Ferguson conflict - What is the problem, and how to solve it?

[zapatos]

It just bothers me on a visceral level that we seem to be replacing, "Innocent until proven guilty" and "shoot to immobilize" and "there are ways to deescalate situations without lazily killing those involved" with "shoot to kill" and "shoot first, ask questions later" and "look at a cop the wrong way and he can shoot me 6 times until I'm dead even when I am unarmed." It seems somehow counter to ideals of freedom about which we as a nation seem so proud and so constantly evangelical.

I couldn't agree more. This should not be an 'us versus them' type of thing. The police are 'us' too, and they are there (or should be there) FOR us. What is particularly galling to me is that those who seem quickest to want to 'fight back' against the government, and argue that we need guns to protect ourselves against the government, are often the same people who have a knee-jerk reaction to support the police against the 'thugs' who were shot or are protesting.

These same people showed up with guns to support Cliven Bundy but are no where to be seen for Michael Brown.

The racism is apparent.

 

The overt racism in this country has always been obvious to me, but being a white male I often miss out on seeing the more subtle forms of racism. It is only because of my wife's job that I have gotten a much better view of what blacks and minorities have to deal with in recent years.

My wife works at a hospital in St. Louis whose patients are primarily minorities. The hospital puts a great deal of emphasis on employing minorities in the belief that it is good for their patients to see health care workers who look like them. Because of the hospital's emphasis on diversity, my wife is involved in a large number of activities aimed at making its employees understand each other.

 

One particular exercise she went through on an offsite function, was to line up about 50 participants on a 'starting line'. The facilitator then read off a series of factors that the participants might have experienced growing up, and that each time a factor was read off that applied to a participant, that participant was to take one step forward toward the 'finish line of success'. The factors were those things that have been proven to increase the likelihood of success in life, such as access to healthcare, etc.

 

My wife said that when the first person crossed the finish line (a white male) the visual made a compelling point, with while males leading the pack, while females behind them, and people of color far in the rear.

[ajb]

I'm probably also conflating this incident with the dozens of other unarmed black kids who are getting killed by police...

Do we have some numbers here? Do we have something to "normalise it", like the number of black kids arrested or something similar?

It doesn't fit that Wilson with no record would gun down an innocent man but it does fit that Brown would try to murder a policeman rather than just following task direction to get out of the street? I doubt believe Wilson was looking to kill an innocent person and I don't believe Brown was looking to murder a cop. Both are one dimensional characterization.

This paragraphis is also "one dimensional". I have no reason to think that Brown was looking for a fight with a police officer, I have no reason to think he was looking to murder a police officer. However, Brown did get into a fight with Wilson and Brown's criminal background (again I will have to say if he had one) would fit with the idea that he would have been uncooperative with any police officer.

 

It may turn out that both parties made some big mistakes. We can say that is hindsight as external observers. However we will have to wait for the investigation to be completed.

Edited August 24, 2014 by ajb

[ajb]

In other news, a "non-white" police officer shoots and kills an unarmed 20 year old white man Salt Lake City. (http://www.inquisitr.com/1412236/dillon-taylor-police-shooting/)

 

It seem racisim works both ways in the US police!

 

More seriously, has the race issue just be blow out of all proportions and the real problem is the eagerness of the police to use deadly force. That and what Swansont points the trend to supply the police with military grade weapons?

 

That is not to say that there is no racism in the the US system, but that is a different issue to the real root problem of what happened to Brown and Wilson?

Edited August 24, 2014 by ajb

[iNow]

Do we have some numbers here? Do we have something to "normalise it", like the number of black kids arrested or something similar?.

It's peripheral to the core thread topic, but see below. It seems to apply across offense types, but it really quite striking in terms of the US war on drugs where blacks are imprisoned at significantly higher rates despite equal or lower rates of usage and distribution.

 

More seriously, has the race issue just be blow out of all proportions and the real problem is the eagerness of the police to use deadly force?

I don't think they are mutually exclusive, and we definitely have a race bias in US criminal justice.

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5683220/Americas-mexico-prison-rate

Rather, the skyrocketing rate of incarceration reflects a policy decision: we've chosen to send more people who commit crimes to prison particularly if they're African American and we've chosen to make their prison terms longer.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5978551/study-racism-criminal-justice-stop-and-frisk-reform-support

America's criminal justice system disproportionately hurts people of color, particularly black and Hispanic men. Supporters of criminal-justice reform tend to point to that disparity as a good reason to change the system.

 

But as reforms move from proposals to actual bills, the key question is how to persuade the general public that change is needed. A new study suggests that highlighting racism in the criminal justice system is not the answer, and in fact pushes white voters in the opposite direction. Even when whites believe the current laws are too harsh, they're less likely to support changing the law if they're reminded that the current prison population is disproportionately black.

 

And there have been other studies suggesting that reminding whites about racial disparities in criminal justice makes them like it more. One 2007 study looked at whether poll respondents were less likely to support the death penalty after hearing various arguments against it. It found that whites "actually become more supportive of the death penalty upon learning that it discriminates against blacks."

Summary:

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/27/5940783/prohibition-marijuana-legalization-pot-weed-racism-new-york-times/in/5452637

Although black people are much more likely to be sent to jail for drug possession, they're not more likely to use drugs.

 

Human Rights Watch found more than four in five arrests in the war on drugs are for mere possession, while the rest are for sales. That suggests police are targeting drug users, not traffickers.

Also:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_War_on_Drugs

Crime statistics show that in 1999 in the United States blacks were far more likely to be targeted by law enforcement for drug crimes, and received much stiffer penalties and sentences than whites.[7] A 2013 study by the American Civil Liberties Union determined that a black person in the United States was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though both races have similar rates of marijuana use.[8] Iowa had the highest racial disparity of the fifty states.[9] Black people in Iowa were arrested for marijuana possession at a rate 8.4 times higher than white people.[9]

 

In 1998 there were wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-Americans, who only comprised 13% of regular drug users, made up for 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.[1] Nationwide African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offenses 13 times more often than white men,[10] even though they only comprise 13% of regular drug users.[1]

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf

Although the data in this backgrounder indicate that blacks represent about one-third of drug arrests, they constitute 46 percent of persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts. Among black defendants convicted of drug offenses, 71 percent received sentences to incarceration in contrast to 63 percent of convicted white drug offenders. Human Rights Watchs analysis of prison admission data for 2003 revealed that relative to population, blacks are 10.1 times more likely than whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses.

http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession.

 

African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months)

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/

Black youth are arrested for drug crimes at a rate ten times higher than that of whites. But new research shows that young African Americans are actually less likely to use drugs and less likely to develop substance use disorders, compared to whites, Native Americans, Hispanics and people of mixed race.

Do we have some numbers here?.

Btw - At least five unarmed black men have been killed by police in just the past month.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/3-unarmed-black-african-american-men-killed-police

[Ten oz]

@ iNow, those are some very interesting stats. In my personal opinion what makes it difficult for many to digest is the implication that the system is racist. People don't feel like that is true so they arent sure what to make of those numbers. I don't think it is purely about race though, least not color. I think it is about the rat race. It is about capitalism and everyone wanting the best for themselves even when it comes at the expense of others.

Many of the numbers you posted turned for the worst starting in the early 70's. Following the civil rights movement and desegregation white flight became a huge economic catalyst. The construction of ever increasing suburbs meant more opportunities for more resturaunts, gas stations, stores, and so on. All the new communities needed infastructure like fire departments, police forces, schools, water, energy, etc. So the migration of whites out of the cities might have initially been racial but quickly turned economic as both industry and politicians pushed for more growth.

 

In its wake the suburban expansion lots of cities were left depressed and dying. Crime was seen as the top concern. The reason everyone was leaving the cities. People wanted safe places to raise their kids. So cities became tough on crime. Stop all the crime and perhaps they could save the cities. It didn't work. Instead it broke up a lot of families, made folks unemployable because of their records, and increased flight to the suburbs. So a divide was created. It is parts racial but mostly parts economic I believe.

 

As a means of managing revenue most suburbs give building contracts to companies looking to build expensive homes. Revenue is mostly property taxes for towns so they want to highest homes values possible. They only allow the highest end homes and condos the market in there town can tolerate. Suburbs don't have low income housing for the most part. So everyone in the suburb are relatively in the same economic boat. Lower middleclass people surrounded by lower middleclass people, upper surrounded by upper, poor surrounded by poor, and so on. There is very little diversity in lifestyle. Which make empathy more difficult when trying to relate to others. It is very difficult for someone who spent there life in a San Francisco suburb to relate with someone who spent their life in Ferguson. Race not even being the main factor. Lifestyles are just worlds apart. The America they know is different.

 

Fortunately increasing fuel costs, education costs, and the housing bubble is making many young adults rethink things. People are slowing moving back into larger cities realizing that an extra bedroom and a green front lawn isn't worth sitting in traffi for two hours a day, a 30 year mortgage, and a cleaner Target or Wlmart to shop at. Young adults today have college loans to pay off. They aren't looking to by over price family home an hour away from where they work. So slowly diversity is returning. As it does I think law enforcement will have to start standing down a little bit. People with tolerate a militarized police force when they see it in the newspaper but not when they see it marching down their street.

[MigL]

While I don't doubt for a minute that this incident has some racist causes, this is the american south after all, the stats you put up are misleading, iNow. You could put up stats for male and female incarceration rates and find that the system discriminates against males. Or is it simply that males committ more crimes ?

 

I myself am a firm believer in law and order and would really like to side with the police on this particular incident. However in the past year, even here in ( relatively ) peaceful Canada, a Toronto officer shot and killed a lone ( white ) kid armed with a pocketknife and his d**k in his other hand, on a deserted bus which was surrounded by police. He was shot NINE times and then tasered for good measure. Sometimes ( too often ? ) police go too far, and may well have in the Ferguson incident.

Even if the particular officer in the Ferguson incident is a 'nice guy' and not racist, I'm sure quite a few in his department are, and maybe Brown ahd prior experiences with some of them. This could have led him to take the actions he did.

 

My personal feelings are that police officers should be better screened and have a longer probationary period. All too often they are given immense power ( deadly weapons) over the rest of us and they seem to get drunk on this power.They need to realise, even in the southern states, that their job is to serve and protect everyone,even blacks and hispanics, and not be 'cowboys' with a gun.

Edited August 24, 2014 by MigL

[zapatos]

I've seen Missouri identified a couple of times in this thread as being part of the South. Missouri is actually considered part of the Midwest. During the civil war they were a border state, supplying men to both the North and the South. I don't know anyone from Missouri who considers themselves part of the South.

[zapatos]

More dirty laundry coming out.

 

WASHINGTON -- A Ferguson police officer who helped detain a journalist in a McDonald's earlier this month is in the midst of a civil rights lawsuit because he allegedly hog-tied a 12-year-old boy who was checking the mail at the end of his driveway.

 

According to a lawsuit filed in 2012 in Missouri federal court, Justin Cosma and another officer, Richard Carter, approached a 12-year-old boy who was checking the mailbox at the end of his driveway in June 2010. Cosma was an officer with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office at the time, the lawsuit states. The pair asked the boy if he'd been playing on a nearby highway, and he replied no, according to the lawsuit.

 

Then, the officers "became confrontational" and intimidated the child, the lawsuit claims. "Unprovoked and without cause, the deputies grabbed [the boy], choked him around the neck and threw him to the ground," it says. The boy was shirtless at the time, and allegedly "suffered bruising, choke marks, scrapes and cuts across his body."

 

...

 

Eddie Boyd III, an officer who faced allegations of hitting children while serving under the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, quietly resigned and sought employment with the Ferguson Police Department. Boyd faced three complaints of physical abuse against children between 2004 and 2006, two of which were dropped. Internal affairs sustained the third complaint against Boyd, saying there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation that he struck a 12-year-old girl in the head with a pistol, and recommended Boyd be fired. The St. Louis police chose to demote him.

 

...

 

St. Ann (another St. Louis suburb not far from Ferguson -zapatos)officer Dan Page, who has been on the force for 35 years, was suspended from duty for inflammatory comments made while addressing the Oath Keepers of St. Louis and St. Charles. Page made racist and sexist remarks, called President Obama an illegal alien, denounced hate crime laws and spoke flippantly about violence and killings.

 

...

 

St. Louis County Lt. Ray Albers was also suspended from duty after he threatened civilians in Ferguson, pointing his gun at them and shouting, I will fucking kill you. Reporter Joe Biggs was among the group being threatened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/24/justin-cosma-ferguson-police_n_5705409.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[Ten oz]

FERGUSON, Mo. The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

 

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Edited August 25, 2014 by Ten oz

[MigL]

Sorry about the southern state comment, Zapatos.

Can I plead ignorance based on the fact that I'm Canadian ?

[zapatos]

Canadian?!?! Well, that explains it...

 

No offense taken of course. How Missouri is categorized really doesn't mean much of anything at all. I was just clarifying a small detail.

[iNow]

Five times more likely to be sent to the ER due to injuries caused by police relative to their white and Hispanic peers.

 

[MigL]

Going to play devil's advocate again, just for the sake of discussion.

Would you agree that some of the 5x disparity ( obviously not all ), is caused by the fact that Black Americans have been, and feel themselves to be oppressed by the law. They then are more likely to fight back against this real or perceived oppressive behavior ultimately leading to more injuries ( deliberate or not ) ?

[Ten oz]

Going to play devil's advocate again, just for the sake of discussion.

Would you agree that some of the 5x disparity ( obviously not all ), is caused by the fact that Black Americans have been, and feel themselves to be oppressed by the law. They then are more likely to fight back against this real or perceived oppressive behavior ultimately leading to more injuries ( deliberate or not ) ?

Not to be rude but your suggestion reads as though it were more than "just for the sake of conversation". Your chioce to distance yourself for the idea by stating you are merely playing devil's advocate implies you understand the notion is a flawed one. Why mention it at all? Perhaps you are passive agressively making a statement by pretending what is clearing an ugly notion is some how worth debate just for the sake of it..

[zapatos]

Not to be rude but your suggestion reads as though it were more than "just for the sake of conversation". Your chioce to distance yourself for the idea by stating you are merely playing devil's advocate implies you understand the notion is a flawed one. Why mention it at all? Perhaps you are passive agressively making a statement by pretending what is clearing an ugly notion is some how worth debate just for the sake of it..

I think the obvious bias here is yours. Disregarding a possibility as 'flawed' and 'ugly' without evidence is hardly scientific. iNow's chart says nothing about causation, and possibilities should not be dismissed without reason.

[MigL]

Don't worry, even IF you were rude, I'm not that easily offended, and my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

 

I always question statistics. and as I implied in my previous post and Zapatos has stated, unless all other variables are isolated, there is no proof of causation, i.e. no matter how 'ugly', my assertion could be just as valid as iNow's.

 

Sorry, my mistake, iNow did not draw any conclusions from the statistics he presented. He leaves the results open to interpretation. If you jump to a specific interpretation, instead of considering all others, then the bias is yours.

Edited September 10, 2014 by MigL

[Ten oz]

Don't worry, even IF you were rude, I'm not that easily offended, and my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

 

I always question statistics. and as I implied in my previous post and Zapatos has stated, unless all other variables are isolated, there is no proof of causation, i.e. no matter how 'ugly', my assertion could be just as valid as iNow's.

 

Sorry, my mistake, iNow did not draw any conclusions from the statistics he presented. He leaves the results open to interpretation. If you jump to a specific interpretation, instead of considering all others, then the bias is yours.

 

You did draw a conclusion which you hedged as a "devil's advocate" and "just for the sake of" comment. The basic implication of your post was that blacks bring trouble with police on themselves by essentially being too sensitive. It is an ugly implication as it denigrates a large group of people while at the same time implying their feelings and experiences are moot. The comment was supported nothing other than a question mark.

If you would like to debate this as a thoery I am willing to do so. I not going to carry the debate "just for the sake of conversation" though. What are you supporting your assertion with?

[zapatos]

You did draw a conclusion which you hedged as a "devil's advocate" and "just for the sake of" comment. The basic implication of your post was that blacks bring trouble with police on themselves by essentially being too sensitive. It is an ugly implication as it denigrates a large group of people while at the same time implying their feelings and experiences are moot. The comment was supported nothing other than a question mark.

If you would like to debate this as a thoery I am willing to do so. I not going to carry the debate "just for the sake of conversation" though. What are you supporting your assertion with?

 

MigL stated very clearly that "some of" the disparity in black versus white injuries has to do with the response of how blacks "have been" treated by the law. He said nothing about blacks being 'too sensitive'; that is your attempt to color his comment to help support your argument. He in fact made it clear that blacks have been treated poorly.

 

You on the other hand are making it clear that you believe no blacks would have responded to this mistreatment by acting in a hostile or aggressive manner. In fact you are indicating that blacks refusing to be mistreated by the police is somehow a blight on their character since you stated that the idea of fighting back against oppression denigrates them.

 

As far as support for his assertion that blacks are indeed fighting back against this oppression, I think we have to look no further than the riots in Ferguson.

 

As much as I despise the pithy little conservative 'bumper sticker' sound bites, one thing I do agree with them on is that it has become very difficult in this country to discuss race without being painted as a racist by liberals. The fact of the matter is that blacks have all kinds personalities, just as whites do. And it is not much of a stretch to imagine that if a group of people is oppressed by the law, that 'some of' them may push back and suffer the consequences.

[MigL]

I don't remember stating 'their experiences and feelings are moot'.

I do remember saying ' have been and feel oppressed by the law' and regardless of whether this is a 'real or perceived oppression'.

 

Stop colouring my comments with your own biases and debate the issues. I just asked a question as to the POSSIBILITY of it being a partial cause. You did notice the question mark at the end, did you not ? If YOU have evidence that invalidates this POSSIBILITY, please present it. Otherwise it could be a POSSIBILITY.

 

Or are you now a member of the thought police who can pass judgement on other's thoughts and opinions, because I thought that's what we were doing, debating this theory or possibility.

 

Sorry Zapatos, you managed to post before I did with virtually the same content.

I'm also sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough Ten oz, I certainly did not mean to denigrate a large number of people with ugly assertions, but the push-back that zapatos refers to is certainly evident in the rioting in Ferguson or L.A. a few yrs ago, and may or may not be justified ( not the point ), i.e. my assertion or theory IS a possibility.

Edited September 10, 2014 by MigL

[Ten oz]

They then are more likely to fight back against this real or perceived oppressive behavior ultimately leading to more injuries ( deliberate or not ) ?

I am not coloring your words. As posted your question asks if blacks aren't bringing trouble onto themselves. Simply adding "deliberate or not" and "real or precieved" doesn't change the conclusion implied by the question. Implying that blacks non deliberately do it does not make the implication impartial. Based on real or false information on purpose or by accident you are indicating a specific thing. A person or people either do something or they don't. Deliberate or not they have done something or they haven't. Adding those words doesn't change the action.

 

That question can not be answered in the affirmative as deliberately or non deliberately unless one assumes the notion true. The experience as reported by minorities, not only blacks, can not be true and the answer to your question be yes. By experience minorities do not report their behavior to be "more likely to fight back". For reasons real and or perceived part being the same difference.

 

As for my bais, I am merely pointing out the trouble with your question. The suggestion it makes that you seem to be trying to deny. Cut the fluff; you are asking if it isn't something of their own doing.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Ten oz

[MigL]

Tell me Ten oz, how many blacks were arrested after the rioting in Ferguson ?

Now this rioting may have been justified ( ?), but it was something of their own doing, was it not ?

And how many were injured when they resisted arrest ?

Does this not skew the statistics ?

 

There is no fluff, I'm asking a legitimate question and not denying anything.

Does the statistic presented reflect other causes, some of which may be of their own doing ?

 

You on the other hand, are implying that there is a problem with the question ( and me and my thinking, by extension ), as if there is ever a problem with seeking answers.

If I had jumped to the conclusion that it is something exclusively of their own doing from the outset, then there would be a problem.

You seem to have done just that, with your 'non-ugly' conclusion and excluded all other possibilities.

 

And quite frankly, I don't care if you are offended, you're a big boy now.

( Don't be so offended that you discontinue the discussion though, I do enjoy this )

[Ten oz]

Tell me Ten oz, how many blacks were arrested after the rioting in Ferguson ?

Now this rioting may have been justified ( ?), but it was something of their own doing, was it not ?

And how many were injured when they resisted arrest ?

Does this not skew the statistics ?

 

Lot of people were arested, lots of people were injuried, and no it does not skew that statistics as they are complied throughout the whole region and country over years.

 

None of those above questions support the assertion of your question. The protests were in response to a claim of disproportional stop, search, and arrest rates and not the source of those rates.

http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf

 

There is no fluff, I'm asking a legitimate question and not denying anything.

Does the statistic presented reflect other causes, some of which may be of their own doing ?

Last your the St. Louis county Lt. Patrick Hayes was fired for directing officers to target blacks. Yes, Ferguson is in that county.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-county-police-lieutenant-denies-racial-profiling-order-that/article_2935ade9-37ec-5ba8-be59-3b73b3a6e398.html

 

The Cop at the center of this recent controversy had previously been relieved from another local police department that was disbanded over racial issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

 

Multiple officers were fired or agreed to step down after being caught threatening journalist and protestors.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/missouri-officers-job-ferguson-threats-article-1.1921712

 

 

 

You on the other hand, are implying that there is a problem with the question ( and me and my thinking, by extension ), as if there is ever a problem with seeking answers.

If I had jumped to the conclusion that it is something exclusively of their own doing from the outset, then there would be a problem.

You seem to have done just that, with your 'non-ugly' conclusion and excluded all other possibilities.

 

And quite frankly, I don't care if you are offended, you're a big boy now.

( Don't be so offended that you discontinue the discussion though, I do enjoy this )

My problem with your question is all the beating around the bush. The "devil's advocate" and "sake of discussion" stuff. You pose a for the sake of conversation question then insist on stats and other forms of evidence to disprove an idea that by your own post was just tossed out to play devil advocate. Clearly the idea was more than just for the sake of or devil advocate. If you have a point, make it.

[MigL]

I have made my point, and the question is clearly asked in my previous post.

 

You don't seem to want to discuss the point I raised, and seem more interested in discussing my motivation, mindset or political correctness. Maybe you'd like to start another thread where we can discuss my qualities. Frankly, I'm flattered.

[Ten oz]

I have made my point, and the question is clearly asked in my previous post.

 

You don't seem to want to discuss the point I raised, and seem more interested in discussing my motivation, mindset or political correctness. Maybe you'd like to start another thread where we can discuss my qualities. Frankly, I'm flattered.

I addressed your "question". In my last post I provided links showing that police in St. Louis county have a history of racial bias. That information coupled with the higher rates of stop and searches (stats to which I also linked) clearly illustrate that in Ferguson it is not blacks who are instigating the interactions they're protesting. What more can I do to address your question?

 

You have supplied ZERO information to support the assertion your question imposes. What evidence do you. What is your assertion based on other than your own general philosophy?

[MigL]

And I ( and Zapatos ) have provided the same Ferguson example as evidence of unfair racial profiling/treatment giving rise to push-back and an increase in injuries/damage. Another would be the L.A. riots after Rodney King which also stemmed from unfair treatment by the LAPD and ultimately led to hundreds of arrests and injuries.

What more can I do to address your question above ?