No, I'm just not understanding what you're talking about. I don't see the connection between over-policing and lynchings.
Just listen to what Military veteran and former police Sgt Michael Wood is telling you about how this works and then you will understand. I linked his interviews above. He lays it out pretty well and makes it perfectly clear to understand.
I don't have 43 minutes to watch an interview, but if you could, just take 30 seconds to define what you mean by "over-policing", that would be helpful.
Actually kinda both at the same time. I mean if you see an area that has a bit more crime then another and put more cops in it then you will find more crime being committed just on the basis that there are more people there to catch it happening. And from there the problem becomes exacerbated by a decrease trust in the additional police presence so you end up with more of a confrontational tone between the two groups.
You should take the time to listen to what he is telling us here. It is really that important. Once you do, I will discuss the rest of what is considered "over policing" that he didn't cover outside of what he actually covered: the cops intentionally lying about black people, intentionally destroying their property, kicking them in the face for shits and giggles, ripping the houses apart and constantly threatening and belittling them as " part of their job" as an expected part of " being one of the good guys". It is well worth listening to what the cops are telling us is REALLY happening here. You pretty much need to to be able to have an educated discussion on this. He makes it pretty clear it isn't about a random racist cop, it is actually designed this way.
So if you were to direct a similar amount of resources towards, say, a predominately white, affluent, suburban area, would you expect there to be similar numbers of crime as you would find in a predominately black, poor, ghetto?
At a basic level, it's just about the weak and poor being kept in line. Obviously in the context of the USA, there's a racial subtext that black people were the weakest and poorest. The police are the enforcement arm of the community. Where those with power in the community are racist, so the police will be an enforcement arm of racists. Observe the civil rights movement era, it's clear to see that law enforcement was not remotely about "crime", it was enforcing the sociopolitical order on black people who wanted to challenge it.
There are all sorts of philosophical questions we can ask about what a "crime" is, but it's probably an unnecessary tangent.
You are making a false dichotomy here. But for the sake of argument lets say that there was 45% of the crime in the affluent white area and 55% in the black ghetto at the start, then as you shift more police presence to the black area you start finding more and more crime, eventually its going to look more like 25% white and 75% black. Mainly because of a combination of cops finding all those little crimes that everyone does that usually aren't really noticed and additional crime because of less trust in the police from them stopping you for every little infraction and even more crime because the police start to view all the people in this area as criminal because the people don't trust the cops so they don't trust the people.
Dude doesn't even read his own links. Like fuck is he going to listen to someone telling him what he doesn't want to hear.
See, I'm an optimist. I always believe in the good in people and believe that people are generally good. This is hard for me to believe without any sort of evidence. If you just say "police are evil and racist and secretly Hydra and want to keep the little man down" that just sounds to me like a comic book fantasy.
Well, people are using the argument "it's not that more crimes are actually being committed, it's just that police know about more crimes because they're over-policing this area", so what is "a crime actually is" and "how many crimes there actually are" seems relevant.
The "disproportionate amount of crime" arguments are centered around violent crime, so I don't think this bit of the argument works. Furthermore, over-policing does not cause one to beat their wife.
I'm not disagreeing with you about all the other snowballing factors at play, but it seems to me that you're saying that a disproportionate amount of crime caused over-policing, not the other way around.
I mean the start of it might be violent crime but there are lots of little crimes that everyone does each day, speeding probably being the most common. If you are with a group that always gets caught for those then you will start to distrust the police and when you distrust the police then you have to have your own means of protection, such as gangs and you will usually get rival gangs which contributes to higher violent crime in an area, less police trust and so on. Adding race to the mix makes things even worse since it allows the two groups to become more insular and view themselves as a collective who are at odds with the other group and vice versa.
To some extent it does. But it doesn't have to be a huge amount of difference to snowball. It could just be like 5 to 10% more crime in an area and then they increase police presence to combat that and things just go nuts.
Which ties into the fact that the American fetishism for the archetype of the "Virtuous Fascist" means we expect cops to do literally everything. Law enforcement, medical emergencies, school security, etc. And somehow the system is convinced that this comprehensive skill set and education can be achieved in (checks notes)... 2 months of training.
You're looking for a neat, simple explanation where there is none. A lot of this is cyclical, systemic, and causes and effects get blurred and confused. Especially when it comes to the realm of policy proposals to solve any of this.
Ding ding! That was the correct answer. The current law enforcement paradigm is about creating the illusion of effective policing while in reality it's purely political and often riven with corruption that goes all the way to the top. American police exist only to protect their own power and that of the wealthy elites. They pick on the most disempowered members of society, but don't dare fuck with somebody who has enough money to make their jobs difficult. They're class traitors, every single one of them.
If you are constantly getting hassled by cops for what you view as trivial reasons and no longer trust them for protection, then what do you do to protect your community?
You're not wrong, but I don't think you are right either. I don't think we truly expect them to deal with all that. I mean in the sense of what the public thinks police do, as opposed to what they actually do. And some of that is stuff you kinda want a police presence for, like if there is a medical emergency, it really comes down to who can get there first, since you just need someone with training on scene, down here unless police are needed, like for stopping traffic or something, you will just get fire and ambulance services. For school security, its weird that we have armed officers in them, but something is needed. Also, police training varies wildly depending on where they are located.
The "incident at Oglala" comes to mind. I bring this up not to argue Leonard Peltier's guilt or innocence, but because the whole reason people on the reservation were forming armed posses is because the local government was so corrupt it was sending hired thugs into the reservation to shake people down. They came to the conclusion that they were on their own and would have to act accordingly. Which they did. They got punished for it while the corrupt politicos who caused the whole clusterfuck got off without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Consider the number of times the police get called in for a mental health crisis and instead of helping, just put bullets in people. A gun, nightstick and taser are shitty substitutes for actual medical training. Also consider the number of cases we now have on video of cops assaulting and beating the shit out of students like an 8th their size.
It’s 1964, and a Civil Rights Act passes that mandates that suddenly people of color are equal to the majority white people they went from being subjugated to and only more recently less so in that they were segregated from.
USA