zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
> “I blame myself,” she kept saying. “I never let him out on Halloween. A bunch of Black boys together. I shouldn’t have let him out. But he begged me.”

Notice that while average white parents might worry about criminals before letting their kids out on the street, the black parents worry (with good reason) about the police.

(Just to spell it out: this is why so many BLM activists feel comfortable saying "abolish the police" or "defund the police", because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals)

> “Young teens or pre-teens of color were handcuffed, arrested, or held at gunpoint while participating in age-appropriate activities such as running, playing with friends, high-fiving, sitting on a stoop, or carrying a backpack.”

This is child abuse.

>>pjc50+Ck
> from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals

That point of view is just factually incorrect. It’s like thinking that the way to get rich is to become a movie star. Sure it might happen but that’s not the normal way.

>>ponker+yA
Do you have data points to disprove it? I'm not aware of any data on how often police engage in physical altercations with civilians. One of the points the article makes is that the NYPD actively misrepresents such altercations that could cast the department in a bad light.

Stop and frisk policies amount to codifying assault, in my opinion.

>>lukewr+QG
Nit: The expression "physical altercation" does not make sense because an "altercation" is an exchange of words. Perhaps what you mean is something like "unwanted physical contact", if we can interpret that expression to include shooting someone but not include first aid to an unconscious person, which I think we probably can with a bit of common sense.