L.A. riots: Good Samaritan remembers his scary truck-driver rescue

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
The Christopher Commission report is about race, that is obvious.
I've said it is flawed and so did Naisho.

Here is another one for you, Foxac, know that NoName Yale researcher in a previous post? Here are questions he/she totally missed.

1) If a white officer is on patrol in at totally non-white area and pulls over a non-white driver, with cause, if this counted as racist. Don't blame the white officer because he was assigned to that location. The math gets screwed.
why do you think it's counted as racist? where exactly did it say that in the report? are you purposely ignoring the fact that Christopher Commission report is not mainly about race? Did you know its main point was police misconduct?

perhaps this might help you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Commission

2) Where is the account of ALL LAPD officers giving drivers of their own race a free pass? Is this considered racist? To me it is. This also screws up the math.

3) What if a patrol car has a black AND white officer unit and pulls over, with cause, a non-white-non-black driver. How is that listed on this report?

4) Now about a Asian officer? Most certainly each and every time this LAPD officer pulls over, with cause, any driver it is going to be a driver of another race. Did this Yale person try to figure our if the Asian officer pulled over more of one race than another race? Screwed the math without an answer.


I seriously doubt this NoName researcher thought of these questions. Therefore, another flawed report with screwed up math. I guess they don't teach logic at Yale.
did you know it is peer-reviewed? and did you even read the whole thing? he even listed out the limitation and some failures of his research.

You're clearly cherry-picking something that has already been explained but you conveniently ignored it. in short - you're grasping for straws.
 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Well .... here is a question to ponder .... would the LAPD officers, involved in the Rodney King beating, been deemed "racist" if Rodney King had NOT been violating any laws and had NOT attacked the officers who were attempting to apprehend him? :hmm:

Would the beatdown have happened anyway if Rodney King had been white?
why are you making this a major racial issue?

Probably .... And yes, the Christopher Commission update most certainly implements affirmative action as well as deemed the entire LAPD as having had rampant racism and bias within its ranks.
really? so either you are lying or you are clearly confused. maybe this wikipedia might help you - Christopher Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe that is true for some people, but since it hasn't been peer reviewed, it just shows bias.
you're purposely making us go around in circle.

1. I've already added additional sources that are peer-reviewed in my Post #423 and Post #444. and don't forget Post #440.
2. a fact-finding investigation cannot be peer-reviewed since it is not an academic paper.
3. when will you ever understand that a peer-review paper is a research paper mainly conducted by academia or medical researcher?
4. I asked you if your source from Cato Institute is peer-reviewed or not. you did not answer my question

but you're going to ignore that and ask the same ole' question again, are you?

so when are you going to start showing us any peer-reviewed sources that back your statement regarding LAPD? would it be possible if you can show me any source specifically relating to LAPD? your attempt with Cato Institute was pretty pathetic. Affirmative Action at college admission office? seriously?
 
Last edited:

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
let's shall analyze the result of Christopher Commission report conducted by Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety along with joint efforts with Harvard Kennedy School and the National Institute of Justice.

http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/Harvard-LAPD Study.pdf
A Noticeable Difference
Policing in Los Angeles today is noticeably different from what it was only a few years ago. The quality of service to residents is higher, the perception of the LAPD as fair has risen, and the use of force is down.
Many residents of Los Angeles have noticed the difference. Today, 83 percent of residents say that the LAPD is doing a good or excellent job
, up from 71 percent only 2 years ago, with the subgroup answering “excellent” doubling. On the sensitive issue of relations between police and racial or ethnic minorities, the percentage of residents saying that the police in their communities treat members of all racial and ethnic groups fairly “almost all the time” or “most of the time,” rose from 44 percent in 2005 to 51 percent today. And a majority of every racial and ethnic group in Los Angeles today reports that, based on their personal experience, most LAPD officers treat them, their friends, and family with respect. Incidents involving a serious use of force by a police officer are down by 15 percent over that same period.
Christopher Commission Recap
Within a month, the public outrage over the videotaped beating caused Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley to appoint an Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The Christopher Commission, as it became known, examined the use of force in the LAPD and later that same year issued a blunt report:
The Commission found that there is a significant number of officers in the LAPD who repetitively use excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written guidelines of the Department regarding force…. Graphic confirmation of improper attitudes and practices is provided by the brazen and extensive references to beatings and other excessive force in the M[obile] D[ata] T[erminal]s. The Commission also found that the problem of excessive force is exacerbated by racism and bias, again strikingly revealed in the MDTs. The failure to control these officers is a management issue that is at the heart of the problem. … The Department not only failed to deal with the problem group of officers but it often rewarded them with positive evaluations and promotions.
Background
As President Bush told the nation, he immediately directed the U.S. Attorney General to send lawyers from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to Los Angeles, but in 1992 these lawyers did not yet have the power to sue the City or the Department to stop any pattern of misconduct. All the Justice Department could do then was to seek criminal indictments against the individual police officers for violating Rodney King’s civil rights. And that is what they did, winning convictions against two of the four officers, including the supervising sergeant, in April 1993.

The next year, Congress gave the U.S. Department of Justice new powers to address a pattern-and-practice of police misconduct, authorizing the Justice Department to sue a state or local government in federal court and seek civil, injunctive relief. This is the provision of law under which the Department would later negotiate the 2000 consent decree with the City of Los Angeles.

In 1996, the Justice Department began a preliminary investigation to determine if it should use its new powers in Los Angeles, but the investigation did not progress until a further scandal erupted, centered on the anti-gang unit of the LAPD’s Rampart Division. The scandal grew out of allegations made in 1999 by Rampart Division officer Rafael Pérez that approximately 70 officers had, along with him, participated in a wide array of illegal conduct, including shootings, beatings, framings, and perjury. The scandal led to the dismissal of more than a hundred criminal cases and payments of approximately 90 million dollars to settle civil law suits filed by victims of police misconduct.

In May 2000, the Justice Department announced it had assembled enough evidence to file a pattern-and-practice suit, but Justice Department officials said that they would wait to file the lawsuit in hopes of reaching a voluntary settlement. In September, as the Rampart Scandal grew, the mayor and police chief dropped their opposition to the consent decree and the City Council voted 10-2 to accept it. In November, three of four police officers tried as part of the Rampart scandal were the first to be convicted of misconduct, in this case planting evidence and framing alleged gang members.
Justice Department's decree
The decree describes, in nearly two hundred numbered paragraphs, dozens of changes that the City committed to make in the way the LAPD operates. Some promised changes were huge:
• creating a new data system that tracks the performance of every sworn officer and alerts supervisors to signs that individual officers are headed for trouble
• creating new definitions, new rules, and new management systems governing the use of force by police officers
• creating new systems for tracking police stops of motor vehicles and pedestrians, breaking down the patterns by race and ethnicity, by the reasons for the stops, and by the results of the stops in terms of crime detected
• creating new management procedures in the LAPD’s anti-gang unit and its other special divisions, tightening the management of “confidential informants” and otherwise increasing checks against possible corruption.
The People of the Department
Because of a substantial reduction in size in the late 1990s, the recent growth of the LAPD has produced an organization only slightly larger today than it was a decade ago, but composed of quite different people.
This ebb and flow of personnel brought significant changes to the racial and ethnic composition of the Department. In 1990, just over 30 percent of the graduates from the Academy were Latino, 19 percent African American, 5 percent Asian or Filipino, and fully 45 percent Caucasian. Almost two decades later in 2008, 53 percent of graduates were Latino, 7 percent African American, 11 percent Asian/Filipino, and 29 percent Caucasian. As Figure 6 shows, the changes in racial composition of academy graduates occurred at two discrete moments: first in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Latinos among graduates rose, and the percentage of African-Americans and Caucasians declined; and then since 2006, when the percentage of Latinos surged and the percentage of Caucasians fell, while African-American percentages remained relatively stable.
 

rolling7

New Member
why do you think it's counted as racist? where exactly did it say that in the report? are you purposely ignoring the fact that Christopher Commission report is not mainly about race? Did you know its main point was police misconduct?

perhaps this might help you - Christopher Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


did you know it is peer-reviewed? and did you even read the whole thing? he even listed out the limitation and some failures of his research.

You're clearly cherry-picking something that has already been explained but you conveniently ignored it. in short - you're grasping for straws.

:ty: for stating "he even listed ot the limitations and some failures".

Why even think to publish a flawed report? IMO, these reports are self-serving and show clear bias. No cherry-picking, on my part, is necessary. The use of common logic shows the truth. You can continue wasting text if you wish but I'm done with this lets get back to the OP, the HERO.
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
:ty: for stating "he even listed ot the limitations and some failures".

Why even think to publish a flawed report? IMO, these reports are self-serving and show clear bias. No cherry-picking, on my part, is necessary. The use of common logic shows the truth. You can continue wasting text if you wish but I'm done with this lets get back to the OP, the HERO.
He always likes to have the last word. That's him.
 

Steinhauer

Well-Known Member
why are you making this a major racial issue?


really? so either you are lying or you are clearly confused. maybe this wikipedia might help you - Christopher Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


you're purposely making us go around in circle.

1. I've already added additional sources that are peer-reviewed in my Post #423 and Post #444. and don't forget Post #440.
2. a fact-finding investigation cannot be peer-reviewed since it is not an academic paper.
3. when will you ever understand that a peer-review paper is a research paper mainly conducted by academia or medical researcher?
4. I asked you if your source from Cato Institute is peer-reviewed or not. you did not answer my question

but you're going to ignore that and ask the same ole' question again, are you?

so when are you going to start showing us any peer-reviewed sources that back your statement regarding LAPD? would it be possible if you can show me any source specifically relating to LAPD? your attempt with Cato Institute was pretty pathetic. Affirmative Action at college admission office? seriously?
When are you going to understand that "fact finding" is research? :roll:
 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
:ty: for stating "he even listed ot the limitations and some failures".
huh? why thanks me? CLEARLY - you didn't read this report. He stated it himself in the paper.

Why even think to publish a flawed report? IMO, these reports are self-serving and show clear bias. No cherry-picking, on my part, is necessary. The use of common logic shows the truth. You can continue wasting text if you wish but I'm done with this lets get back to the OP, the HERO.
because..... any reports always have limitations and certain failures. have you ever seen any PERFECT report? can you show me any "flawless" reports that support your belief in this issue?

why would they list limitations and certain failures if it's self-serving and biased? you're confusing peer-reviewed sources with any reports published by Republican/Republican supporters.
 

rolling7

New Member
huh? why thanks me? CLEARLY - you didn't read this report. He stated it himself in the paper.



because..... any reports always have limitations and certain failures. have you ever seen any PERFECT report? can you show me any "flawless" reports that support your belief in this issue?

why would they list limitations and certain failures if it's self-serving and biased? you're confusing peer-reviewed sources with any reports published by Republican/Republican supporters.
I've come up with my own questions about the reports, even of you wish to call them "nitpicking". Therefore, I don't need anything else nor anybody else to tell me the reports are flawed. Should others have doubt and/or questions about these reports, that is theirs and theirs alone. They certainly would not need me and probably never heard of me. If you, Jiro, don't have any doubt question about these reports, that is totally your right. But don't even try to deny others of their right to contest these reports.

I made a request for us all to get back to the OP issue of the HERO and I've nothing else to post about these reports.
 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
I've come up with my own questions about the reports, even of you wish to call them "nitpicking". Therefore, I don't need anything else nor anybody else to tell me the reports are flawed. Should others have doubt and/or questions about these reports, that is theirs and theirs alone. They certainly would not need me and probably never heard of me. If you, Jiro, don't have any doubt question about these reports, that is totally your right. But don't even try to deny others of their right to contest these reports.

I made a request for us all to get back to the OP issue of the HERO and I've nothing else to post about these reports.
why don't you come up with any report/finding/paper/etc. that would support your belief instead?

instead.... you're going to just nitpick and call it flawed/biased? it's much easier to do that yes.
 

Calvin

In Hazzard County
Super Moderator
Premium Member
Mod note:

Time to move on now and put an end to this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top