Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

So, I don't know if it's worth noting, but the thing I find weird about this protest is that earlier in the month Clinton and BLM/Campaign Zero leaders actually had a sit down meeting to discuss issues and policy.

While I think it's perfectly fine to protest wherever they see fit and draw attention to the problems being faced, I think this kind of highlights that they need to improve their organisational infrastructure and internal communication a bit.

It doesn't really seem like her campaign, or for that matter a Clinton presidency, would be hugely resistant to further such meetings and discussions either, so far as I can tell - which could be more fruitful.

And at some point, as already noted, movements aimed at drawing attention to problems usually need to get involved in the policy development towards creating solutions.

IIRC, it's a completely disparate movement with no real structure, where the groups aren't really interacting with each other. Hence, one day they're faceplanting with Clinton, the next day she's speaking to Campaign Zero.

The slope in Canada and most of Europe is the same: high crime in the 70s/80s/early 90s and a huge dropoff afterwards. The difference is we didn't have to have higher incarceration rates than North Korea to pull that off.

Yup. Removing lead from the environment appears to have been a root cause of this change. But the group that is most affected by residual lead in the US? African-Americans. Cleaning up paint in housing/schools/etc should be a priority, but its not.

 

[benjipwns]

We've also had a change in how easily one gets into prison.

Get a fine you can't pay, miss your court date because you have no transportation or can't lose your job, get more fines, get advised by your public defender in a way that's not your best interest but closes your case. Often with some jail time. Harms you financially and socially, statistically increases your chances of returning to jail.

 

[Mumei]

I just get the impression that yelling "black lives matter" is the most important aspect behind Black Lives Matter.

It might seem that way - I think because that aspect gets the most attention and is the most widely-reported, so far as I can tell - but it does have its effect: Candidates have met with people associated with BLM on multiple occasions. In this Medium article - which Las7 pointed out already, but I'm going to repeat! - DeRay talks about the meetings they had with Sanders and Clinton:

I recently joined protestors and activists in meeting with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton to discuss the #BlackLivesMatter movement and policy proposals, anchored in #CampaignZero, to end police violence.

We have also requested meetings with Martin O'Malley, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson. In general, we are open to meeting with any candidate seeking to be the next President to discuss these ideas.

While police violence is a key issue to the movement, it is clear that there are a range of issues important to blackness that are beyond police violence and/or criminal justice. In these conversations with Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, we began by focusing on police violence and then broadened the scope of the conversation.

For these meetings we request at least one hour with the candidate and at least 30–45 minutes with the candidate’s staff after the candidate leaves. The goal is to both influence the candidate and their staff, who are often best versed in the details of specific legislation or policies.

In preparation for meeting with the candidates, we review their previously stated policy positions and the campaigns published platform so we can develop specific questions on focused topics that support a robust discussion.

Bernie Sanders has released a Racial Justice Platform.

Hillary Clinton has published initial drafts of a Criminal Justice Platform & Voting Rights Platform.

Links to both are included, as well as links to preparation and reflection documents, including notes from the meeting, used for the meetings with the respective candidates. I think it's also worth noting for the skeptical that even on issues where the president lacks individual authority, pushing the presidential candidate's campaign in a particular direction effectively pushes the party platform in that direction.

 

[timetokill]

Republicans already view BLM as a domestic terrorist group. Protesting them does nothing.

These protests of Hillary and other Dem candidates is vital because they need to hold Democrats feet to the fire and get them to actually acknowledge the real problems facing the black community. They need a candidate to talk about these issues because by having them acknowledge it, it helps validate the existence of these problems in American society.

This isn't a hard concept.

Anybody asking them to stop or that they're "protesting the wrong people" might as well say that black people should continue to have their votes taken for granted, because Democrats have done astonishingly little for them, considering how much blacks vote for them.

 

[gohepcat]

Is this true? How do statistics compare now versus 10-20 years ago?

Can I get some numbers here?

I don't do appeals to emotion

 

[Arkeband]

Team Hillary's reaction to this is mystifying, though I see the cheap shots at "bernie fans" didn't take very long to appear.

 

[jurgen]

Is this true? How do statistics compare now versus 10-20 years ago?

Can I get some numbers here?

I don't do appeals to emotion

Okay, I've had a few bourbons, but I'll give it a go. Don't take this as absolute gospel.

It's hard to gauge because only about 850 police departments contribute data to the Uniform Crime Reports System. The only statistic I can think you can look at as a measure of actual police violence against citizens is looking at the "Justifiable Police Homicide" rate (meaning a police shooting wherein no criminal charges were filed against the officer). "Police brutality" is such a broad, subjective term and there's no national statistics on the rate of complaints filed against officers or the amount of time an officer has to use force.

So I'm just going to use the FBI's Justifiable Homicide rate. This is also what high-profile deaths like the shooting of Michael Brown are classified under. Keep in mind, this is only looking at about 850 of the 17,000 police departments in the United States.

Here's a graph showing the FBI's Justifiable Homicide rate from 1991 to 2012.

From 2012 afterwards, the statistics per year were:

• 2012: 426
• 2013: 471
• 2014: 444

There's no data yet for 2015.

One thing to keep in mind as you're looking at these statistics, the number of police departments in the past few years to actually provide data has risen in the recent years under pressure from Eric Holder's Justice Department. There were only about 750 reporting in 2012. In 2013 and 2014, they added about 100 more reporting police departments. The increase in justifiable homicides reported may not be an overall increase.

So from this, I think the argument could be made that police brutality (at least in the context of "justifiable homicides" like the death of Michael Brown) has only barely increased or stayed flat. It's just our attention to the issue that has grown. Again, this is only a small sample size of the big picture here.

 

[benjipwns]

because Democrats have done astonishingly little for them, considering how much blacks vote for them.

Well, that's kinda why. If there's no chance of losing your vote AND you're a minority group then you're the first ones shuffled to the back of the line.

To use an ideological example is the anti-war/intervention Republican. As the late as the 90's the GOP voted to oppose intervention in Kosovo! Now someone like Rand Paul is considered "dangerous" by GOP members for even mildly questioning an aggressive foreign policy.

The only statistic I can think you can look at as a measure of actual police violence against citizens is looking at the "Justifiable Police Homicide" rate (meaning a police shooting wherein no criminal charges were filed against the officer).

But that's one of the complaints. That the police have a separate justice system and that a lot of these aren't really justified and deserve criminal charges or at least something like firing.

 

[gohepcat]

Okay, I've had a few bourbons, but I'll give it a go. Don't take this as absolute gospel.

It's hard to gauge because only about 850 police departments contribute data to the Uniform Crime Reports System. The only statistic I can think you can look at as a measure of actual police violence against citizens is looking at the "Justifiable Police Homicide" rate (meaning a police shooting wherein no criminal charges were filed against the officer). "Police brutality" is such a broad, subjective term and there's no national statistics on the rate of complaints filed against officers or the amount of time an officer has to use force.

So I'm just going to use the FBI's Justifiable Homicide rate. This is also what high-profile deaths like the shooting of Michael Brown are classified under. Keep in mind, this is only looking at about 850 of the 17,000 police departments in the United States.

Here's a graph showing the FBI's Justifiable Homicide rate from 1991 to 2012.

From 2012 afterwards, the statistics per year were:

• 2012: 426
• 2013: 471
• 2014: 444

There's no data yet for 2015.

One thing to keep in mind as you're looking at these statistics, the number of police departments in the past few years to actually provide data has risen in the recent years under pressure from Eric Holder's Justice Department. There were only about 750 reporting in 2012. In 2013 and 2014, they added about 100 more reporting police departments.

So from this, I think the argument could be made that police brutality (at least in the context of "justifiable homicides" like the death of Michael Brown) has only barely increased or stayed flat. It's just our attention to the issue that has grown. Again, this is only a small sample size of the big picture here.

Thank you for doing the work there.

Hard to have any sort of opinion without some data.

 

[Slayven]

The slope in Canada and most of Europe is the same: high crime in the 70s/80s/early 90s and a huge dropoff afterwards. The difference is we didn't have to have higher incarceration rates than North Korea to pull that off.

It is the same almost world wide, but I do love the posts that say "Somebody doing the criming and the blacks are the only ones going to jail so it has to be them"

 

[lednerg]

It is the same almost world wide, but I do love the posts that say "Somebody doing the criming and the blacks are the only ones going to jail so it has to be them"

It's an atrocity how much this narrative has taken hold. Makes my skin crawl.

 

[Slayven]

It's an atrocity how much this narrative has taken hold. Makes my skin crawl.

Well there are billions of dollars to be made every year on criminalizing being black.

 

[benjipwns]

Well there are billions of dollars to be made every year on criminalizing being black.

Think of the job losses if we change course!

 

[Volimar]

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my take.

The criticisms are absolutely justified. But talking about police brutality and the institutionalized racism is kind of toxic for politicians right now. The gains they'd get from the meaningful discussion would probably be more than canceled out by ignorant people who would see it as blaming police for "black crime." It makes no sense to us, but Clinton needs the ignorant voters too. She's much more likely to lose them than she is minorities because even if she remains silent on the issue she'll still look like the better candidate for them than the republicans who will activelymake things worse for them. Worst case scenario for Clinton if she keeps quiet on the subject is that some may stay home on election day. Worst case for.her if she does have a meaningful discussion on the subject is that some of those ignorant voters vote for her opponent.

BLM's going to have to stay on it after the election to try to get the conversation they want.

 

[ultratruman]

Why don't they disrupt Republican events?

 

[Daingurse]

Why don't they disrupt Republican events?

Where's the incentive? Republicans don't give a shit, it'd be like protesting a brick wall.

 

[Volimar]

Where's the incentive? Republicans don't give a shit, it'd be like protesting a brick wall.

Not to mention, the prospect of violence. You know what kind of loons go to those rallies?

 

[lednerg]

Well there are billions of dollars to be made every year on criminalizing being black.

People are making money from this? Shit, nevermind. This is just the free market at work, then.

 

[oneils]

Yes but we don't bitch at the DOD to change school policies do we?

The president has control of billions of dollars in federal funding that goes to local police departments. And they also have control over the justice department, which can investigate civil rights violations by police.

The President does have considerable influence over local police departments from what I can tell. Aside from that, the President has considerable control over the justice system through federal sentencing guidelines and the appointment of judges.

It would be nice to hear some concrete plans about how this control will be used to improve the treatment of African Americans. Its almost like the democrats take their votes for granted.

 

[rambis]

The president has control of billions of dollars in federal funding that goes to local police departments. And they also have control over the justice department, which can investigate civil rights violations by police.

The President does have considerable influence over local police departments from what I can tell. Aside from that, the President has considerable control over the justice system through federal sentencing guidelines and the appointment of judges.

It would be nice to hear some concrete plans about how this control will be used to improve the treatment of African Americans. Its almost like the democrats take their votes for granted.

Dude c'mon. Control over federal grants mean shit. Like remember that time the president tried to fund body cameras nationwide and almost no one bit? I don't see why you need to reach. We've discussed the DOJ. And appointing judges is a check on the judicial branch, it doesn't equal control in any practical manner.

I really don't see what we gain from attempting to blur the lines on decades old political systems. The president doesn't have the ability to reform state and county controlled police. Seperation of powers in this country are pretty much cut and dry.

 

[LosDaddie]

Surprising to see the contrast in reaction here after it happens to Hillary compared to when it happened to Bernie.

No " FFS THE LEFT EATING THE LEFT AGAIN!" Over reaction or several thousand pages of Circle jerk about how they should be attacking republicans instead of people on "their side". Or posters berating the black people here and on Twitter who don't have a problem when BLM criticizes the liberal politicians.

Is this because Bernie supports don't care about minorities?

 

[rambis]

Where's the incentive? Republicans don't give a shit, it'd be like protesting a brick wall.

People keep saying this and its stupid.

Obviously if your goal is to change people's thinking or bring something to attention that they have been ignoring then you should target the people most likely to be ignoring it.

What exactly is there to gain by protesting people who are most likely to sympathize with you already? Dismissing republicans because "they all don't give a shit anyway" is lazy defeatist bullshit and reeks of a false cause.

I mean did blacks have to protest to other minorities because "whites wouldn't give a shit" in the civil rights era? Think about what you're actually saying.

 

[Daingurse]

People keep saying this and its stupid.

Obviously if your goal is to change people's thinking or bring something to attention that they have been ignoring then you should target the people most likely to be ignoring it.

What exactly is there to gain by protesting people who are most likely to sympathize with you already? Dismissing republicans because "they all don't give a shit anyway" is lazy defeatist bullshit and reeks of a false cause.

I mean did blacks have to protest to other minorities because "whites wouldn't give a shit" in the civil rights era? Think about what you're actually saying.

Dude, the Republican party has literally no interest in black issues. Protesting Democrats makes sense because they are actually responsive, and make changes to their policies after being confronted. It's not lazy, its fucking pragmatic. The fact you think there's something to gain by protesting the Republican party is fucking hilarious. It is truly waste of time and effort.

 

[rambis]

Like I said. "All the republicans dont care anyway" is lazy defeatist bullshit. If your goal is to change minds then you need to find minds that actually need to be changed.

You talk about wasting energy but this is exactly what they are doing here.

 

[Mumei]

Like I said. "All the republicans dont care anyway" is lazy defeatist bullshit. If your goal is to change minds then you need to find minds that actually need to be changed.

You talk about wasting energy but this is exactly what they are doing here.

This doesn't follow. I had my misgivings about the tactics that they were using, too, but as a result they've succeeded in getting both of the plausible Democratic candidates to detail their positions, meet with them, and discuss the issues that concern them. They even got the DNC to pass a resolution officially endorsing BLM. If you've succeeded in getting a major political party at least rhetorically behind your position, you've at least got your foot in the door. And by doing this, they are focusing on minds that need to be changed. It's not that the Democratic Party is necessarily hostile, but it is fairly apathetic. If not for pressure, these issues would not be getting a full airing in this primary.

The Republican Party (and the conservative movement more particularly), by contrast, is actively hostile While BLM has also extended a request to meet with several of the Republican candidates, the likelihood that these requests will be accepted - or if accepted, will be productive - can be gleaned from the response from conservative media thus far, which has been lambasting BLM as a racist, anti-cop movement that is responsible for an uptick in violence and preventing police from doing their job. This is the same law-and-order playbook that conservatives take whenever black people have complaints about law enforcement.

The Republican Party is not going to endorse BLM, nor is any Republican Party presidential candidate during a Republican primary. Nearly 90% of the Republican Party is white; those are the voters that those candidates are competing for. And white Republican voters are (obviously) a more conservative group of white voters than white voters are as a whole. In the same way that there's never a better chance for BLM to criticize Democrats during a Democratic primary (when racial minority and far lefty white voters are more heavily represented), there's never a time in which it would be more politically suicidal for a potential Republican party presidential candidate to meet with BLM than during the party primary.

 

[DrNeroCF]

No one else finds this line of thinking just appallingly racist?

Like, 'Whelp, black people can't avoid prison, so we better enact laws to help get them hired anyway.'

Black people going to jail just isn't a big deal? Maybe we should start there, not hiding information from employers.

This also supposes that employers / interviewers aren't ever also black, or that the white employers can't understand any social injustices and need to be legislated around.

This is just all kinds of gross.

 

[rambis]

This doesn't follow. I had my misgivings about the tactics that they were using, too, but as a result they've succeeded in getting both of the plausible Democratic candidates to detail their positions, meet with them, and discuss the issues that concern them. They even got the DNC to pass a resolution officially endorsing BLM. If you've succeeded in getting a major political party at least rhetorically behind your position, you've at least got your foot in the door. And by doing this, they are focusing on minds that need to be changed. It's not that the Democratic Party is necessarily hostile, but it is fairly apathetic. If not for pressure, these issues would not be getting a full airing in this primary.

The Republican Party (and the conservative movement more particularly), by contrast, is actively hostile While BLM has also extended a request to meet with several of the Republican candidates, the likelihood that these requests will be accepted - or if accepted, will be productive - can be gleaned from the response from conservative media thus far, which has been lambasting BLM as a racist, anti-cop movement that is responsible for an uptick in violence and preventing police from doing their job. This is the same law-and-order playbook that conservatives take whenever black people have complaints about law enforcement.

The Republican Party is not going to endorse BLM, nor is any Republican Party presidential candidate during a Republican primary. Nearly 90% of the Republican Party is white; those are the voters that those candidates are competing for. And white Republican voters are (obviously) a more conservative group of white voters than white voters are as a whole. In the same way that there's never a better chance for BLM to criticize Democrats during a Democratic primary (when racial minority and far lefty white voters are more heavily represented), there's never a time in which it would be more politically suicidal for a potential Republican party presidential candidate to meet with BLM than during the party primary.

I don't follow this. Because they have had prior success in getting talking heads to talk about them doesn't equate to their not being smarter ways to invest their power and energy. It doesn't equate to everything they do being automatically positive.

You say that they have successfully gotten the DNC pass a resolution but apparently BLM leadership has turned their nose up at that.

Hillary granted them a meeting after they failed to takeover another one of her rallies and they came away unsatisfied with that .

The DNC extended an invitation for a town hall with the candidates and they rejected that.

I don't see the positivity in that. I don't see the just trying to get recognition and awareness out in that. Its not like democrats have rejected their views

They have an executive in the WH now who is sympathetic to their cause and defending them. I don't buy this narrative that democrats just don't care to hear them out. I don't buy this narrative that every republican in the world is uncaring to their cause or to black people. Honestly its quite ridiculous to state that republicans aren't worth talking to but try to maintain that you are focusing on real change.

People wanna quote Dr. King but he preached unity above everything else. I don't think that many past civil rights leaders would agree that there is a group of people as large as the Republicans who "aren't worth talking to".

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

People keep saying this and its stupid.

Obviously if your goal is to change people's thinking or bring something to attention that they have been ignoring then you should target the people most likely to be ignoring it.

What exactly is there to gain by protesting people who are most likely to sympathize with you already? Dismissing republicans because "they all don't give a shit anyway" is lazy defeatist bullshit and reeks of a false cause.

I mean did blacks have to protest to other minorities because "whites wouldn't give a shit" in the civil rights era? Think about what you're actually saying.

Why are you so into getting Republicans to care instead of getting Democrats to care? I feel you're coming at this from a flawed conclusion, where you assume getting Democrats to care about black issues is a solved problem or one we don't have to solve, but it's much more important than reaching out to Republicans. How can you get Republicans to care if the Democrat party that is supposed to be on top of black issues doesn't give a fuck either?

"Who are most likely to sympathize with you already" does not describe Democrats. You're really just eating up what the party says without requiring them to back up the words.

As for your last paragraph: it's because white people are the majority and literally run the country in almost every respect. Of course you have to get them to care first. They have the power to do something. Just like Democrats, who so far have failed at stepping up to the level at which they need to be.

 

[rambis]

Why are you so into getting Republicans to care instead of getting Democrats to care? I feel you're coming at this from a flawed conclusion, where you assume getting Democrats to care about black issues is a solved problem or one we don't have to solve, but it's much more important than reaching out to Republicans. How can you get Republicans to care if the Democrat party that is supposed to be on top of black issues doesn't give a fuck either?

"Who are most likely to sympathize with you already" does not describe Democrats. You're really just eating up what the party says without requiring them to back up the words.

As for your last paragraph: it's because white people are the majority and literally run the country in almost every respect. Of course you have to get them to care first. They have the power to do something. Just like Democrats, who so far have failed at stepping up to the level at which they need to be.

Im into getting everybody to care, in case this point keeps flying blissfully over your head.

The rest of your post is nonsense that I won't even address further.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Im into getting everybody to care, in case this point keeps flying blissfully over your head.

It's not going over anybody's head. You just haven't successfully detailed why Republican mindshare is as important as Democrats when it comes to black issues. What use would it be to have Republicans lie to us and say they care about black lives just like the Democrats do? Why not actually have Democrats back up their empty platitudes and promises first before reaching out to the party who likes to pretend black lives are lesser or don't exist at all?

 

[rambis]

Bye Felicia.

 

[docbon]

Avery released this earlier:

https://twitter.com/Philosavery/status/660452376160174080

Also, here's his interview with CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/1...nterview-ctn.cnn?sr=twtonight1030averyjackson

The name of the group he's part of is AUCShutItDown.

 

[Mesousa]

AUCShutItDown is legit. They do a lot of stuff with the malcolm x grassroots movement in Atlanta.

 

[Volimar]

Is Avery Jackson a lawyer?

Wait, I think my sleep deprivation is catching up to me. He probably didn't personally write that statement, it's from his group.

 

[Mesousa]

Is Avery Jackson a lawyer?

He's a student in the African American studies department at Morehouse in Atlanta.

 

[Volimar]

He's a student in the African American studies department at Morehouse in Atlanta.

Yeah, I was just thinking from reading the statement... "Wow that guy's pretty young to be using all that legalese in that statement."

I need to go to bed.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Bye Felicia.

lol..that's a funny note to leave on.

 

[Volimar]

lol..that's a funny note to leave on.

 

[royalan]

Why don't we have shows like A Different World anymore? I really feel like we can use them now.

 

[Mesousa]

Yeah, I was just thinking from reading the statement... "Wow that guy's pretty young to be using all that legalese in that statement."

I need to go to bed.

Yeah he seems to have found his calling in life. Very impressive from a morehouse dude. Most of the ones I come across are just very unimpressive. He's at least trying to live up to the King ideal they try to sell to kids coming up out of high school.

If you look at his twitter page he is being attacked by a few others for "Making us look bad in front of Massa Clinton".

 

[docbon]

I wouldn't word it that harshly, but there's clearly some disagreement between AUCSID and campus students in this follow up interview.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/10/31/exp-clinton-campaigns-in-south-carolina.cnn

Still, big props to them for pushing a clearly important issue despite any flak they might receive. It's all for the good in the end.

 

[Africanus]

lol..that's a funny note to leave on.

What is it about these threads...

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I hope he's using his time now to talk to Republicans about black issues.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

I hope he's using his time now to talk to Republicans about black issues.

He was the Republican and wanted the black people to talk to him. I could I have missed this before

 

[Partition]

Same. Just because it is more reported doesn't mean that it is worse. Still something that needs to stop, of course.

Just not necessarily getting worse.

Yeah I very much doubt it. We certain see more of it today, but that's due to social media and the current narrative.

It definitely seems to be a hell of alot worse, but of course it would when everyone has an HD video camera in their pocket now. I'd love to know the stats as well.

Not sure if there are brutality by police stats out there, but police deaths by firearms has decreased almost every year and is the lowest they've ever seen right now.

 

[Khaos_Knight]

Fuck Hilary.

I don't like this. I really don't think this is the way. And these people should probably realize that the President has little power over county and state police.

Poor president, leader of the free world but can't rein in his nation's police force. Lol

 

[Black-Wind]

Does she really accept money from Private Prisons or was that a lie? Because I know what she tweeted about private prisons but if she's taking money from them then someone needs to bring that shit up. I don't find her trust worthy if she doesn't stand behind her words.

 

[docbon]

Does she really accept money from Private Prisons or was that a lie? Because I know what she tweeted about private prisons but if she's taking money from them then someone needs to bring that shit up. I don't find her trust worthy if she doesn't stand behind her words.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-private-prisons_562a3e3ee4b0ec0a389418ec

Up until a few days ago, she did. She says she'll donate the existing contributions to an unnamed charity. I'm honestly surprised she didn't stop sooner, when John Oliver absolutely shit on them for things like this: https://youtu.be/_Pz3syET3DY?t=660