Michael Brown Shooting

Ferguson Police Chief Says No Dashcams in Cop Cars, Body Suits Not in Use Yet—Riots Continue

|

Man holds hands up for SWAT team in Ferguson
Twitter

Rioting in Ferguson, Missouri continued a second night after the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown,  an unarmed 18-year-old shot by police. Cops claim Brown was attempting to grab a gun from a cop before he was shot. Witnesses say Brown had his hands in the air when cops shot him.

The Ferguson Police Department reportedly has body cameras for its cops, so it shouldn't be difficult to get to the truth. Except, according to police, they haven't started using the body cameras they purchased yet, while Ferguson squad cars aren't (!) equipped with dashcams. Via Fox News:

Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told KSDK-TV that there's no video footage of the shooting from the apartment complex or from any police cruiser dashboard cameras or body-worn cameras that the department recently bought but has not yet put to use.

Despite the rioting, a response to what looks a lot like a cold-blooded killing by cops, crime in Ferguson has been declining for the last decade and a half, approaching the national average. At the same time, while blacks make up two-thirds of the population, they are twice as likely to be stopped by police as whites, 80 percent of stops are of black residents, and they account for 93 percent of arrests and 92 percent of searches. This despite cops finding contraband on 34 percent of whites stopped but only 22 percent of blacks, according to a racial profiling report from the Missouri's attorney general last year.

Cops using tear gas in Ferguson
Fox 2 Now

Last night riot police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters, claiming some had thrown rocks at them. Police barricaded main throughways in the area, such as I-270*. There were also reports on Twitter of police confiscating cameras, although there a lot of photos of last night's events as well. The FBI has announced it is investigating the incident, which some community leaders hope will return calm. More protests are scheduled for today—the police officer who shot and killed Brown has not been identified yet, cops have not explained why Brown was in their police car in the first place, something they claim happened, and there have been no charges or arrests related to the Saturday afternoon incident at all.

Brown's family, in the meantime, has hired Benjamin Crump, who represented the family of Trayvon Martin. "I don't want to sugar coat it," the attorney said, the teenager "was executed in broad daylight." Brown's parents have condemned the looting that has accompanied some of the protests, saying such behavior also has the effect of pushing their son out of the picture. Ferguson's mayor, James Knowles, blamed a "small group of people" (the cops??) for "creating a huge mess," saying the rioting was "only hurting our community." In some other political cultures, Knowles and other city leaders might be expected and obligated to resign in a show of disgrace, contrition, and an admission that they are, because of their faults and history, unable to fix the problem. Instead look for them to keep blaming the residents that are growing tired of being victims of local police.

*I misread an account sent to us by a local resident. The streets surrounding a QT convenience store that was burned down where shot down, including at the intersection of Chambers Road and West Florrisant, about a mile south of I-270 and half a mile from the convenience store. Sorry for the confusion.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

278 responses to “Ferguson Police Chief Says No Dashcams in Cop Cars, Body Suits Not in Use Yet—Riots Continue

  1. Can we stop using vague terms like “contraband”, please? Do we really want more people arrested for untaxed cigarettes?

    1. I think they will arrest people for untaxed cigarettes whatever word they use to describe it.

      1. It kind a sounds like they aren’t. Yet.

        1. No, they’re just murdering them.

          https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..death-over

      2. Taiwan’s 2/28 Massacre resulted in 10,000 to 30,000 deaths and marked the beginning of the White Terror. It started over untaxed cigarettes. I don’t think America wants to go there. Especially because the police are outnumbered and, unlike Taiwan, the civilians are armed.

  2. I watched a video of the rioters explaining how a reasonable consequence of police brutality is to loot businesses and destroy property because you see, the police get paid with taxes so if we utterly destroy the wealth of of property owners, then we are punishing the police or something. The guy literally said he was “standing side by side with the community”, as he explained the necessity of looting the community. Such nuanced thinkers. Inner city schools ought to be looted next.

    1. You know who else gets paid with taxes?

      1. Welfare recipients?

      2. Inner city school teachers?

      3. Dash cam and body cam manufacturers?

    2. They’re just applying the lessons of SJW activism.

    3. While I have no doubt that you did watch a video in which the described events took place, and that you uncritically believed everything that was presented to you, I do question whether the “rioter” was indeed representative of the mindset of people concerned purely with the shooting, or was merely an opportunistic looter looking for cover.

      1. Your argument is what now? That I’m mischaracterizing “people concerned purely with the shooting”? Well that’s interesting considering that I explicitly referred to the target of my criticism as “RIOTERS”. Here let me quote for you;

        I watched a video of the rioters explaining

        While I have no doubt that you did read what I wrote, and that you failed to comprehend what was written, I do question whether your argument is representative of anything I actually I said.

        You slayed that strawman real gooooood, Tonio.

        1. Hey asshole! Don’t use quotes from the article. It’s racist and unfair. Because FYTW!

          1. It’s so cute when our own Hitler Youth Power Twins team up.

            1. You Godwin’d it you bastard!

              1. No, you and Skippy von ?bermensch did that long ago.

                Feel free to fuck off to Stormfront. I’m sure they’ll buy you a beer.

                1. hahaha. douche. Can’t wait for someone to come to the realization that it isn’t racist to suggest that disproportionate incarceration doesn’t prove that there is discrimination any more than it proves that blacks are inherently criminal.

                  1. What? I can’t hear you when you’re filtered. Your post is like your ape-like intellect, a pale ghost of the real thing.

                    I’m done wasting more than what little time I should have wasted on such a zero-value, disturbed little cuntwattle. Buh-bye.

                    1. hehehe. Enjoy your aneurysm over nothing 🙂

                    2. cuntwattle makes me giggle.

                    3. Great work JW. Nazis and cuntwattles. You make a compelling argument.

                    4. FS, You gotta admit, cuntwattle is a silly word. Possibly sillier as Shaneen or Myrtle.

                    5. I think he meant to say ‘cuntwaddle’. Unless he was referring to you as a ‘cunt’ that is ‘constructed of interwoven reeds, sticks or poles’.

                    6. Free Society: I owe you an apology, as I confused you with someone else here.

                      So, FWIW, please accept my most humble apology.

                    7. U mad bro?

                    8. I appreciate you’re saying so. Best regards. 🙂

            2. Pointing out that smashing the shit out of storefronts and stealing their merchandise may not be an appropriate outlet for anger at the utterly unrelated police department = Hitler Youth. It tumblr leaking again?

            3. “Hitler Youth Power Twins”

              Even though I normally hate godwins, that was a good one, JW. Nazi powers activate!

              1. So do you care to make an actual argument or are you satisfied with calling people Nazis? You haven’t even made an argument.

    4. I’d probably drink beer and contentedly eat popcorn whilst happily watching the looters and burners destroy JUST the pig pen.

    5. *Such nuanced thinkers. Inner city schools ought to be looted next.*

      Yet, somehow we’re supposed to be appalled that these sorts are pulled over 4x as often as everyone else.

      1. See! Real racism! Not anything like me and FS.

    6. “I watched a video of the rioters explaining how a reasonable consequence of police brutality is to loot businesses and destroy property”

      Reasonable, you say? Don’t know much about crowd psychology, I guess. A reasoned response may take some time. Meanwhile, the rioting has focused attention on the issue. I doubt you’d have taken the trouble to comment on it without the rioting.

      1. the rioting has focused attention on the issue.

        Yeah, and the assassination really brought a lot of press to Our American Cousin.

        1. “really brought a lot of press ”

          The press coverage is sensational and predictable. Within a week, it’ll disappear, mark my words. There are others who are more determined and able to sustain concentrated effort on the issue.

          1. I’m thinking you may have missed the analogy.

      2. I wasn’t commenting on anything other than the moral justifications presented to excuse the destruction and theft of private property. Those arguments were flawed and like all ‘social justice’ arguments is a pseudo-moral justification for violating the rights of others. And your problem with my statement is what exactly?

        1. As if I’m not here bitching about police injustice every day I post at Reason. pfffffffffffffffffffff

          1. I know right! FUCK!

        2. “And your problem with my statement is what exactly?”

          Only that you seem to assume that these actions arise out of or are based on flawed argumentation. They don’t. I think you’d be better to look at anger and frustration if you want to understand the motives, however irrational this may be. Again psychology of crowds may be an area you could take the time to study a bit more.

          1. Flawed argumentation pish tosh. Where is a Korean shopkeeper when you need him?

          2. Only that you seem to assume that these actions arise out of or are based on flawed argumentation. They don’t. think you’d be better to look at anger and frustration if you want to understand the motives, however irrational this may be. Again psychology of crowds may be an area you could take the time to study a bit more.

            Kindly cite a quotation where I make this assumption. I said nothing of what caused the situation, to my recollection. I only criticized the actual justification this person gave. I don’t need to study crowd psychology to shit on a stupid argument made by an individual. Kind of like your argument in how it refutes an argument I didn’t make and you don’t even do it well. The strawman you set up is winning.

            1. Apparently you watched this video hoping that the interviewee would explain the motives for the rioting. You were understandably disappointed. I’m pointing out that your mistake was in your thinking that any explanation offered could have sufficed. You will go on making these mistakes as long as you remain ignorant of crowd psychology.

              1. Apparently you watched this video hoping that the interviewee would explain the motives for the rioting.

                No I came across of video regarding the riot. I’m waiting for your next assumption to accuse me of finding the vid at Stormfront. For all the assumptions you accuse me of making based on nothing that I actually said, you just make one assumption after another about my inner thoughts and motives.

                I’m pointing out that your mistake was in your thinking that any explanation offered could have sufficed. You will go on making these mistakes as long as you remain ignorant of crowd psychology.

                What does crowd psychology have to do with the moral and logical invalidity of destroying private property to get revenge on the police?

                And please, if you don’t mind, CITE using [crtl+C] what I posted that displayed assumptions about the guys motive or lack of motive. Cite whatever argument you accuse me of making. I know straw-manning is easier and we can’t expect much effort from your kind. But humor me and either quote it or shut the fuck up.

                1. “What does crowd psychology have to do with the moral and logical invalidity of destroying private property to get revenge on the police?”

                  Crowds are motivated not by well formulated arguments but by anger and frustration. There’s nothing moral about it but it does get attention.

          3. So, police brutality is acceptable when they are in large groups! Perfect.

            Or we could call a spade a spade. Trayvon Martin got national attention without people looking and pillaging. Personal responsibility is still necessary if we plan on pretending we are more than animals.

            1. “pretending we are more than animals.”

              Pretending we are more than animals is exactly the kind of misguided and perverse thinking that gets us into these messes.

              1. I think it’s fair to say that humans are more than just animals. Dehumanization is what’s perverse.

      3. To be fair, I think H&R was commenting on it before the rioting.

  3. while blacks make up two-thirds of the population, they are twice as likely to be stopped by police as whites, accounting for 93 percent of arrests and 92 percent of searches.

    Oh, goody. I eagerly await briannnn’s attribution to this of the inherent criminality of the black man.

    1. Show me on the biracial doll where briannnn touched you.

      1. I touch everyone’s biracial doll. I think it’s the lack of black blood in an inanimate object that lets me get over my prejudices.

        1. And names, don’t forget the tendency of black people to name their in ways of which you don’t approve.

          1. I never said I didn’t approve. Just that Shaneen is a funny name. Like Myrtle. It’s almost like people want to automatically assume I’m a bastard 🙂

            1. We’ve found it’s safer, and usually correct, to assume anyone who posts here is a bastard.

            2. What’s strange to me is that Shaneen is probably the most boring “ethnic” name out there.

              I could sympathize giggling at LaTasha or Charmonique or LaKeisha, but Shaneen sounds so… ordinary to me. There’s nothing special or outrageous about it. It’s close to Charlene and Charmagne, and rolls off the tongue just as easily.

              Shaneen. Nothing strange about that.

              1. *Unsheathes sword* SHANEEN!

              2. Actually sounds Irish. Hmmm…you know who else had an Irish sounding first name?

                1. One of my ex-girlfriends, but she’s Chinese.

          2. Tonio is a funny name too. Is that racist? Yes.

            1. You clearly hate Italian Americans.

            2. Sure, whatevs. “Funny-sounding” is cultural, not absolute.

              Nope, not racist at all. Srsly.

    2. Black blood or the names?

      1. “Black blood”, but he’ll blame somebody else for the term.

        1. Sevo used it first. I repeated it. 🙂

          1. Did your mommy ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

            I weep for your students.

            1. Neither of us used it in any sort of racist manner. He said he doubted black blood made someone inherently criminal, I said that conclusion was just as feasible based on the statistics of the prison population. It is, because neither is borne out by that data alone. Man it’s fun repeating yourself to people who stick their fingers in their ears and scream “racist racist racist!”

              1. So you’re merely entertaining the notion that black blood could contain mitichlorians that turn them into criminals? Yeah, totally not racist.

                And Jewish blood could predispose them to becoming bankers and lawyers. I mean, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.

                1. Well why not? Without more evidence it would irresponsible to summarily discount a possible conclusion. The bell curve wasn’t racist, and neither is following an argument to its logical conclusions.

                  1. Yeah, and we also shouldn’t discount the possibility that black people are really space aliens from the planet Marklar, right?

                    1. Of course we should. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that. I didn’t jump to a single conclusion. Just pointed out that jumping to one, discrimination, was unwarranted when other conclusions were also possible.

                    2. Of course we should.

                      Explain why.

                    3. Because you would be concluding that black people are space aliens with absolutely no evidence. Higher arrest records suggest one of two things. Either blacks are being arrested more often because they are committing more crimes or blacks are being arrested more often for some other reason. Perhaps discrimination as many have pointed out.

                      Even if they were from the planet Marklar, these would still be the only two conclusions to draw from that statistic. It is irresponsible to discount one of them because you don’t want to suggest that there could possibly be a difference in the criminality of two races. That’s your own prejudices influencing your judgement.

                    4. Because you would be concluding that black people are space aliens with absolutely no evidence.

                      As opposed to the mountain of evidence you’ve provided that their criminality is genetic.

                    5. I didn’t provide any or suggest that to be the case.

                    6. In other words, you have no evidence. But, you’re still not going to discount the possibility. Well, you have no evidence that they are space aliens either, so why discount the possibility?

                    7. You have stats that say blacks are arrested more. Either it’s because they should be or because they shouldn’t be so there’s another explanation. Aliens or not, it falls into one category or another. Whether or not they are aliens has nothing to do with the argument.

                      Also, why should I provide evidence? I only made that argument originally because ENB concluded that our justice system was racist relying only on the statistics concerning incarceration. I was simply saying that the evidence she provided proved nothing.

                    8. *Either blacks are being arrested more often because they are committing more crimes or blacks are being arrested more often for some other reason. Perhaps discrimination as many have pointed out.*

                      Often, you hear poverty or the ‘lingering effects of slavery’ blamed for the incarceration rates. So which is it? Either they are committing crimes and can’t help themselves because or poverty, or they aren’t committing crimes and are just getting framed by ‘the man’?

                  2. The science is settled!1!!

                2. There’s very real reasons why historically jews have tended to work as money lenders and jurists. By virtue of their Jewiness, they were typically not allowed to own land and different sorts of capital and were instead forced to rely on building up their intellectual capital with education and niche trades. That very real predisposition has survived into the modern era as a relic of earlier times.

                  1. Because of their outsider status, their high literacy, and being multilingual, Jews were entrusted to manage the Royal accounts and act as bankers for European royalty. So Jew blood doesn’t make Jews bankers and accountants. It’s just that they’ve been in the business for about 800 years, at the request of Europe’s rulers. After 800 years, it just became the family business.

                    1. That and the fact that Christians and Muslims were prevented fron loaning $ at interest by religious usuary laws.

                    2. Good point. That’s why they were especially suitable as money lenders. Their mythology didn’t limit them the same way Christian and Muslim mythology limited it’s adherents.

            2. Weep not. Androgynous pest no prof.

        1. Are you suggesting, that African Americans are full of oil?

    3. If they make up two-thirds of the population, wouldn’t you expect them to be stopped twice as often based on population? Two-thirds v. one-third? Or is my math off somehow?

      1. Yes, but I’m a racist because FYTW!

      2. I thought the same. If it’s 2/3 black and 1/3 white the rate of being stopped sounds perfectly balanced. What ratio are they supposed to stop??

        1. Dude! You’re a fucking racist. Don’t point out that there is any possibility at all that cops are racist because that means you’re a racist.

          1. I’m pointing out the possibility the cops are NOT racist.

            1. RACIST!!!! I did that once, and it did NOT go well. You don’t want any of this bro.

      3. If they make up two-thirds of the population, wouldn’t you expect them to be stopped twice as often based on population?

        No, that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that any random black person is twice as likely to be stopped as any random white person. If cops were randomly stopping every tenth person they saw, you would expect 2/3 of them to be black and 1/3 white, but the statistics are that 90%+ of the stops are black.

        If any random black person were twice as likely as any random white person to be stopped, the numbers would only be 80% black, so the black person is far more than “twice as likely” to be stopped. Assuming the cops randomly stopped every third black person they saw and every twentieth white person they saw, you would have something close to the numbers given. So cops are obviously not just randomly stopping people, they are specifically targeting blacks to be stopped.

        Are they justified in stopping a disproportionate number of blacks? Strictly from the numbers on contraband discoveries, no. It’s more likely that blacks are stopped totally at random with no suspicion that contraband will be discovered whereas whites are stopped only when there is a reasonable suspicion that contraband will be discovered.

        1. the statistics are that 90%+ of the stops are black
          but 100% of the stops are initiated by an over-compensated, power-mad, serial-abuser with a gun who has no interest in the facts or serving the populace at large.

          1. I think we can all agree on that 🙂

        2. Here’s the quote–

          At the same time, while blacks make up two-thirds of the population, they are twice as likely to be stopped by police as whites, 80 percent of stops are of black residents, and they account for 93 percent of arrests and 92 percent of searches. This despite cops finding contraband on 34 percent of whites stopped but only 22 percent of blacks, according to a racial profiling report from the Missouri’s attorney general last year

          Annnd your interpretation seems to be totally wrong. He IS pissed that 2/3 of the population is picked up at twice the rate of 1/3

          And the stats aren’t ‘90%+ of the stops are black.’ they are ‘90%+ of the arrests are of black people.

          And then there’s the notion that they’re finding less contraband on blacks–but getting more arrests–such an outrage……except that one can be arrested for reasons other than having contraband.

          But hey, why apply any logic? We can accuse people of racism! Yay!

          1. YYYAAAAAAYYYY!!!

          2. And also consider that not all contraband is created equal. Is it possible that blacks are more often found with substances or “contraband” that has a higher level of illegality? I’m not stating one way or the other, but it’s possible that heroin or cocaine possession will net a higher arrest rate than being found to be possessing marijuana. So having a category as broad as “contraband” might be misleading.

            The argument is simply that we need more data before we should draw big general conclusions.

            1. +1,000,000 asking for more data = racism

          3. I was going to disagree, but, no, I think you’re right. I’m not sure if he’s pissed off or not, but the 2/3 v. 1/3 and “twice as likely” is confusing, especially with the 80% figure. Unless I’m fucking up some basic math or statistics, which is totally possible, if you have three people, and two of them are black, and you pick one at random, for each pick you have a 1 in 3 chance of picking a white person and a 2 in 3 chance of picking a black person. Meaning, of course, that your chances of randomly picking a black person are twice those of picking a white person.

            The other stats may be something to look into and might indeed point to some nefarious doin’s, but that stat alone is about what you would expect, or even what you’d want.

        3. “If cops were randomly stopping every tenth person they saw, you would expect 2/3 of them to be black and 1/3 white, but the statistics are that 90%+ of the stops are black.”

          Because stops aren’t random, they are in response to a report or for some other reason.

    4. I never said blacks were more inherently criminal, but I will once again point out that the mere fact that they are stopped and arrested with at a ridiculously higher rate does not automatically prove anything.

      1. When you are making empirical claims, you can’t prove anything ever.

        1. But you can get a lot closer than just saying a higher percentage of arrests means discrimination. For example, if you had stats on how many whites and blacks were caught possessing drugs vs. how many were arrested, you’d get a lot closer.

          1. That’s debatable. Cops don’t patrol my suburb looking for people sparking a j. They certainly patrol parts of Philly for that type of stuff.

            1. I just meant if you look at the percent found with drugs vs. the percent arrested on drug charges and saw a large discrepancy, it would be pretty fair to assume discrimination. Simply seeing a difference in arrests with no other info does not.

              1. IIRC, admitted drug usage rates between blacks and whites are similiar, yet blacks are arrested at a higher rate for possession.

                I’d also like to see sentencing stats.

                1. Use doesn’t mean getting caught. White people might just be better at hiding their use. Possible conclusion from that data, not my opinion. I feel like I have to include that disclaimer on all posts from now on.

                  1. “White people might just be better at hiding their use.”

                    Racist !

                    So black people aren’t as good hiders as whites huh ?

                    Check your white hiding privlege.

                    1. I’m not a racist, I’m a Nazi. Please see comments throughout. So is FS. We can’t be trusted.

                  2. “White people might just be better at hiding their use”

                    How about White people being genetically superior at hiding drugs which are white powder, like heroin or cocaine? I don’t know of any black powder drugs that black skinned people could advantageously hide.

                    What’s with your attempt to discount the racist angle? Doesn’t seem all that far-fetched to me.

                    1. Black tar heroin, tho…

        2. As my stats teacher said “statistics is the science of bullshit, the trick isn’t figuring out how to interpret the data but rather how to manipulate the data to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.” I loved that guy coolest high school teacher ever.

          1. That is the same general rule of appellate law. Frame, distort, spin, omit.

      2. I’ve been following your posts for awhile on this topic. If I were to say that ethnicity and skin-tone are coincidental, and that the real causal issue here has much more to do with socioeconomics and culture, would you agree? In other words, generational poverty and disaffection in urban areas produces a culture which tends to either promote or not actively discourage criminal behavior and violation of mores and norms of the larger society, and, due to accidents of history (terrible phrase, but there it is) that culture in this country is primarily black Americans. In other countries it’s Algerians, or Roma, or Greeks, or what-have-you. Point being, genetics aren’t the cause, per se, so much as community and family traditions.

        What say you? FRED BARNES!

    5. Who said anything about black men? Could be that the cops in Ferguson just like getting all frisky with the black wimmenz.

    6. Uh, math. If that sentence is written correctly, then you have a 1:2 proportion of white to black in the community, and … a 1:2 proportion of police stops. This sounds like a positively Sharptonian utopia of profile-less policing.

      Or, you know, somebody got some numbers wrong.

      1. Or black people are much less likely to commit crimes but the cops are racists. This is also a possibility.

        1. My point was that, without making up additional unknown data points, the sentence reads as if the proportion of black citizens stopped by police exactly matches the proportion of black folks in the local population. And that that’s surprising. I mean, I can certainly see how it would be surprising, but it doesn’t support rampant racism in the police force (of course, the later statistic of 92% of all arrests being black people would certainly seem to support it…)

          1. The stat of 92% of all arrests doesn’t necessarily support racism. Maybe black people just commit more crimes. And if 90% of arrests were white, it wouldn’t suggest racism either. Maybe in that case black people commit 5% of the crimes, but cops are racist. Maybe black blood makes someone less likely to commit a crime! Is that still racist? I don’t even know anymore!!!

            1. Well, 90% arrest rates either mean that the police there are remarkably good at spotting someone breaking the law…OR…that they arrest the shit out of people for anything they can get. Either you have West Beirut and the police there all deserve raises or there’s something fishy going on.

      2. I’m not sure about that math. If Blacks account for 80% of the stops, but only 66% of the population, then you have Blacks to Whites at a 2:1 ratio, but Black Stops to White Stops at a 4:1 ratio.

        Unless I’ve just rolled a natural one on my math check, that is.

    7. Umm, I hate to bring actual math into this, but if you’re comparing 2/3 to 1/3, you should _expect_ them to be stopped twice as much (2/3 = 2 * 1/3…). Arrested or searched more? Could there be more found after the stop?

      1. Should probably read the thread 🙂

    8. From the IRS scandal, I have been told by progressives that the correct standard for prejudice and bias of oversight by government is if just one white person was also stopped, then there’s no scandal, no bias, and no prejudice.

      1. +1 for finally bringing sanity back to the thread.

  4. Ed. i am confused.

    Are you saying that when the police waylay someone, that they are twice as likely to be black than white? Because that would be consistent with the demographic of 2/3 black and 1/3 white.

    Or, is a black guy walking down the street twice as likely to be stopped by cops than a white person doing the exact same thing?

      1. So where the hell did he get the tw0-thirds v. one-third figure? Seems like sloppy reporting somewhere.

        1. Reading the sentence, and given the second part of the sentence, I’m thinking he meant to type “more than” or “far more than” twice as likely to be stopped…

          1. That would actually make sense. Are there no editors?!

            1. No. All the editors were killed in the war against the squirrels.

              1. In H&R comment fields the poppies blow
                Between the [insert religious or non religious symbol of choice here], row on row,
                That mark our place; and in the sky
                The larks, still bravely singing, fly
                Scarce heard amid the comment flaming below.

                We are the Dead. Short days ago
                We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
                Edited and were edited, and now we lie,
                In Flanders fields.

                Take up our quarrel with the squirrelz:
                To you from failing hands we throw
                The html; be yours to hold it high.
                If ye break faith with us who die
                We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
                In H&R fields.

                1. I was moved to tears… tears which dripped and stained the hat I held over my heart as I gazed off to the distance.

    1. He answered this in the same sentence that confused you:

      At the same time, while blacks make up two-thirds of the population, they are twice as likely to be stopped by police as whites, accounting for 93 percent of arrests and 92 percent of searches.

      1. I disagree; the last clause is not about police stops but arrests.

        I think the paragraphs with the stats should be rewritten to clearly explain what the problem is.

        1. Agreed. The statistics given seem to show the police aren’t unfairly targeting by race, AND that blacks are more likely to have actually committed a crime.

    2. He’s saying that the race of the person is indeterminate until after the police actually stop them. Before that, the person exists in a superposition of both blackness and whiteness, though the probabilities lean toward blackness. Once the cop records the race in his log book, the waveform collapses and the person obtains a definite race.

      1. Well you’re just a quantum racist.

        1. Please note that the collapse of Jim Crow occured shortly after the rise of quantum mechanics.

          I now see that it was yet another field done in by the introduction of quantum mechanical tools.

          1. Jjim Shroedinger’s Crow?

      2. Ahh, quantum racism!

    3. Let’s stop calling them “police” and be more truthful. “… when criminal members of a government-sponsored paramilitary group waylay someone …”

      1. I’ve been eager to find a new replacement for the term “police”. I’ve never been fond of the term “pigs”, since pigs are generally very useful animals and they taste good. I doubt police taste any better or worse than any other random person.

        For awhile I liked, “Armed Men in Costumes”, but it’s cumbersome and doesn’t relay fully the violence, meanness, or evil intent behind most police action.

        I’m at a real loss, your phrase does some heavy lifting, but it’s not succinct enough. How does one label the most violent members of society in three words or less?

        1. Evil Clowns?

          1. So, Pennywise?

            1. Pennywise is great, but so few would make the connnection. JBT is pretty handy.

        2. Jack booted thug (JBT) has always seemed to work for me.

        3. Bastards? As in, don’t let them get you down?

  5. I watched a video of the rioters explaining how a reasonable consequence of police brutality is to loot businesses and destroy property because you see, the police get paid with taxes so if we utterly destroy the wealth of of property owners, then we are punishing the police or something.

    “It’s for your own good. Now help me carry this television to my car.”

    Social Justice, FTW!

    1. I love how people call their philosophy of plundering ‘social justice’. It’s makes criminal transgressions sound just so damned reasonable. Regular ole ‘justice’ is obsolete.

      1. Looting, taxes- it’s all the same. Are we just down on looters because they break windows?

        1. I think we’re down on looters because they target the same people that are already getting fucked by taxes.

          And, as libertarian oriented folks, I suspect we’re down on tax-collectors, too.

          1. You’re not allowed to criticize anyone who is destructive of other’s rights unless the criticism is directly preceded in the same post by criticism of every other group, individual or institution in existence that is possibly worse about destruction.

            Who am I to condemn a murderer while I don’t simultaneously condemn Hitler in the same sentence, what a dick I am.

        2. Break windows? I think you meant to say create jobs

      2. Hell. The White Liberal Massas have done it for decades. Why shouldn’t their brown serfs do it too?

      3. Agreed, but it’s hard to blame people for using the same bullshit rationalizations the police and executive branch use in the press every day.

        1. My dad told me a great story once. When he was in New Jersey, there were large scale riots by the black population in the New York suburbs. But then they go to the Italian neighborhoods and turned around. Because all of the men got on their roofs with guns and said “come on!”

      4. I love how you uncritically believe everything you see.

        1. You keep saying this. What the fuck are you blathering about?

          1. He’s saying that no true Scotsman misunderstood negro could possibly have said the things you say you heard. Clearly you were taken in by an elaborate false flag operation.

            1. So maybe the guy being interviewed was wearing blackface? I hadn’t thought of that angle. Just when I was about to tell Tonio to just change his name to Tony and be done with it…

              1. No, but in all seriousness, he’s saying you picked out that interview and took the dude on camera at his word because it reinforces what you already want to believe about black people. Probably without a hint of awareness that he’s engaging in the exact same behavior by dismissing something he doesn’t want to believe could have been said by a black person. Every fucking thing is precisely and exclusively about race. You can’t just say, yeah, trying to justify committing property crimes against innocent people with sjw rhetoric is a dick move.

                1. I know what he’s saying I did because he arguing against it, problem is I never said anything about his internal motivations nor did I even mention the guys race in my original post at the top, because it’s not relevant. He is actually the one who interjected a racial component to my argument.

                  All I did was a come across a video of a guy giving a moral justification for destroying and stealing private property in order to punish the police department vis a vis less wealth in his community to be taxed. I criticized the guy’s self-exonerating social justice argument. I guess that makes me Bull Connor. I would expect this type of criticism to come from a proggie or a marxist, not from someone whom I assume thinks of himself as a libertarian.

  6. When I see this happen, I always wish (and never see it granted) that the people would focus their attention on the source of their problem. Too many businesses and privately owned cars are looted and/or destroyed.

    1. So you’re saying we should outlaw private businesses and cars, right?

      /Fauxcahontas

      1. Finally! Somebody here gets it.

    2. Well, you’re making the same mistake as “Free Society” by believing that the looters are indeed motivated by justice concerns and are not merely looters throwing up a smokescreen.

      1. Well, you’re making the same mistake as “Free Society” by believing that the looters are indeed motivated by justice concerns and are not merely looters throwing up a smokescreen.

        Your strawman army is goose stepping all over this thread. You’re attributing arguments to me that I never made. All I said was that I watched a video of a rioter explaining to an interviewer how he considered his looting of private property to be a justifiable response to police brutality. I’m not even sure of what your arguing exactly, I doubt you are either.

        1. Are you sure he was a rioter, as opposed to an non politically-motivated criminal who would have taken advantage of any disturbance (ie, power outage) to loot? Were you there? What are your actual criteria for discriminating (SWIDT?) between non-looting rioters who are motivated purely by justice concerns and looters who merely claim to be motivated by justice concerns and are using that as cover for thievery?

          1. Are you sure he was a rioter, as opposed to an non politically-motivated criminal who would have taken advantage of any disturbance (ie, power outage) to loot? Were you there?

            The guy was excusing the riot and providing moral justifications for destroying and stealing property. One need not have been physically present to receive that information, in 2014 we have these things called “videos” that can include things called “interviews” where involved parties can go on the record.

            What are your actual criteria for discriminating (SWIDT?) between non-looting rioters who are motivated purely by justice concerns and looters who merely claim to be motivated by justice concerns and are using that as cover for thievery?

            What in the world are you talking about? I never said anything about the sincerity or non-sincerity of the guy’s response, I only criticized the argument that was made. Please quote exactly what I wrote and then you tell me exactly what your objection is. I’m not going debate strawmen or defend positions that I never took.

            1. Hey! Did you know that we’re Nazis?

              1. I heard. An interesting discovery to be sure.

          2. Presuming FS actually heard what he says he heard, wouldn’t it be much simpler just to take the guy at his word? In what way does it change the outcome, in your mind?

            1. Well FS is a Nazi, so clearly he’s lying.

            2. Is it so hard to believe that a guy in a video, claiming to be a rioter, was giving moral justifications for rioting while standing in front of a freshly looted gas station? All I did was describe the justification he gave for it and the flaw of that justification. I didn’t write a biography about the guy and his internal consciousness.

              1. I just don’t understand what practical difference it actually makes whether random looter interview guy is a True Scotsman or not. That sjw rhetoric can be so easily appropriated for the purpose of a charlatan almost speaks more to its absurdity than the genuine article. That’s usually the kind of thing you see libertarians yucking about while mocking it relentlessly rather than foaming at the mouth defending.

                1. That’s usually the kind of thing you see libertarians yucking about while mocking it relentlessly rather than foaming at the mouth defending.

                  That was kind of what I thought when I posted it. If I wanted to challenge people to strawman me about making racist arguments, I would have criticized the ‘social justice’ argument the rioter gave on Disquis or facebook.

  7. related:
    In defense of black rage: Michael Brown, police and the American dream

    I believe that racism exists in the inexplicable sense of fear, unsafety and gnawing anxiety that white people, be they officers with guns or just general folks moving about their lives, have when they encounter black people. I believe racism exists in that sense of mistrust, the extra precautions white people take when they encounter black people. I believe all these emotions have emerged from a lifetime of media consumption subtly communicating that black people are criminal, a lifetime of seeing most people in power look just like you, a lifetime of being the majority population. And I believe this subconscious sense of having lost control (of the universe) exists for white people, at a heightened level since the election of Barack Obama and the continued explosion of the non-white population.

    We study white people. We are taught this as a tool of survival. We know when there is unrest in the souls of white folks. We know that unrest, if not assuaged quickly, will lead to black death. Our suspicions, unlike those of white people, are proven right time and time again.

    trigger warning: Salon

    1. This seems to be a bizzaro version of John Derbyshire’s article that got him in hot water with National Review.

      1. Somehow, I doubt this writer will be in any hot water at Salon.

      2. It was responding in kind to a diluted version of Lord H’s quote that got Derbyshire sacked.

    2. Talk about projection.

    3. Yes. Racialist nonsense will save people like Michael Brown. These people are almost as much a part of the problem as the cops. They keep blaming these abstract concepts that keep them well-fed and take the pressure of the actual shit contributing to the problem, like police unions or progressive policies in general.

      1. Racialists are the most potent racists. They’re the only species of racist that be openly so and can openly demand racially based policies of favoritism, they openly demand a separate code of law to attack against transgressors against their racial sensitivities. Cops may be murdering thugs but the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are doing more harm to the well-being of black families than those murdering cops.

    4. but, but, not all whites . . . .

    5. I believe all these emotions have emerged from a lifetime of media consumption

      I’ll stop consuming anything written at Salon then.

    6. a lifetime of seeing most people in power look just like you, a lifetime of being the majority population.

      So are white people just as mistrustful of Asians and Hispanics?

    7. I love it how black racists act like they expect everyone else to not sterotype when confronted by reality.

      In their view we should always expect the best when encountering blacks even though reality says differently.

      I have no trouble differentiating between situations. The blacks I encounter in my daily life are different, and I react to them differently, than a group of young blacks I might meet on the street.

      Jesse Jackson said even he crosses the street when he sees some young blacks headed his way.

    8. Whenever I hear the word “folks,” I reach for my revolver.

    9. Yep. That was pretty fuckin’ stupid all right. Goddamn Salon.

      Really? It’s that hard to distinguish between “It’s perfectly justifiable that black people are angry at cops for shooting an unarmed teenager” and “But seriously, looting from the uninvolved is just wrong”?

  8. I don’t understand how anyone could think looting is going to endear/rally people to your cause, in fact it may be doing the opposite. Of course it seems to be working for ISIS who if I’m to believe npr are little more than a band of roving pirates that somehow armed themselves to the teeth and are looting to remain self funded.

    1. Like several others here, you assume that the looters are being honest when they say they are motivated by social concerns, and are not just common criminals looking for cover.

      1. Who said that? Use an actual quote and make an actual fucking argument.

      2. Tonio, I’ve re-read the exchanges between you and Free Society. Drop your non-argument. FS, and nobody else here “assume that the looters are being honest when they say they are motivated by social concerns, and are not just common criminals looking for cover.”

        Maybe you need a cup of coffee? Maybe a nap? Whatever you need to get your reading comprehension back in shape. 😉

        1. Thanks for the reassurance that I’m not high on crazy pills. I read and re-read trying find out what the fuck he’s talking about.

          1. It’s him, not you.

          2. I rarely comment.

            I’ve read the thread and Tonio looks like he’s off some very strong meds, or on some very strong meds – I can’t figure out which? He keeps repeating an argument and attributing that argument to a position you never took. It’s like some sort of not-fun episode of the Twilight Zone.

            1. Not sure why I said that, no such thing as a not fun episode of TZ, but if there was, it’d star Tonio making arguments against positions nobody took, over and over, in some sort of Groundhog Day loop.

              1. Why do you hate Italians?

              2. Not sure why I said that, no such thing as a not fun episode of TZ, but if there was, it’d star Tonio making arguments against positions nobody took, over and over, in some sort of Groundhog Day loop.

                LOL +1

                Yeah it’s frustrating to say the least. These types of debaters are rarer in libertarian circles, but not unheard of as Tonio has demonstrated.

        2. EDG: As much as I appreciate your doubtlessly well-intentioned advice I don’t take well to people telling me what to say or not to say. I take even less well to people defining my needs. [click]

          1. Typically when you make pathetically weak arguments to criticize positions that someone didn’t even take, it opens you up to valid criticism.

            1. Hey, don’t try that line. I’ve been making the same valid argument against a weak one for days now and it deteriorated into cries of racism and nazi in like 5 minutes flat.

              1. You must be doing something right.

          2. Careful, you’re going to put somebody’s out with that gigantic e-penis of yours.

    2. “I don’t understand how anyone could think looting is going to endear/rally people to your cause”

      This is not about endearment. It’s about escalation, upping the stakes. Time will tell whether it pays off.

  9. This despite cops finding contraband on 34 percent of whites stopped but only 22 percent of blacks

    That’s the right statistic to use, I think. Definitely settles the question of whether or not they’re making a disproportionate number of arrests.

    1. There we go! Finally someone who gets the argument I’ve been making!!!

      1. I dunno, briannnnn, I’m having a hard time taking you seriously because your name is spelled funny.

        1. It can make things difficult sometimes!

          1. Briannnnn is a black name! You think it’s funny?!? How dare you sir! We marched on Selma to end such criticism of funny black people names. Oh the humanity…

            1. Selma is a funny name too.

    2. No it isn’t. It’s close, but the weasel word “contraband” pretty much makes the figures useless.

      Untaxed cigarettes are contraband, stolen property is also contraband. Beer is contraband if you are under 21.

      1. +1

        Weasel word is right, it’s the worst kind of government whitewash. Lumping disperate crimes in together. Just a way to cover up the full extent of the force government uses to collect taxes. Didn’t pay taxes on that cigarette? That’s a beating, kidnapping, and incarceration for you. Didn’t they just kill someone for ‘untaxed cigarettes’?

    3. One, there are, if the article is correct, twice as many blacks as whites, and two, one can be arrested for reasons other than possessing contraband.

    4. Enh. Only sort of. “Contraband” includes everything from “unpasteurized milk” to “unlicensed artillery”.

      I suspect Truckerhat McHipster is less likely to be arrested for having a quart of freshly squeezed cow juice, than Ice-Cube is for having a non-tax-stamped Mac 11.

      1. Yes, but it doesn’t include outstanding warrants or ‘wanted for questioning’

        1. There’s that too. So, yes, multiple problems with that particular statement as a definitive measure of discriminatory arrest practices.

  10. I abet looters and think the scum who are using this as an excuse to steal should be shot. At the same time I am so sick of cops murdering people and completely escaping justice, I can’t help but smile watching these a wholes squirm as their city goes up in flames and they might be forced to hold a cop accountable for once. Outside of the victim and his family, I loath everyone involved here.

    1. I might actually applaud if black people on the streets of Ferguson start throwing bricks at police cars.

      But looters are fucking criminals.

      1. *I might actually applaud if black people on the streets of Ferguson start throwing bricks at police cars.*

        Mini-marts don’t shoot back.
        Cops do.

        1. Well that depends on the mini-marts. Korean owned businesses targeted in the LA riots in the 90’s used their sooperdooper scary assault rifles to defend their property with great success and little loss of life.

    2. I abet looters

      Oh john, this was yet another typeo that reduced me to tearful laughter.

      1. It sounds like John is asking to be shot. Is that funny or a cry for help?

        1. Maybe he is laughing whilecalling for help!

        2. My guess his either he meant to say “I abhore looters” or “I cannot abide looters”.

          Half the fun with hsi really great erros is figuring out what he thought he was writing while the ghost of Spooner hijacked his fingers.

          1. Half the fun with hsi really great erros

            Speaking of which…

          2. How did you learn about his “really great erros”?

      2. John’s typos are the best. It’s a craft. A gift from God.

        1. Truth. Mine are usually just clumsy misspellings.

  11. Why are you covering this situation in Missouri? Don’t you realize?
    A beloved actor is dead!

    1. #RIPfunnyman

  12. So I have watched about six interviews and have four different stories on what happened for witnesses in support of Michael Brown.

    The last time I encountered such differing opinions on what happened was when I asked a group of Jewish Rabbi’s about a couple issues in the Torah.

    All the witnesses can’t be right, but the can all be wrong. (this includes the police, as well.)

    1. I guess the police have no incentive to lie. Or use their video equipment.

  13. This is what happens when you allow urban areas to be invested with government-sponsored paramilitary terror groups.

  14. Per the BJS homicide number for 2002-11, the Black rate was 6.3 times higher than whites (some years climbing to 10x). Rape and robbery stats are the same. Anecdotally, the record-pacing homicide rate in my city this year has been almost 90% due to young black males along with essentially 100% of the armed robberies with video surveillance/reported.

    I don’t dispute that police target young black males disproportionately, but it also seems more than justified based on the reality of nearly every large city in this country.

    I’m all for limiting the reach of the police and their militarization, but when they are under attack from this particular group of the population at all times (one cop killed in my city this year and at least 7 others shot at; all by black males), I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.

    1. Dude. Your statistics are racist. You must just hate people with black blood.

    2. No way to win this.

      IF the police don’t patrol high crime minority neighborhoods, than the are racist for ignoring the poor minorities in favor of the “rich”.

      If the police patrol the high crime minority neighborhood, and arrest minorities to a higher rate than Whites, than that is considered racist.

      It’s just like the problem of Social Justice Warroirs and gentrification.

      Anything less than give use the white peoples credit cards and apartments for little to no rent and its racist.

      FILTH!

      1. Dude! You’re such a racist for trying to point out things that you’ve noticed. GO BACK TO THE HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF!!!

      2. The way to “win” this is simple:

        First, you allow ordinary citizens to arm themselves in their own defense.

        Then, you left them kick out the government-sponsored paramilitary terror groups masquerading as “law enforcement.”

        You end up with local citizen constables enforcing local community standards. That’s actually a win, unless you hate black people.

        1. First, you allow ordinary citizens to arm themselves in their own defense.

          You’re already in the minority in every Democrat-controlled large city in the U.S. The city governments and their constituents are actively working against you. A citizen armed for her own defense is already considered a criminal in New Jersey, for example.

    3. The poor mostly-black neighborhood is a complex beast few wish to understand- mostly because it’s poor and mostly black.

  15. This is embarrassing. Do we really have to tolerate these Nazi cunts?

    1. I guess all you can do is hope there are a few judges out there that will make up the law. The American people still, for whatever ridiculous reason, trust the police, so I doubt we’ll ever fix this democratically…at least not in the near future :/

      1. It’s not just that the average Merican trusts the police they are mainly conditioned to trust only the establishment which is the container housing law enforcement.

        I’d call it trickle-down trust. The cops are just very fucking lucky the average human being is wired to appreciate social predictability and political tradition over ethics and intelligent reform of failing systems.

        1. ABut, as is often demonstrated at Reason, the cops are getting less predictable, tending more to Mr. Hyde’s behavior rather than that of Dr. Jekyll.

    2. I suppose Reason is enjoying the reduction of value that they bring to the board.

      This is why I should have been voted in as Moderator. Their kind of scum would be dispatched to the wilderness, without delay.

      1. I just assumed he was referring to the police in the article. For someone who sees racism where it doesn’t exist, you sure are full of hate!

        1. For someone who sees racism where it doesn’t exist, you sure are full of hate!

          That describes most people who see racism where it doesn’t exist: full of hate. Usually self hatred.

      2. Their kind of scum would be dispatched to the wilderness, without delay.

        Kind of a final solution to the Nazi problem, as it were?

        Internet badassery about kicking other people’s asses or silencing their opinions is just libertarian as all fuck.

        1. Don’t get him stirred up. I think I gave him a heart attack already. Very emotional. I’m guessing he’s a closet Lib. Only they can get so upset confounding a racial comment with a racist one.

        2. Where did I threaten violence in any way?

          And silencing opinions on your own property, either directly or by proxy, is about as libertarian as you can get.

          1. BooHoo fagit. Go cuddle up with some hot coco and a blanky and cry yourself to sleep.

    3. It’s getting pretty fucking tedious. They keep responding to every comment no matter how unrelated, fishing for responses. Seems there’s a word for that, but I seem to have misplaced it. Maybe over there under that bridge.

      1. How many times has he openly admitted to trolling? And people still fall for it.

        1. I’m not a troll I’m a Nazi. You said it yourself.

          1. I’m considered a troll, but that’s because I live in Michigan’s lower peninsula.

            1. And stay under that bridge softie. Only Jack Pine Savages need apply up here.

              (Feckers bitch about a mere 6 feet of snow)

    4. The board is suddenly flooded with race baiting trolls. Very tedious. Until now, I have only blocked white injun, PB and Bo. Looks like there are several new handles to add to the “disregard these dipshits” list.

    1. Spike Lee is a dipshit and should be shot in the face with a bazooka.

      The police don’t care what color you are. We are all enemy combatants in their eyes. You and I are the enemy.

      People like Spike Lee, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be water boarded for being the race-hustling poverty-pimps that they are.

  16. … while blacks make up two-thirds of the population, they are twice as likely to be stopped by police as whites…

    The construction of this statement appears to suggest that blacks are disproportionately stopped, thereby implying discrimination.

    However, the math does not support such an implication. You see, two-thirds [of the population] is twice one-third (2/3 = 1/3 * 2).

    I will assume that the remaining one-third of the population is not homogeneously white. Therefore, when there are (more than) twice as many blacks as whites in then population, being “twice as likely to be stopped” is exactly proportional. That hardly suggests discrimination.

  17. Apparently the LEO’s fired tear gas at people who were protesting while standing on their own property.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..mg00000067

  18. And by Halloween, most of this will be long forgotten. By Christmas, no one outside of most immediate family and community will care.

    What’s going to change? Is the black community community ever going to vote to weaken government unions of anything? Police, teachers, etc? Make pensions and tenures dependent on performance? No, only racist tea baggers want something like that.

    What if we just want to cut expected rise in future spending on police? Or question whether it’s wise to increase police presence in a community? Oh, you guys endanger children’s lives and want to give free money to corporations.

    Some radical right winger may be even suggest using a private police force. That’s like flooding the streets with paid mercenaries! We need accountability on the streets, you know.

    Expect the ruling class to appease the rioters with nonsense like diversity driven hiring policy.

    1. ^THIS all day every day.

      Note that those most vulnerable to government abuse are those most dependent on government largesse. When you invite the government into your home, vampire-like, it never leaves. If you ever want to see what Progtopia looks like, take a gander at your nearest public housing project. Or the shittier area of the inner city.

      1. “When you invite the government into your home, vampire-like, it never leaves.”

        Need help disinviting the government? I guess you need to pay more attention to foreign affairs. The government has been sent packing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

  19. Yahoo free shopping day’s. Gettin that flat screen, clothes and some weaves. This all be for dawg what his name be anyhow it for you dawg.

  20. The statistics for arrests by race for the St Louis area are at:

    http://www.slmpd.org/press_room.shtml

    Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime (murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery. etc.). This is why they are arrested more often, and this is why they are in prison in large numbers.

    Period.

    How do you plan to deal with this situation? Arrest innocent non-blacks so that the numbers work out to the same proportion as the populace? Let black criminals go free so there is no disparate impact?

    I’d like to see someone here come up with a real solution.

    Any takers?

  21. This is sloppy reasoning:

    … while blacks make up two-thirds of the population, they are twice as likely to be stopped by police as whites, 80 percent of stops are of black residents, and they account for 93 percent of arrests and 92 percent of searches. This despite cops finding contraband on 34 percent of whites stopped but only 22 percent of blacks, according to a racial profiling report from the Missouri’s attorney general last year.

    You are confusing stops with arrests. Blacks are arrested 90+% of the time because they commit 90+% of murders and armed robberies in Ferguson. You are trying to confuse the issue by mixing up arrests for violent crime with finding contraband.

    I have to ask, what is your purpose? Do you think that by taking the side of the rioters, Reason will perform outreach to all those potential libertarians in the streets?

    How’s that working? Are they joining the LP and subscribing to Reason?

  22. DASH CAM can also prevent violence,
    Fair and what we want

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.