More diverse cops? At the peak of NYPD’s stop-and-frisk (2011), cops made *684,000* stops.
abt NINETY PERCENT of those were of Black + Latino citizens; there were more stops of Black teenage boys in NYC than there *were* Black teenage boys in NYC.
But again, we should be asking in every convo about “reform” what putative problem the proposed reform is meant to fix and *how* it will do that. Is there evidence to suggest it works?
As we saw in LA, much-touted reforms to reduce police killings coincided with a spike in police *beatings.*
that’s a win because people are alive; it doesn’t change the fact that police contact is itself dangerous.
Reform conversations always start from the position that police contact for certain populations isn’t just inevitable but preferable, and what we should be doing is changing the formal execution of that contact.
The premises are never about taking that contact off the table.
ah! the "young black males" stat wasn't wrong, just messed up the age range:
"...the number of young black men (aged 14 to 24) stopped by police exceeded the city's population of young black men - 168,126 stops compared with a population of 158,406."
people keep responding to this thread to suggest different hiring standards.
what hiring standards would keep Black people and Latino people and Native people and Muslims from being stopped and questioned and surveilled by cops if those were departmental imperatives?
changing hiring standards... don't change the fact of police contact.
again: any fixes you come up with that start from the position that police contact is necessary won't do anything to prevent police violence/harassment.
even if you got rid of the most egregious officers, you would still have routine, dangerous contact by cops who have no blemishes on their records.
cops carry weapons that they are trained to use and have broad license to use. they can invoke the threat of detention, etc.
every cop that's been shitty to you or someone you know probably has a completely unremarkable professional record.
you could change hiring standards and fire the worst cops and the Black person who gets stopped by officers who deem them suspicious due to "furtive movements" doesn't get any less stopped or questioned or harassed
at some point, when you see that every department and city has the same general set of catastrophic shortcomings, regardless of region, maybe you have to consider that the problem isn't personnel or practice or procedure or pay or protocol and maybe the problem is policing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Then they stop asking questions bc the “reforms,” at least superficially, achieved some measurable “good”thing. Maybe test scores went up or police complaints went down. But the devil is in the details.
In the case of Camden, NJ...police complaints have plummeted bc Black neighborhoods are subjected to more electronic surveillance — which is what i meant by reforms just pushing for the same policing imperatives but differently formalized.
People want the problem to go away, so we often don’t think harder or deeply about the premises of the “reforms” or the tradeoffs.
CNN's pundits – not Dana Basch and Abby Phillip but that unholy quartet of Van Jones and Rick Santorum and Axelrod and whassaname — are already doing that "It will be good if GA's two Senate seats go to the GOP bc then Biden will have to govern from the sensible middle" thing.
the "sensible middle' is one of the most inane, nonsensical constructions in mainstream US political discourse.
besides the fact that it presumes that Biden is going to govern from the left — tuh — it also assumes that the two parties are symmetrical ideological opposites.
Now Kasich is doing it: "Now is the time for Democrats to listen to the other side...we need to listen to what those Republicans want."
It doesn’t make sense. A Black registered voter has a 90% chance of voting for Democrats. A Latino voter has a 70ish% chance of doing so. But a white voter has a <50% chance of doing so — and a white Republican way less than *that* — why not focus on Black and Brown turnout?
Lol one of these people was an organizer who marched with King and the other adamantly opposed a holiday for King in AZ but okay
McCain voted against the 1990 Civil Rights act, a bill that made it easier for ppl to sue employers for discrimination.
The optics of GOP opposition were so bad — David Duke went to DC to cheer its failure in person — that GOP senators tried to override Bush’s veto of the bill.
So much of the “conventional wisdom” espoused by pundits on CNN is just nakedly dumb and wrong
They were chocking up AZ trending blue to a revolt of suburban moms and Cindy McCain’s endorsement of Biden. So these moms rocked with Trump and Joe Arpaio but flipped bc of Cindy? 🤔
If white ladies were revolting against Trump in the traditionally red suburbs of AZ...wouldn’t they also be doing so else in the country?
As a few people pointed out to me yesterday, to the extent that the blue flip in Maricopa County was because of suburban moms, it was because those suburban moms are now *brown* and their energized kids have been doing work:
again, Trump is only a viable candidate because of his overwhelming white support, up and down the income ladder and across generations.
white voters are the constant. if Trump lightly underperformed with white voters in, say, Florida, the map looks different.
But go off.
In Florida, one candidate won SIX in 10 white voters in a state where EIGHT in 10 people identify as white (including a LARGE number of Hispanic people).
It has the effect of overstating Trump's appeal to people who are...not white.
this was Ta-Nehisi in 2016. How different does any of this look *now*?