Quote (Thor123422 @ 5 Jun 2020 05:44)
A higher crime rate is also a consequence of over-policing.
Let's say we have two neighborhoods with equal crime rates. One week the cops implement a system to assign more cops to a location based on the previous week's crime rate for that neighborhood. Last week neighborhood A had 8 crimes, and 4 were caught, but neighborhood had 8 crimes and 5 were caught, just by luck. Next week, both have 10 crimes, but because more police were assigned to neighborhood B the number caught was 8 and neighborhood A had 3 crimes caught because less were assigned. Next week even more police are assigned to B because now the difference is 8 vs 3. Repeat for years and years. Eventually neighborhood B is deteriorated because you've over-policed them, nobody trusts the cops, and the crime rate might truly be higher, but it was caused by over-policing.
In this case, we know for a fact that over-policing and uneven enforcement is caused by racism because it stems from laws that were specifically designed to target those communities. So we don't even really need to look at the analogy I gave, because we already know that crime rates are similar among populations (i.e. drug use and dealing) but one gets policed more and so gets more caught. Add in that the police are largely the cause of the "black people don't have fathers" trope because they've targeted the adult males of the community who were historically the breadwinners and.... lets just say the conclusion is basically written on the wall.
You're describing one possible mechanism, and I dont disagree with it. What I disagree with is your notion that this particular mechanism is what has created the big majority of deprived black communities.
Regarding the bolded part: on quite literally any type of violent crime, blacks are vastly overrepresented (on a per capita basis) compared to whites and even latinos or asians. Drug use and dealing is perhaps the only type of crime where you can find (poor) white communities which are as bad black ones.
Quote (Goomshill @ 5 Jun 2020 05:50)
I don't think a poster is reasonable unless they're willing to defend the cop's rights to due process whether or not they're guilty
Circling back to what I said the other day, you don't achieve liberties by taking them away from someone else
There's something very wrong with a society where its absolutely haram to defend the rights of those accused under unclear circumstances but perfectly kosher to celebrate cops getting murdered in terrorist attacks.
Like thor already said, this cop will get a proper trial at a proper court. His due process rights have not been violated, they have been upheld - in spite of a lynch mob demanding his head.
And while I agree with your general sentiment about the double standard of leftists and Democrats in this (cheering looting, arson and ambushes on the police etc.), the circumstances are unclear to varying degrees in different cases - and this case right here happens to fall on the very 'unambiguous' end of the spectrum. Chauvin still deserves a proper trial in which his version of the story will be heard and evidence by his lawyers can be presented, but the footage we have of the incident is such an overwhelming piece of evidence that it would be silly to deny that he is guilty.