- Mar 19, 2018
- AFL Club
The irony being if you reduced police interactions, then it's the most vulnerable in the black community's that would suffer, but at least criminals would die lessWut?
It's the increased police interaction that leads to the higher rates of them being shot. And beaten. And arrested.
Like... unless you're being intentionally obtuse, you see the correlation between [increased interactions with gun toting police officers] and [getting shot by police at a higher rate] right?
Freed from slavery into poverty black Americans were immediately subject to heavy handed policing, by the very same government and people that previously owned them. This led to increased arrests, beatings and shootings which entrenched the poverty they already found themselves in further. Rinse and repeat.
If I increased police interactions with any group of people, I'd find more crimes in that group of people. Busted tail lights; vehicle registration, jay waking, possession of small amounts of drugs. Unlicensed firearms etc etc etc etc Fines would be imposed. Convictions handed out. Those people would then struggle to get jobs based on those convictions. Poverty would increase. These people would hate and distrust the police. People in poverty would turn to crime. My targeted policing would then focus more on these same people due to the perception of an increasing crime rate. More jail sentences, fines and convictions. More poverty and hatred and distrust of the police.
It's a cycle. The more you target a group with policing (the more police interactions a group has) the more negative police interactions (arrests, convictions, beatings and shootings) you get. This doesn't fix the problems, it makes them worse.
On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app