4 ms·

A racist crime report will have real world consequences though - it's not just thoughts in someones head. It will involve other people and potentially the poli

by ap3 10y ago

A racist crime report will have real world consequences though - it's not just thoughts in someones head. It will involve other people and potentially the police.

beat 10y ago
Remember, these kinds of racially biased reports can get people killed. That's not insignificant.
- smsm42 10y ago
  Reports don't get people killed. People (usually, police) shooting other people get people killed. Reporter has no control (unless they specifically and purposely misrepresent the situation, e.g. falsely reporting somebody firing a gun when they have none) over police actions. The police should bear the responsibility for the outcomes, not reporters or online platform or any other factor that did not actually make a decision to pull the trigger.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Reports lead to those people getting killed. And the reporters absolutely should bear some responsibility when they report someone simply for being black in the wrong neighborhood.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Reports never killed anybody. You can't kill a person with a report. Police is not some mindless robots that are programmed to kill on a press of a button. They are humans, and they should bear full responsibility for their choices, not somebody who asked them to perform their direct function (for which they are paid from the same person's money, btw).
      - int_19h 10y ago
        Their direct function is not to investigate suspicious instances of walking while black. It's to investigate actual things that lead to crime. So, when someone does report a person as suspicious solely on account of race, and that leads to, say, a police shooting the person - the person that reported certainly shares part of the guilt. And doubly so if, due to race-only description, police end up targeting the wrong person.
        smsm42 10y ago
        > Their direct function is not to investigate suspicious instances of walking while black. True. Their direct function (one of) is investigating suspicious instances. Period. If the instance turns out to be just a black man walking by their business, they should say "sorry to bother you, sir" and both continue with their day. This happened to me several times in various countries - police approached me, asked me some questions, ensured I am neither threat not in need of help and we parted ways amicably. The fact that a black person has smaller chance to such resolution than a white person who looks like me is a problem (both from moral and utilitarian standpoints), but it's not a problem of reporting, it is a problem of whoever taking decision on this resolution. It's a simple thing - whoever is doing a wrong thing, is to blame for the wrong thing. Since when it became a problem to see things like this? > when someone does report a person as suspicious solely on account of race Obviously not the case in this discussion. In fact, I would submit it very rarely if ever happens "solely* on account of race. Even the most crazy, vitriolic, hateful anti-black racist does not report any random black person they meet to the police. They may hate them, they may scowl at them - but even these crazed bigots would know police will need something more. Now, there's no doubt that for many people race is a factor - sometimes a major one - but rarely it is the only one. In the case under discussion, the person was on other's property, while not invited, behaving in unusual manner (not just passing by). Turns out the unusual manner was of innocent kind, probably complicated by mental issues, but again, > and that leads to, say, a police shooting the person - the person that reported certainly shares part of the guilt. Nope. Shooting an innocent person is not a reasonable response to a suspicion complaint. And blaming people for unreasonable and unlawful behavior of others is not right. If reasonable person can and should predict this behavior - i.e. if the police in this place is publicly known to be racist and trigger-happy - then the reporter may have some share of the guilt, but then again the first question that needs to be asked is how come everybody knows the police here is racist and trigger happy and it's still not fixed? > And doubly so if, due to race-only description, police end up targeting the wrong person. That did not happen in the case we are discussing - while we assume the person was treated as a threat even if he wasn't, there's no doubt and controversy that it was about the same person and there was no mistaken identity. While race is not a good qualifier alone (too broad, of course), I don't see how removing it would reduce the chance of the police targeting the wrong person. After all, if the person of concern is of certain race, by pointing out the race you reduce the set of potential mistargeting victims to persons belonging to that race, and if you do not mention it at all, the potential set is all people - which is surely a larger set and thus possibility of mistargeting is larger. You can not reduce the probability of mistargeting by making your targeting selectivity worse. Of course, you can claim race is not enough for identification - and that's certainly true. The police should be trained to solicit more details.
  - KingMob 10y ago
    Are plane crashes are only caused by gravity, or is that engine that caught fire somehow related? Please, don't be pedantic. Police make mistakes, and have their own biases, to boot. If you call them on some random non-white person in your neighborhood, and disaster ensues, you're partly culpable.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      It's not pedantry. Gravity has no will and no choice, thus blaming gravity is useless. Police does have will and choice - it's not a law of nature that if you call the police they'll kill somebody, police is not a gun or any other mechanism that you just fire. These are people, who have free will, minds and responsibility for their actions. That's the whole point, only humans can take blame, and when their choices result in bad results, they should take blame for their choices, not redirect it to others. > Police make mistakes, and have their own biases, to boot. You say it as if it's some kind of excuse. It's funny that for reporter have biases is a culpable offense, but for the police it comes out as a defense instead. It doesn't work this way. In fact, random civilians have full right to be wrong, police are (or supposed to be) trained professionals that are paid to be better than civilians at this. So for them to behave worse than a random civilian should be a firing offense, not an excuse. > If you call them on some random non-white person in your neighborhood, and disaster ensues, you're partly culpable. Nope. The police function is to protect people. If they instead hurt innocent people, this is their fault, not somebody's that called on their direct and proper function. Their refusal to perform the function is their fault. Just as if you walk on the street and get mugged, you are not "partly culpable", because you could've walked on other street or stayed home - people who mugged you are fully culpable, because it was their choice to do it. If you assign blame at the wrong place, they only result would be that people that need to change won't change, and you get more of the same problem. Which we are amply witnessing right now.
      - KingMob 10y ago
        But the sad reality is whether it's a mistake or prejudice, police wield deadly force, so calling them always has the possibility of someone dying. Should they be held to a higher standard? Yes. But many aren't, and until that happens, thinking otherwise is wishful or naive. If you call the police, and it spirals out of control, you DO bear some measure of responsibility. Not as much as the actual police, but it's not zero, either, especially if your call is racially motivated. Mugging isn't a counterexample, because the mugger and the muggee have completely opposite desires in the situation. Nobody calls up a mugger and invites them to their neighborhood. Whereas, when you call the cops, you're somewhat in alignment.
  - prawn 10y ago
    Sure, ultimately the policeman with the gun firing his weapon is responsible, but if they're relying on a community report that says "I think he had a gun", they're going to enter the situation very, very warily. You can see how the report is a serious, contributing factor.

by ap3 10y ago

A racist crime report will have real world consequences though - it's not just thoughts in someones head. It will involve other people and potentially the police.

beat 10y ago

Remember, these kinds of racially biased reports can get people killed. That's not insignificant.

smsm42 10y ago
Reports don't get people killed. People (usually, police) shooting other people get people killed. Reporter has no control (unless they specifically and purposely misrepresent the situation, e.g. falsely reporting somebody firing a gun when they have none) over police actions. The police should bear the responsibility for the outcomes, not reporters or online platform or any other factor that did not actually make a decision to pull the trigger.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Reports lead to those people getting killed. And the reporters absolutely should bear some responsibility when they report someone simply for being black in the wrong neighborhood.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Reports never killed anybody. You can't kill a person with a report. Police is not some mindless robots that are programmed to kill on a press of a button. They are humans, and they should bear full responsibility for their choices, not somebody who asked them to perform their direct function (for which they are paid from the same person's money, btw).
    - int_19h 10y ago
      Their direct function is not to investigate suspicious instances of walking while black. It's to investigate actual things that lead to crime. So, when someone does report a person as suspicious solely on account of race, and that leads to, say, a police shooting the person - the person that reported certainly shares part of the guilt. And doubly so if, due to race-only description, police end up targeting the wrong person.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        > Their direct function is not to investigate suspicious instances of walking while black. True. Their direct function (one of) is investigating suspicious instances. Period. If the instance turns out to be just a black man walking by their business, they should say "sorry to bother you, sir" and both continue with their day. This happened to me several times in various countries - police approached me, asked me some questions, ensured I am neither threat not in need of help and we parted ways amicably. The fact that a black person has smaller chance to such resolution than a white person who looks like me is a problem (both from moral and utilitarian standpoints), but it's not a problem of reporting, it is a problem of whoever taking decision on this resolution. It's a simple thing - whoever is doing a wrong thing, is to blame for the wrong thing. Since when it became a problem to see things like this? > when someone does report a person as suspicious solely on account of race Obviously not the case in this discussion. In fact, I would submit it very rarely if ever happens "solely* on account of race. Even the most crazy, vitriolic, hateful anti-black racist does not report any random black person they meet to the police. They may hate them, they may scowl at them - but even these crazed bigots would know police will need something more. Now, there's no doubt that for many people race is a factor - sometimes a major one - but rarely it is the only one. In the case under discussion, the person was on other's property, while not invited, behaving in unusual manner (not just passing by). Turns out the unusual manner was of innocent kind, probably complicated by mental issues, but again, > and that leads to, say, a police shooting the person - the person that reported certainly shares part of the guilt. Nope. Shooting an innocent person is not a reasonable response to a suspicion complaint. And blaming people for unreasonable and unlawful behavior of others is not right. If reasonable person can and should predict this behavior - i.e. if the police in this place is publicly known to be racist and trigger-happy - then the reporter may have some share of the guilt, but then again the first question that needs to be asked is how come everybody knows the police here is racist and trigger happy and it's still not fixed? > And doubly so if, due to race-only description, police end up targeting the wrong person. That did not happen in the case we are discussing - while we assume the person was treated as a threat even if he wasn't, there's no doubt and controversy that it was about the same person and there was no mistaken identity. While race is not a good qualifier alone (too broad, of course), I don't see how removing it would reduce the chance of the police targeting the wrong person. After all, if the person of concern is of certain race, by pointing out the race you reduce the set of potential mistargeting victims to persons belonging to that race, and if you do not mention it at all, the potential set is all people - which is surely a larger set and thus possibility of mistargeting is larger. You can not reduce the probability of mistargeting by making your targeting selectivity worse. Of course, you can claim race is not enough for identification - and that's certainly true. The police should be trained to solicit more details.
- KingMob 10y ago
  Are plane crashes are only caused by gravity, or is that engine that caught fire somehow related? Please, don't be pedantic. Police make mistakes, and have their own biases, to boot. If you call them on some random non-white person in your neighborhood, and disaster ensues, you're partly culpable.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    It's not pedantry. Gravity has no will and no choice, thus blaming gravity is useless. Police does have will and choice - it's not a law of nature that if you call the police they'll kill somebody, police is not a gun or any other mechanism that you just fire. These are people, who have free will, minds and responsibility for their actions. That's the whole point, only humans can take blame, and when their choices result in bad results, they should take blame for their choices, not redirect it to others. > Police make mistakes, and have their own biases, to boot. You say it as if it's some kind of excuse. It's funny that for reporter have biases is a culpable offense, but for the police it comes out as a defense instead. It doesn't work this way. In fact, random civilians have full right to be wrong, police are (or supposed to be) trained professionals that are paid to be better than civilians at this. So for them to behave worse than a random civilian should be a firing offense, not an excuse. > If you call them on some random non-white person in your neighborhood, and disaster ensues, you're partly culpable. Nope. The police function is to protect people. If they instead hurt innocent people, this is their fault, not somebody's that called on their direct and proper function. Their refusal to perform the function is their fault. Just as if you walk on the street and get mugged, you are not "partly culpable", because you could've walked on other street or stayed home - people who mugged you are fully culpable, because it was their choice to do it. If you assign blame at the wrong place, they only result would be that people that need to change won't change, and you get more of the same problem. Which we are amply witnessing right now.
    - KingMob 10y ago
      But the sad reality is whether it's a mistake or prejudice, police wield deadly force, so calling them always has the possibility of someone dying. Should they be held to a higher standard? Yes. But many aren't, and until that happens, thinking otherwise is wishful or naive. If you call the police, and it spirals out of control, you DO bear some measure of responsibility. Not as much as the actual police, but it's not zero, either, especially if your call is racially motivated. Mugging isn't a counterexample, because the mugger and the muggee have completely opposite desires in the situation. Nobody calls up a mugger and invites them to their neighborhood. Whereas, when you call the cops, you're somewhat in alignment.
- prawn 10y ago
  Sure, ultimately the policeman with the gun firing his weapon is responsible, but if they're relying on a community report that says "I think he had a gun", they're going to enter the situation very, very warily. You can see how the report is a serious, contributing factor.