whites stay in jail versus the blacks? What were their bonds? Were there added charges?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kosmicjack

OK, but then does that mean they released all the finding or only the ones they wanted to create a certain impression?

It's like the famous leftist talking point about there being more whites on food stamps than blacks. Of course there are, there are far more whites in the US than there are blacks, but if you look at percentage of their respective populations, there are more blacks as a percentage of the total black population on food stamps than there are whites as a total percentage of their population, meaning any given white you see is less likely to be on SNAP than any given black you see.

So, did the DoJ find clear evidence of bias or are they just releasing numbers to create that impression? After all they are under pressure to turn up something in order to justify Michael Brown. They couldn't come up with something to justify Trayvon.

I'm not saying there isn't any there, there, but at the same time I have a really hard time trusting anything coming out of this government.

OK...since anyone can twist the numbers, maybe my question should have been "is it standard procedure to consider all the details and nuances of the actions, or just the broad percentages?". While the police "could" be guilty, I'd hate to see them hung out to dry just because someone doesn't account for the "why".

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Yes, all the data needs to be present before anyone can form an opinion, but that will not deter people from forming one anyway.

One point to add from USAToday, which was missing from the Fox News report:

African Americans account for 67% of the population in Ferguson, but they accounted for 85% of the drivers stopped by police, 90% of the people issued tickets and 93% of the people arrested, a three-year examination of suspect stops found.

Link - www.usatoday.com...

OK...and I'm not implying this is true, just an example. If I interview one black man and one white man and hire the black man because he is more qualified...someone can state that I "refused to hire 100% of the white men that applied". In the case of the DOJ report, would the details matter in claiming the police were bias, or just the racial percentages? Or doesn't anyone know.

People are free to say what they want, but it's obvious you have offered employment to the right candidate, he is more qualified. Now it would be interesting to see the employment figures of the various demographic areas.

I think that's a fairer reflection of how society is progressing. Is there equal access to a good education and proper employment prospects, despite your ethnic heritage?

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Let's take jaywalking, which Michael Brown was stopped for...

They could have looked at all the jaywalking cases for a certain time period. How many ticketed individuals were black, how many white? How many ticketing officers were white or black? How often do black officers ticket for for jaywalking versus white officers? How often did white officers ticket blacks and vice versa? Is it consistent with the demographics of the police department versus the city of Ferguson? Is it consistent with similar cities? Of those stopped, how many were ticketed versus arrested...what was that racial of that stat? Of those arrested, how long did the whites stay in jail versus the blacks? What were their bonds? Were there added charges?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yes...I do. And that is where I was going. Does this report take some level of this into account, or are they just throwing out numbers that will always be higher when one race of persons outnumber another? In part of the example I gave above...lets say one white person was arrested for robbery and was released on bail an hour later. But compare that to a black person arrested for robbery that wasn't released on bail because he punched the cop. Those numbers, "100% more blacks aren't released on bail for robbery" isn't a fair statistic.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just guessing, I haven't read the report.


But to answer your question, that's what attorneys are for. I'm sure the city of Ferguson has an attorney that is looking at exactly that.

Mostly the DOJ wants an agreement with the city of Ferguson and this is the first volley in coming to a settlement agreement. The stronger the DOJ's case, the less bargaining they have to do to get a settlement to their liking. And by settlement, I don't mean money. Sure, there will likely be a fine but what he DOJ is pushing for is equity so they will want initiatives and training in pursuit of that.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Yes, all the data needs to be present before anyone can form an opinion, but that will not deter people from forming one anyway.

One point to add from USAToday, which was missing from the Fox News report:

African Americans account for 67% of the population in Ferguson, but they accounted for 85% of the drivers stopped by police, 90% of the people issued tickets and 93% of the people arrested, a three-year examination of suspect stops found.

Link - www.usatoday.com...

OK...and I'm not implying this is true, just an example. If I interview one black man and one white man and hire the black man because he is more qualified...someone can state that I "refused to hire 100% of the white men that applied". In the case of the DOJ report, would the details matter in claiming the police were bias, or just the racial percentages? Or doesn't anyone know.

People are free to say what they want, but it's obvious you have offered employment to the right candidate, he is more qualified. Now it would be interesting to see the employment figures of the various demographic areas.

I think that's a fairer reflection of how society is progressing. Is there equal access to a good education and proper employment prospects, despite your ethnic heritage?

Yes! Another example...real situation is in the hiring in the tech industry. "Far fewer woman are hired when compared to men". Is that sexist simply on that statement...or do they mean "Far fewer qualified that will remain at the company for at least five years are hired compared to more qualified men who applied that will stay with the company for at least five years". Huge difference.

Denial by nit-picking hard statistics is one thing. But then when the following was uncovered during the investigation:

One joke that was widely shared between municipal email accounts quipped that then-candidate Barack Obama would not remain in the presidency for long because "what black man holds a steady job for four years." Another popular joke spread by email said that black women who receive refunds for abortions get a credit from "Crimestoppers."

There is no mistaking their above words and feelings.......

Source: www.slate.com...

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just guessing, I haven't read the report.


But to answer your question, that's what attorneys are for. I'm sure the city of Ferguson has an attorney that is looking at exactly that.

Mostly the DOJ wants an agreement with the city of Ferguson and this is the first volley in coming to a settlement agreement. The stronger the DOJ's case, the less bargaining they have to do to get a settlement to their liking. And by settlement, I don't mean money. Sure, there will likely be a fine but what he DOJ is pushing for is equity so they will want initiatives and training in pursuit of that.

Am I also under the incorrect impression the the DOJ is supposed to investigate to see IF any real racism was involved instead of just winning by playing with numbers? While I completely understand that the DOJ...especially with Holder could do just that...isn't it supposed to seek actual justice, not personal justice. Oh well...different conversation I guess.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Any case that the DOJ puts forward may go to court so, of course, the DOJ will want to present a rock solid case. It's the other attorney's job to poke a hole in it.

originally posted by: justme2
Denial by nit-picking hard statistics is one thing. But then when the following was uncovered during the investigation:

One joke that was widely shared between municipal email accounts quipped that then-candidate Barack Obama would not remain in the presidency for long because "what black man holds a steady job for four years." Another popular joke spread by email said that black women who receive refunds for abortions get a credit from "Crimestoppers."

There is no mistaking their above words and feelings.......

Source: www.slate.com...

Yeah...and I've said "bitch" before but that doesn't mean I hate women. I also repeat Polish jokes and I'm Polish. I don't think that counts (or should count) as racism. If it does, then I guess I'm bigoted against myself???

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Any case that the DOJ puts forward may go to court so, of course, the DOJ will want to present a rock solid case. It's the other attorney's job to poke a hole in it.

Gotcha! I was missing that they are more like the police than the judge.