NYPD turning its back on DeBlasio

You can't be this ridiculous. I get that a lot of white people can be uncomfortable when they don't get to unilaterally define when race matters and when it doesn't, but come on.

This is a very good read -- "The Science Of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men." It explores the psychological testing that went on after the Amadou Diallo case (cops fired 41 shots at an unarmed, innocent man because he took his wallet out of his pocket and they "thought it was a gun."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/science-of-racism-prejudice

But it's not just guns and tools flashing on the screen: Before each object you see a face, either white or black. The faces appear for a split second, the objects for a split second, and then you have to press a key. If you are faster and more accurate at identifying guns after you see a black face than after you see a white face, that would suggest your brain associates guns (and threat) more with the former. You might also be more inclined to wrongly think you see a gun, when it's actually just a tool, right after seeing a black face. (The weapons task was created by psychologist Keith Payne of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in response to the tragic 1999 death of Amadou Diallo, a Guinean immigrant shot by New York City police after the officers mistook the wallet in his hand for a weapon.)

I'll just let you go to the link and see what the results of the tests were.

 

His own view is that it is a net positive. He also says New York beat the rate compared to other cities because of its size, which doesn't make sense because it is a rate.

 

First, he said NY beat the average change in rate--not the rate--because of it's size.

Second (and relatedly), he says that NY is a big city and the crime rates went up and down more in big cities during the relevant time period. His theory is that the size of the city is related to the crime rate--he was not stating a mathematical equation. You can agree or disagree with that, but I'm not sure why it doesn't make sense.

 

New York's murder rate in 2013 was 3.3 per 100,000 people.

Lincoln, Neb.'s, murder rate was 1.1. per 100,000 people over the same time period.

Why aren't more NYPD officers losing their jobs? Why all of the excuses? Why doesn't New York City have a homicide rate as low as that of Lincoln, Neb.'s? Do any NYPD officers ever get fired over this? Why not?

Most importantly, why is the union protecting these bad police officers who have allowed New York City to have a murder rate three times the rate of Lincoln, Neb.?

 

Unless he's referring to being able to devote more resources due to a larger size, the size of the city (population, geography) really shouldn't matter in terms of changing the crime rate.

 

Um, hello, Omaha is 86% WHITE. New York City is less than half. Why do you think there's a disparity???

 

Nonetheless, I find it abhorrent that this union is protecting bad police officers who have permitted New York City to have a murder rate three times that of Lincoln, Neb.'s. The murder rate of New York City is measurable, and the statistics do not lie. There are a lot of people in other professions who would love to be New York City police officers. Why is the union standing in the way?

 

I have no idea what is theory is--but he clearly has some theory and wasn't merely asserting a mathematical proof, as your comment suggested he was doing.

 

I don't think a realistic job expectation of a police officer is to prevent murders. Unless it's maybe Tom Cruise looking into the future.

 

He's doing an absurdist commentary on Yankee's teacher stance.

 

To me, the answer is charter police departments. We need to put the profit motive to work here by closing ineffective police departments like NYPD and investing in charter police departments.

 

Perhaps we can even staff them with fresh-faced and eager 22-year-olds with no experience and a whole five weeks of training. Police for America. It will be a great bullet point on their resumes.