Posted on 10/15/2018 9:38:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Would you describe police as the “new Jim Crow”? That is what Democrat Senate nominee Beto O’Rourke recently told students at Prairie View A&M University. Accusing police of “shooting that person solely based on the color of their skin.”
A video then went viral of Beto O'Rourke whipping a large crowd of blacks into a frenzy at the Good Street Baptist Church in Dallas with the words: “How can we continue to lose the lives of unarmed black men in the United States of America at the hands of white police officers? That is not justice.” The media outlets such as the Washington Post, CBS, and Buzzfeed wondered why Senator Ted Cruz tweeted out the video because they argued that O’Rourke’s comments were completely reasonable.
A recent Cruz ad attacks O’Rourke for these comments. There is strong evidence that Cruz is correct.
The media has helped create a biased perception of systematic racial bias by police. In a study, the Crime Prevention Research Center finds that when a white officer kills a suspect, the media usually mentions the race of the officer. This is rarely true when the officer is black.
Polls of blacks paint a bleak picture of relations between blacks and the police, but there is other evidence based on behavior that, overall, blacks trust police at least as much as whites do.
A Quinnipiac survey last year in New York City found that blacks were 11 percentage points more likely to approve of the police in their neighborhood than of the NYPD as a whole. The police that blacks know best, they like.
If blacks really believe that police are racist, one may think that black victims would be less likely to report crimes committed against them. After all, they may doubt the commitment of the officers to solving the crimes. They may think that officers will engage in profiling and arrest an innocent black suspect.
In fact, blacks don’t shy away from reporting crimes to the police. Our report, comparing Department of Justice survey data to crimes reported to the police, shows that from 2008 to 2012 blacks were actually more likely than whites to report violent crimes committed against them to the police — 9 percentage points more likely than whites (54 percent to 45 percent).
That higher rate of reporting applies to all income groups and to both urban and suburban areas. And it's not just that blacks report more crime because they experience more of it. This higher rate of reporting even holds true in areas where whites face higher violent crime rates than blacks do.
This trust appears to be well-placed. White police officers aren’t killing defenseless blacks just because they can.
We found 2,699 police shootings from 2013-2015. We couldn’t rely on FBI data, which consists of cases voluntarily provided by police departments. The FBI lists only 1,366 suspect deaths over the same 3-year period. Our more comprehensive list comes from use of Lexis/Nexis, Freedom of Information Act requests, internet news searches, and several online databases.
The FBI database not only misses half of these cases, it also misses important information that is necessary to understanding why the officers resorted to deadly force, such as whether the suspect was armed or killed while in the act of committing a crime. The FBI disproportionately includes cases from heavily minority areas, giving a misleading picture of the frequency at which blacks are shot.
Our estimates also account for violent crime rates, demographics of the city and police department, characteristics of the suspect and officer, the rate at which police in the state are killed, the educational requirements of the department, and many other factors.
The black officers that we identified were more likely to kill black suspects than were their white colleagues, but the differences were not always statistically significant, meaning that we can’t be sure they were real. At the very least, there's no evidence of white officers disproportionately shooting blacks.
Fortunately, there are steps that we can take to try to reduce the killings. When more police are present at the scene, suspects face reduced odds of being killed. The difference is about 14 to 18 percent for each additional officer. Officers may feel more vulnerable if they are alone at the scene, making them more likely to resort to deadly force. By the same token, suspects are more likely to be emboldened and resist arrest when fewer officers are present.
Many support requiring that officers wear body cameras. A survey found that 162 of 900 police departments reported their officers used body cameras. But police acted the same regardless of whether they are wearing the cameras. The Obama administration argued that fear of being recorded would give many officers pause before misbehaving, but that only matters if the officers are misbehaving.
There is a real danger to O’Rourke’s rhetoric. Falsely scaring blacks into believing that police are systematically racist will make blacks less willing to go to police when they are victims of crime. That in turn means lower arrest rates for criminals and thus more crime. It means that the very communities that O’Rourke claims to care about will be the ones who are hurt.
Perhaps it isn’t too surprising that O’Rourke is dodging a debate with Cruz.
O’Rourke is contributing to a dangerous fiction that prejudiced white officers are going out and disproportionately killing black men. But that doesn’t mean that measures can’t be taken to reduce police shootings. The most obvious step would be to increase the number of officers, in the hopes that more will be present at the scenes of these incidents.
You know, he really did look more at home in the dress than he does in that suit.
This idiots fifteen minutes are just about up!!!
Yes, 3 weeks to go!
What was laughable about the first debate was how intent O'Rourke was when insisting that Cruz was lying about him when Cruz said that O'Rourke called the police "the modern-day Jim Crow."
O'Rourke kept repeating "I never said that. I never said that." It's true, because he said the police were "the new Jim Crow," not the "modern-day Jim Crow."
-PJ
O’dork is just repeating the same old demagoguery of the demoncratic party.
Beta looks almost as dopey as Yeb!
This is what leftist politicized religion looks like.
There is an armor that a lot of young black men need, but it is not a physical armor. It is a spiritual armor against Satan. Who said that young black men need to live in godless chaos? It wasn’t God. It was Satan, the wicked serpent of the Garden of Eden. A few months ago I (a paleface Christian, but one who believes in reaching across physical boundaries for the sake of a universal gospel) visited a Missionary Bible Church in Florida and heard the preacher talk about tragic homes in which violence was shown and learned. This happens in homes of other ethnicities too. But somehow the historical position in which modern black Americans all too often live are sapping them of spiritual power.
I don’t like politicized “Christianity,” whether it be of a leftist or rightist flavor. This ends up being a main dish of politics with, at best, a small side dish of faith. The arm of man cannot save from the power of the Evil One. We may have been seeing a seeming exception with Donald Trump, but even he won’t see any kind of cementing of his political legacy without faith coming to the fore and becoming vigorously operative against the wiles of the Evil One. It only took one “friendly” politician, GHWB, to dissipate the Reagan revival. That should be a lesson to all of us. Pass the torch into the best spiritual hands possible, those whose owners see politics as a phase of life but not the kingpin of life.
Maybe Christians will be forced into a fight-back position by the modern increase of wickedness, and God will continue to keep His promise that where sin abounded grace superabounded, but by all means let the fight not merely, or even primarily, be a political one. Politics is but one window into human affairs. Don’t just dress that window and let the rest of the building remain in neglected chaos.
I believe our modern Democrats are in for a chastisement for embracing folly. But let’s look at this from a spiritual point of view. The voice that should have been speaking up for classical godly liberality has been pulled into modern secular liberalism, and it’s a weak, politicized church that is to blame for that. This should move Democrats into soul searching, and in so doing it should further move them (we should even pray, as for all enemies) to regarding the Light of all souls. Why didn’t they succeed in being liberal? Because they tried to do it man’s way, not God’s way, and royally mucked it up. Liberality must be holy or it cannot stand before the wiles of the Evil One.
Beto=Bunghole
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.