Of course that's what you took from it.  Not shocking nor surprising.  

Because you were searching for someone in the community to confirm your bias.  You are far from someone who has gone on a "walkabout" to search for the truth, but is rather someone who revels in the affirmation of those who believe in what you do.  It doesn't matter where it comes from, but just that it conforms to your beliefs.  So a Candace Owens is a godsend because she not only says what you believe, you can point to her being black as a positive (a check mark) in your column.  A win-win.

Have you had face-to-face conversations with several different black people? What have they told you about their own personal experiences? Because if you are just relying on YouTube videos of people saying what you want to hear, I'd suggest against that route.

The danger of studies and statistics is that it's too easy to point to a single study or statistic and have it say what you want to say. What was the methodology of the study? What are the sample sizes? Does the summary of the study actually reflect what the research concluded? What have other studies said? I've seen too many people point to a YouTube video that's cherrypicked a lot of statistics and made arguments that seem persuading to laymen, but fall apart under scrutiny.

--

I'm responding to different claims being made here, but it doesn't seem worthwhile to continue.

Is it that they suck or that they have to prioritize?  8/10 are false claims?  DA's won't prosecute even with a confession?  How is that the police "sucking"?  And I didn't see much mention of the manpower and time constraints involved.

If they want to add rape and assault units to aid the detectives and police in solving these crimes, I agree that that's a good thing.  

Okay, let's look at it from the other direction.  What is an acceptable number of police shootings to you?  Is there ever a situation where the police are justified in shooting someone?

How many different sources do I have to compile to make it valid?  I can think of 10 different people ranging from Jewish to white to black who have all said similar things when it comes to supposed systemic racism.  And these were not "systemic racism is false" searches.  These were "speaks about systemic racism" searches.  These were also not opinion pieces.  These were facts and studies and statistics.

I will usually take that over someone's anecdote.  

What's the difference? Whether they are ill-trained or are unable to prioritize, it speaks to the inappropriateness of the police as serving as the first responders in rape cases.

Nope. That's a claim made by a detective to explain why they are dismissive of rape claims. That's not an actual statistic. A very solid example of the police "sucking".

Which again speaks to the idea that funding be allocated to people trained to deal with these things, rather than unis and detectives.

I agree.  Which is why I feel some of the graphs that have been posted are misleading.  Context is very important and I have done my best to view the numbers that way.

Which is why I think that relatively speaking, statistically, the cops do not target black men any more than white men.  When you look at the number of crimes being committed, the violent crimes being committed, the disproportionate representation of blacks in those situations and the 25% lower times being shot than their white counterparts...I think the numbers clearly show that there isn't targeting of blacks.

The difference is, there are only so many hours in the day and only so many detectives working an excessive case load.  When you throw in the he said/she said ambiguity of the situation and THEN top it all off with DA's that won't pursue prosecution...cops are left having to go after cases they can realistically have a shot at convicting.  That isn't the cops sucking, that's an unfortunate reality they have to deal with.

So, you agree with me.  I'm all for specialized units that can focus and concentrate on specific crimes.  That's what CSI and CODIS and coroners and the like are for.  I think those units need to supplement the police though, not defund or dismantle them.  The police have consistently accounted for 4% of funds and they are usually undermanned and underfunded.  

- Find lost puppies

- Arbitrate a marriage dispute

- Help sex workers find a better life

- Deal with interpersonal relationships between parents and children

- Act as a go-between with spouses

- Find dangerous criminals

- Infiltrate a gang in their community

- Help homeless people find a solution to their homelessness

I could list off a hundred other duties that the police in ANY precinct in ANY district shouldn't have to deal with the problems of the community because, quite simply, they aren't equipped.  And they'd be the first to tell you that.  So what is so goddamned frightening about taking those responsibilities away from them and giving them to a force who are more adequately able to deal with those pressures? 

THAT'S defunding.  

It's not getting rid of police, but a redistribution of responsibility so that it doesn't all fall on one force who is (let's face it) unable to meet the task...nor should it. 

Seriously.

Let the police do what they are supposed to do and leave social issues up to the community.  Is it really that hard?

So, you agree with me.  I'm all for specialized units that can focus and concentrate on specific crimes.  That's what CSI and CODIS and coroners and the like are for.  I think those units need to supplement the police though, not defund or dismantle them.  The police have consistently accounted for 4% of funds and they are usually undermanned and underfunded.  

------

Nope. Read Matt's post.

Another black voice.  Curious to hear why he's wrong.

As far as the police being supplemented by more specialized units, that's where we agree.  But defunding the police means their 4% is going to be paired down and I don't agree with that.

There aren't enough funds and police to do what they're equipped to do as it is.