Broadening its push to improve police relations with minorities, the Justice Department has enlisted a team of criminal justice researchers to study racial bias in law enforcement in five American cities and recommend strategies to address the problem nationally, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday.
The police shooting last month of an unarmed black 18-year-old in Ferguson, Missouri underscored the need for the long-planned initiative, Holder said in an interview with The Associated Press.
He said the three-year project could be a “silver lining” if it helps ease racial tensions and “pockets of distrust that show up between law enforcement and the communities that they serve.”
Yes, this is the same Eric Holder who still refuses to prosecute glaring examples of Back against white hate crimes.
Read the full article at FoxNews.com.
First of all a little common sense. Blacks comprise just over 13% of the US population. Let’s start with that. By ignoring that number, Liberals can distort the stats anyway they like. The USA Today article (which I’m not using for obvious reasons) claimed, “Command of the Army’s main combat units — its pipeline to top leadership — is virtually devoid of black officers”, then in the second paragraph mentioned that only 10% of officers are Black. So according to brain-dead Liberals, 3% below the national level is “virtually devoid”.
The Washington Times, while referencing USA Today’s moronic OpEd (posing as an article), attempted to pull some meaningful data out…
U.S. Army sociologists are worried that a lack of black officers leading its combat troops will have detrimental effect on minorities and lead to fewer black officers in top leadership posts.
“The issue exists. The leadership is aware of it,” Brig. Gen. Ronald Lewis told USA Today on Thursday. “The leadership does have an action plan in place. And it’s complicated.”
The Army reports that only 10 percent of its active-duty officers are black, which has contributed to its dearth of black officers leading soldiers with occupational specialties in infantry, armor and artillery.
They are still being whiney about the 10% number while ignoring the reality that it’s not that far below the national average. More importantly, the military, at least for the past several decades, has a well deserved reputation for not allowing race to interfere with their job. That apparently will now come to an end as Obama seeks to stir up racial strife by demanding quotas, rather than actual competency in military advancement.
That rumbling sound would be Martin Luther King jr, spinning in his grave.
In the deadly force experiments participants (85 percent white) face a life-sized HD video screen on which the stance, clothing, hand motions, objects being held, and race of suspects can all be modified. The subjects are hooked up to brain wave measuring devices and can respond using a laser gun. The press materials from Washington State University detailing the results report:
Participants in an innovative Washington State University study of deadly force were more likely to feel threatened in scenarios involving black people. But when it came time to shoot, participants were biased in favor of black suspects, taking longer to pull the trigger against them than against armed white or Hispanic suspects…
[WSU researcher Lois] James’ study is a follow-up to one in which she found active police officers, military personnel and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects. Participants were also more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than black or Hispanic ones and more likely to fail to fire at armed black suspects.
“In other words,” wrote James and her co-authors, “there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.”
When confronted by an armed white person, participants took an average of 1.37 seconds to fire back. Confronted by an armed black person, they took 1.61 seconds to fire and were less likely to fire in error. The 240-millisecond* difference may seem small, but it’s enough to be fatal in a shooting.
This hesitation occurred even though the electroencephalograph generally identified brain wave patterns indicating significantly greater threat responses against black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects.
Read the full article at Reason.com.
The altercation began at about 1 a.m. when Ralph Weems and the friend, David Knighten, chose to go inside the Waffle House. Knighten said they made this decision after a man in the parking lot diplomatically suggested that they should leave because the patrons inside were angry about the Aug. 9 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Thus, the unidentified man explained, the restaurant would not be a safe place for two white people.
According to Knighten, Weems, 32, began arguing with customers not long after he entered the Waffle House. It’s not clear what was said or what was in dispute. After the police eventually showed up, Weems and Knighten left.
On the way home, the pair decided to stop at a Huddle House — a similar, less iconic eatery that dots the South. The Huddle House was in West Point. Miss.
A group of people followed Weems and Knighten to the mostly empty Huddle House parking lot. A security guard told everyone to leave. However, Weems and Knighten found that some of the men had blocked their way.
Knighten told reporters he was trying to diffuse the situation. When a security guard told everyone to leave, Knighten said he was blocked from getting to Weems, who was on the ground being kicked by a group of people. Knighten said others then attacked him.“I do remember racial slurs being yelled from the crowd,” he told the Associated Press.
Police Chief Tim Brinkley , who could not be reached for comment Monday, said in the release that the attack right now is an aggravated assault investigation, and that the cause is not yet determined.
“This does not appear to be a hate crime,” he said.
Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination?
This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn’t, then effective solutions will be elusive forever. To begin to get a handle on the answer, let’s pull up a few historical facts about black Americans.
In 1950, female-headed households were 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. Herbert Gutman, author of “The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925,” reports, “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.
Coupled with the dramatic breakdown in the black family structure has been an astonishing growth in the rate of illegitimacy. The black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was about 14 percent; black illegitimacy today is over 70 percent, and in some cities, it is over 80 percent.
The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask this question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what experts call the “legacy of slavery” wait several generations to victimize today’s blacks?
Read the full OpEd at CNSNews.com.
Personally, I’ve been sitting the fence on the Ferguson thing. Mike Brown was obviously a bit of a bully, but then again so are a lot of cops. We have only a handful of witnesses, all of them heavily biased one way or another. The “facts” that emerge are disproved even before they can be tweeted with a “This changes everything!…” gasp. But nothing irritates me and I’ll assume a whole lot of other Americans, of all races, than jumping the gun, declaring one side the winner, with no evidence to support such a conclusion.
The White House sent three officials to attend Monday’s funeral for Michael Brown in St. Louis — three more than it sent for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s funeral last year. The administration’s handling of the Brown funeral already has started to raise comparisons between the two.
For Monday’s funeral, the White House sent two officials with the White House Office of Public Engagement as well as Broderick Johnson, chairman of the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force.
No White House officials, though, were part of the presidential delegation sent last year to Thatcher’s funeral. For that, the White House sent former secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker III — as well as the charge d’affaires to the U.K. and the former U.S. ambassador.
The thought will be echoing through the minds of most Americans (and Brits as well), “Well of course, Thatcher was white and Brown was Black.”
Obama sure is doing a lot for race relations, isn’t he.