----------------
This is a shocking video:
https://www.wral.com/ace-perry-pulled-over-by-sampson-county...
+ white cop pulls over black driver (North Carolina)
+ refuses to tell him why he was stopped until he shows ID
+ asks driver questions about company name on his tee-shirt
+ expresses incredulity when driver says he works at the company
+ asks driver other irrelevant personal questions.
+ tells driver he was stopped for driving UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT (doing 65 in a 70)
+ asks driver: "wouldn't you find it suspicious if someone were doing 65 in a 70?"
+ gives driver a WRITTEN WARNING for driving 65 in a 70.
+ brushes off driver's questions saying "I've got stuff to do"
+ Feb 2020
Googling about the case `"Ace Perry" Sampson` it seems no action was taken against the officer. If anyone has an "in" with the ACLU (or similar), the police dept. could use some publicity.
(Strange how some cases don't get the attention they deserve.)
(Note: in response to a now apparently deleted comment: I'm aware that some roads have minimum speed limits. I remember once seeing on a highway: max75 min40. However, 65 in a 70 is just prudence.)
That was back in the ‘30s, and it didn’t start then.
Edit. Anslinger was the head of the Bureau of Narcotics, which eventually became the DEA. (At the time, most (all?) famous jazz musicians were black:
> Anslinger looked out over a scene filled with rebels like Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong and Thelonious Monk, and—as the journalist Larry Sloman recorded—he longed to see them all behind bars. He wrote to all the agents he had sent to follow them and instructed: “Please prepare all cases in your jurisdiction involving musicians in violation of the marijuana laws. We will have a great national round-up arrest of all such persons on a single day. I will let you know what day.” His advice on drug raids to his men was always simple: “Shoot first.”
He reassured congressmen that his crackdown would affect not “the good musicians, but the jazz type.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-us-hospitals-push-organ-blac...
(Spoiler alert: maybe, some, some of the time)
I don’t see how the current treatment of the police in the press is any different than other life-and-death professions.
We moved away from intent in the 1970s.
What matters now is impact, not intent. If excessive police stops disproportionately affect black drivers those stops are racist, and the people performing the stops are racist.
But we know this, from Fergusson and similar.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm
> Are excessive traffic fines and debtors' jails fuelling community tensions in suburban Missouri? Claire Bolderson reports on a network of ninety separate cities in St Louis County, most of which have their own courts and police forces. Critics say that their size makes them financially unviable and allege that some of them boost their incomes by fining their own citizens and locking them up when they can't pay.
> This edition of Crossing Continents goes out and about in St Louis County to meet the people who say they are victims of a system which sees arrest warrants issued for relatively minor misdemeanours. Many of the victims are poor and black. The programme also takes us into the courts, and out onto the freeways with some of the County's police, who say they are upholding the law and promoting road safety.
> The US government is not so sure. One of the towns in question is Ferguson where riots erupted after a white police officer shot a young black man dead last summer. In a recent report on the riots, the Department of Justice concluded that the Ferguson police had been stopping people for no good reason. It said they were putting revenue before public safety.
But there was, wasn't there? And one could argue that what Snowden revealed about the NSA hints that there still is.
> In his new book, James Comey describes his deep admiration for Martin Luther King Jr. and decries the FBI’s treatment of him as “a dark chapter in the Bureau’s history.” Shortly after he became FBI director in 2013, Comey instructed the entire workforce of the FBI to read King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” one of Comey’s favorite writings. He created a curriculum for new agents to “remember how well-meaning folks lost their way,” and introduced an exercise for the new recruits to visit the King memorial, pick one of the quotes inscribed on the marble wall, and write an essay “about the intersections of that quotation and the FBI’s values.” On his desk at the bureau, Comey kept a copy of the letter authorizing the wall-to-wall surveillance of King as a reminder of this “shameful” history.[1]
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/24/james-comey-mlk-martin-l...
There's a video of looters in Manhattan driving a Rolls Royce, obviously rented. There is no reason that nerds on the internet would know anything street smart like that.
His encounter with those same officers a few minutes later was caught on body cam: https://youtu.be/28w6xvRj9EM
This is a guy who is arguably as “privileged” as it gets for someone pulled over by the police: highly educated white guy attorney who hadn’t done anything wrong. And he was charged with two (very minor) crimes.
It’s easy to give the advice to exercise your rights but it’s difficult in practice when the retaliation by those in authority is so clear.
James Mickens, using logic and humor, makes this point in a way that even geeks might understand.
"Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
>... There's no concerted effort by police nationwide to spy on black reporters and activists.
Are you serious? There has always been a suspicion of the black community and the people in it from COINTELPRO to the modern day FBI fiction of "Black Identity Extremists"
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/23/black-identity-extremist...
Your whole post is a hamfisted attempt to discount the interactions between race, policing and power as well as the historical context.
The thing is, police brutality is heavily promoted on the news right now because, well, it outrages people, that's the point. It generates more ad revenue that way.
But if you hear it and see this every day, and someone says the word "police", your mind immediately thinks of "brutality". Not that it doesn't exist, but availability bias makes the issue seem much bigger than it actually is. This is why it's a bias.
And to put the danger of racist white police officers into perspective: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/163/274/fbf...
Yes, racists are a problem, but not a very big one.
I'll put this to you - people of color are absolutely justifiably fearful of any interaction with the police, and they have to experience it much more frequently. You need a source? Here - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/03/us/minneapoli... Hope you'll read it.
And this includes ALL white people, much less "white people who happen to be police officers". My argument is not saying police brutality doesn't "exist", I'm saying it's "overblown".
Finally, I am a "person of color" myself and I don't find the police behave to me in the way you describe. They don't act that way towards my father either, not even once in his life. Or any of my person-of-color friends for that matter. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but my main point is the overall data does not point towards your premise.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.newsobserver.com/news/polit...
Okay. Why did this trooper then ask for reg and ID, do a background check, and issue an unexplained warning?
Back to your point: I just watched the linked video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODmT-KDfkC0
How could the trooper NOT know the driver's race before pulling him over?
-Mark Twain
https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=blacks+lie...
The problem with statistics is that you need to take lots of time and care to have all sides fully explain their position and be able to rebut counterarguments with more data. If you do this, you will get to the truth, which is why people who are wrong tend to push conspiracy theories in order to dismiss the data instead of putting forward testable arguments. There is no better (or worse) non-argument than the one that you assert can not be falsified a priori.
