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

[Foxrac]

More of that restructuring in progress:

FDNY branded 'racist' for not recruiting enough firemen from black and other minority groups | Mail Online


and then there is this to dispute it:

Asian firefighters see no racism in the FDNY - Queens Chronicle: Queenswide

Well, I don't see any racism in FDNY and it shouldn't be matters.

The fire departments in Birmingham are mostly white but overall city population is over 70% black.

 

[rolling7]

then what would satisfy you?



That's called nitpicking. and it's mainly trivial. If you're going to dispute the finding, then come up with something substantial. and you're wondering what was the race of officer who made the racist comment? really? seriously?



I don't know how can you dispute that. You're nitpicking on something that hardly affects the whole investigation and its finding. I ask you this - do you believe the entire Christoper Commission report is unfounded and seriously flawed? and that it's just part of witch hunting for something that doesn't exist?

You call me nitpicking but it is suppose to be a serious fair report that gives a equally view of all issues within LAPD and includes all finding within the report. What I call it is slated. Yes, that would make it seriously flawed since the Commission only reported whatever they wanted and left other facts out. Remember, I said we the members can not get our questions answered from the Commission, regardless of how nitpicking you think they are.

 

[Jiro]

since you're being such a fussy brat about "peer review".... here it is. This is a peer-reviewed academic study.

Assessing the long-term effects of officer race on police attitudes towards the community: a case for representative bureaucracy theory.

ABSTRACT:

This study examines longitudinal changes in police officer attitudes towards the community within the theoretical context of representative bureaucracy theory. The sample consists of 405 male Caucasian, African-American and Latino/Hispanic patrol officers who began employment with the LAPD from 1985 to 1991 under affirmative action hiring. The same officers comprising the panel study were surveyed at two points in time, 1992 (Wave 1) and 2007 (Wave 2). Results indicated that, over the study’s 15 year time frame, African-American and Latino officers significantly increased their desire to engage in active representation or ‘partnerships’ with the community. Also discovered was a similar time effect among Caucasian officers, who at Wave 1 of the study held significantly lower desires for community interaction than the minority officer sample. Overall, the study findings lend support to representative bureaucracy theory’s general assumption that establishing racial parity between police and citizens may increase the willingness of officers to represent the interests of others with similar demographic backgrounds.

 

[Jiro]

You call me nitpicking but it is suppose to be a serious fair report that gives a equally view of all issues within LAPD and includes all finding within the report. What I call it is slated. Yes, that would make it seriously flawed since the Commission only reported whatever they wanted and left other facts out. Remember, I said we the members can not get our questions answered from the Commission, regardless of how nitpicking you think they are.

yes it's nitpicking. Are you able to produce any credible evidence for your claim? (see above)

 

[Jiro]

I am again, going to politely, but firmly assert, that racism is not the root cause. It goes much deeper.

Christopher Commission didn't say that racism was the root cause of police brutality in LAPD. It identified and revealed that lack of oversight, failure in chain of command, and few other things contributed to widespread racial bias and racial discrimination that contributed to systematic excessive force on minorities.

 

[naisho]

Consequential, as we have seen many times on AD, members who post a link will see another member post an opposite link and it becomes a battle of sources. I would rather have the members post their own words subject to comments by other members.

AS I was explaining to Naisho, these sources ain't worth the text and certainly help in no positive way.

As I said, AD members can question each other and hope for an answer but a source is a waste of text. We will never get an answer and that in itself is totally unfair to every member of AD. Right, Naisho?

You call me nitpicking but it is suppose to be a serious fair report that gives a equally view of all issues within LAPD and includes all finding within the report. What I call it is slated. Yes, that would make it seriously flawed since the Commission only reported whatever they wanted and left other facts out. Remember, I said we the members can not get our questions answered from the Commission, regardless of how nitpicking you think they are.

rolling7, unless you have anything to bring out that confront the statements made in the Christopher Commission and present a different opinion otherwise, I don't see how else you are doing anything other than making a smokescreen out of something nonexistent. Even when the Warren Commission for JFK had suggested flaws and criticisms, those reports and statements were available and still are. I don't see anyone bring anything out that is correcting the Christopher Commission over your issues and I would be very certain there are some out there if your concerns actually exist. After all, there are a lot of people who read the Christopher Commission for its time, not just us.

Keep in mind this is a review of the police work in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, and is not actually directly written by the LAPD themselves.

If I follow your perspective, I can say I have three eyes and why you should believe me. I won't show you any articles, pictures or videos to prove it. If you don't listen to what I say then you are wrong and believe the "MM's" biased story. How does that sound to you?

If you cannot bring credence to your claims, it's no different than trolling. A troll can bait with a response, but when asked for credibility to their statements, they don't have anything to give other than personal attacks.

 

[rolling7]

rolling7, unless you have anything to bring out that confront the statements made in the Christopher Commission and present a different opinion otherwise, I don't see how else you are doing anything other than making a smokescreen out of something nonexistent. Even when the Warren Commission for JFK had suggested flaws and criticisms, those reports and statements were available and still are. I don't see anyone bring anything out that is correcting the Christopher Commission over your issues and I would be very certain there are some out there if your concerns actually exist. After all, there are a lot of people who read the Christopher Commission for its time, not just us.

Keep in mind this is a review of the police work in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, and is not actually directly written by the LAPD themselves.

If I follow your perspective, I can say I have three eyes and why you should believe me. I won't show you any articles, pictures or videos to prove it. If you don't listen to what I say then you are wrong and believe the "MM's" biased story. How does that sound to you?

If you cannot bring credence to your claims, it's no different than trolling. A troll can bait with a response, but when asked for credibility to their statements, they don't have anything to give other than personal attacks.

"unless you have anthing to bring out that confronts the statements made in the Christopher Commission and present a different opinion otherwise"!!!!!!!!

Just what did you think post #410 was suppose to be?? My questions, which Jiro calls "nitpicking" and perhaps you say are "trolling", are serious to point out that the Commission report is flawed, to which I view both of you as having admitted to. So what good is this report! This is like knowing the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge is being built with flawed manufactured steel cables. Why do that!!

Both, yourself and Jiro, are calling this a Peer Review and IMO it is but it set out with a bias purpose to investage only one section of the peers. Certainly the other sections should have been included but the Commission, as I read the report, choose to ignore those sections. This is shown by the "flamethrower/b.b.q./mexican" statement included in the report.

So yes (and much to your disappointment I assume) I am confronting the Commission right here on AD because it is impossible to confront the Commission and get any answers from the members of the Commissioners.
And yes again, I am presenting a different opinion because as stated in post #410, my view of this report is one of set-out-for and accomlished bias.
Because this report is used as a source and it is seriously flawed, why use it?

You want me to "bring credence to your claims" and that to me is a code-loaded-word for "post a source". Therefore, you are playing right into my main point of turing AD into a battle of sources. I am more interested in the members personal opinions which I have expressed mine but You and Jiro have not yet shared your own personal opinion about the finding of the report. You are hiding behind: "This is a source" and avoiding anything personal.

Yes, there was a serious problem within LAPD back in those days and no I have no idea if it still exist. The report gives no foundation as to WHY the officers had such behavior and what could be done to change that behavior.
It has long been said: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. This report and its flawed bias is part of the problem.

 

[naisho]

Yes, there was a serious problem within LAPD back in those days and no I have no idea if it still exist. The report gives no foundation as to WHY the officers had such behavior and what could be done to change that behavior.

In other words, you can't possibly be the only person in the whole wide world who feels something was not explainable with the LAPD's behavior. You can suggest it as an opinion, but if you are the only person who feels that way and there's nobody else out there in the whole realm of internet debate that is saying the same things as you, ... you can answer this one.

It has long been said: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

It's also been said you can't have your cake and eat it too. Show us other people who feel similar as you about the LAPD's behavior from the Christopher Commission report. They had President Ford saying statements were flawed with the Warren Commission. Do you have anything?

 

[rolling7]

In other words, you can't possibly be the only person in the whole wide world who feels something was not explainable with the LAPD's behavior. You can suggest it as an opinion, but if you are the only person who feels that way and there's nobody else out there in the whole realm of internet debate that is saying the same things as you, ... you can answer this one.


It's also been said you can't have your cake and eat it too. Show us other people who feel similar as you about the LAPD's behavior from the Christopher Commission report. They had President Ford saying statements were flawed with the Warren Commission. Do you have anything?

Yes, I do. It is me/myself/I. Some people (and even members of AD) need a source to tell them what they could figure out themself if they would put their brain to it. Yes, I do know the Warren Commission is flawed but NO I do not need anyone to tell me that because I have read the report and found it to be a seriously "rush to judgement", in otherwords, they did not explore every possibility before making a report.

Perhaps you should try it, use your mind and then put your own finding into words. Because these are your words, you don't need a source. This is what I have been asking all AD members to do and I feel this will make AD better.

Me/myself/I have found the Christopher Commission report to be one of serious flawed bias.

 

[naisho]

Yes, I do. It is me/myself/I. Some people (and even members of AD) need a source to tell them what they could figure out themself if they would put their brain to it. Yes, I do know the Warren Commission is flawed but NO I do not need anyone to tell me that because I have read the report and found it to be a seriously "rush to judgement", in otherwords, they did not explore every possibility before making a report.

Perhaps you should try it, use your mind and then put your own finding into words. Because these are your words, you don't need a source. This is what I have been asking all AD members to do and I feel this will make AD better.

Me/myself/I have found the Christopher Commission report to be one of serious flawed bias.

I do have those thoughts. I was taught in college once you have them and you want to prove it, you need to search the library repositories to find claims that refute your statement.

When I turned in a report in junior high that had zero citations backing up what I said, one time I got an F and 'incomplete' for it.
You must've been very lucky if you didn't have to do this!

 

[rolling7]

I do have those thoughts. I was taught in college once you have them and you want to prove it, you need to search the library repositories to find claims that refute your statement.

When I turned in a report in junior high that had zero citations backing up what I said, one time I got an F and 'incomplete' for it.
You must've been very lucky if you didn't have to do this!

I too got grades in high school that appied to subjects given by the teacher(s). I once did a report on Shakespeare and had numberous citations because I was quoting other works. But I also did a report on 'Catcher in the Rye' which was 100% my own words of what I thought about this book.

However, this is real life not school. Members of AD should commit themself to their own personal opinions and post them here. If they are posting their own IMOs, there is no need for source(s). To use a source and have nothing else to contribute holds no water.

 

[Foxrac]

I too got grades in high school that appied to subjects given by the teacher(s). I once did a report on Shakespeare and had numberous citations because I was quoting other works. But I also did a report on 'Catcher in the Rye' which was 100% my own words of what I thought about this book.

However, this is real life not school. Members of AD should commit themself to their own personal opinions and post them here. If they are posting their own IMOs, there is no need for source(s). To use a source and have nothing else to contribute holds no water.

If you don't believe about what members saying or provide a source so it is best for you to walk away from discussion instead turn into trolling and heat debate.

 

[Jiro]

"unless you have anthing to bring out that confronts the statements made in the Christopher Commission and present a different opinion otherwise"!!!!!!!!

Just what did you think post #410 was suppose to be?? My questions, which Jiro calls "nitpicking" and perhaps you say are "trolling", are serious to point out that the Commission report is flawed, to which I view both of you as having admitted to. So what good is this report! This is like knowing the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge is being built with flawed manufactured steel cables. Why do that!!

Did you know that if you believe the steel cables are defective, you need to back it up with sources and qualifications? because... as you said, opinion itself holds no water.

Have you ever seen an engineer's report that details out why steel cables are defective? you think it's a few lines of inspector's opinion like "it is in my opinion that it's defective"? comical.

Both, yourself and Jiro, are calling this a Peer Review and IMO it is but it set out with a bias purpose to investage only one section of the peers. Certainly the other sections should have been included but the Commission, as I read the report, choose to ignore those sections. This is shown by the "flamethrower/b.b.q./mexican" statement included in the report.

huh? I've never said Christopher Commission is peer-reviewed. I was telling steinhauer that peer review is mainly for medical and academic purpose.... not fact-finding investigation or anything else.

So yes (and much to your disappointment I assume) I am confronting the Commission right here on AD because it is impossible to confront the Commission and get any answers from the members of the Commissioners.

And yes again, I am presenting a different opinion because as stated in post #410, my view of this report is one of set-out-for and accomlished bias.
Because this report is used as a source and it is seriously flawed, why use it?

how is it seriously flawed? you have not detailed it out or explained it

You want me to "bring credence to your claims" and that to me is a code-loaded-word for "post a source". Therefore, you are playing right into my main point of turing AD into a battle of sources. I am more interested in the members personal opinions which I have expressed mine but You and Jiro have not yet shared your own personal opinion about the finding of the report. You are hiding behind: "This is a source" and avoiding anything personal.

I take it that you have never debated or written rebuttal at intellectual level (meaning... college level). No offense but you were just a mailman. You did not have any formal training nor experience in research study or writing a paper that disputes other person's paper. Mind you - the rebuttal paper is typically over 30 pages along with empirical evidence and several well-founded sources.

Right now, you're debating and disputing Christopher Commission's finding at "Glenn Beck" level. I'm mainly more interested in well-founded rebuttals backed by various of sources rather than a person's unstructured opinion because it's always biased and it lacks substance with no valid explanation.

Do you know how a scholarly peer-reviewed journal is formed? Do you even know how this process works at all?

Yes, there was a serious problem within LAPD back in those days and no I have no idea if it still exist. The report gives no foundation as to WHY the officers had such behavior and what could be done to change that behavior.
It has long been said: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. This report and its flawed bias is part of the problem.

This Christopher Commission had a foundation from Knapp Commission. It had made numbers of useful and helpful recommendations. As for officers' behavior, that's why I posted additional source (Dr. Staub) in my Post #406 that would explain their behaviors within LAPD culture and how it can be fixed.

Every report is not infallible and it is possibly biased to a reasonable degree but I ask you this - was it biased enough and flawed enough that it did not fix the problem at all? and that nothing in Christopher Commission was right?

*hint hint* - I've already found a peer-reviewed source that disputed some part of Christopher Commission It was written by 2 professors with Ph.D in criminal justice and political science but I'm not gonna do this homework for you because the whole purpose of this is stating my opinion along with sources that are in agreement with my argument and you'll have to do same too. The point is - there are sources out there that may agree with you.

now that's how you debate intellectually. I'm more than willing to listen to your structured opinion if you can explain it to me why you think Christopher Commission is flawed and how is it flawed rather than saying a moronic blanket comment like "It's biased!!!! yak yak yak!"

 

[rolling7]

If you don't believe about what members saying or provide a source so it is best for you to walk away from discussion instead turn into trolling and heat debate.

But Foxrac....you don't understaand my point. Go to post #391....see who the poster is...notice only the source is posted....notice no comment nor opinion of the source by the poster....so what is the point? The member is saying nothing, so there is nothing to agree/disagree about and you certainly can not engage in a agreement /disagreement with a source.

Do you see my point now?

 

[Jiro]

But Foxrac....you don't understaand my point. Go to post #391....see who the poster is...notice only the source is posted....notice no comment nor opinion of the source by the poster....so what is the point? The member is saying nothing, so there is nothing to agree/disagree about and you certainly can not engage in a agreement /disagreement with a source.

Do you see my point now?

yes absolutely! you can disagree with the source by:

1. producing empirical research/data/evidence that disputes its claim
2. citing another credible source that disputes its claim
3. questioning the validity of its research methodology and parameters

I have already found a peer-reviewed source that did #1, #2, and #3 to dispute Christopher Commission but on the large, Christopher Commission was not flawed.

 

[rolling7]

yes absolutely! you can disagree with the source by:

1. producing empirical research/data/evidence that disputes its claim
2. citing another credible source that disputes its claim
3. questioning the validity of its research methodology and parameters

I have already found a peer-reviewed source that did #1, #2, and #3 to dispute Christopher Commission but on the large, Christopher Commission was not flawed.

Yes, I can disagree/agree with what a source says but have no personal interaction with that source, as I'm having with you and other members of AD. I don't need to hear/read of another source that agrees/disagrees with the first source because I have a mind of my own and do not need backup. My questions in post #410 are serious questions that should be answered by the Commission but that will not happen. Nevertheless, I have stated that this is a flawed bias report and you are free to disagree with me.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, I can disagree/agree with what a source says but have no personal interaction with that source, as I'm having with you and other members of AD. I don't need to hear/read of another source that agrees/disagrees with the first source because I have a mind of my own and do not need backup. My questions in post #410 are serious questions that should be answered by the Commission but that will not happen. Nevertheless, I have stated that this is a flawed bias report and you are free to disagree with me.

how unfortunate.

 

[Foxrac]

But Foxrac....you don't understaand my point. Go to post #391....see who the poster is...notice only the source is posted....notice no comment nor opinion of the source by the poster....so what is the point? The member is saying nothing, so there is nothing to agree/disagree about and you certainly can not engage in a agreement /disagreement with a source.

Do you see my point now?

Well, Jiro doesn't have to include his opinion about article and he can post articles without his opinion if he wants.

I found article that Jiro posted is very interesting and it is very unbiased, IMO.

If you are not happy with article that Jiro posted so please find a source on your behalf.

 

[Steinhauer]

since you're being such a fussy brat about "peer review".... here it is. This is a peer-reviewed academic study.

Assessing the long-term effects of officer race on police attitudes towards the community: a case for representative bureaucracy theory.

Do you also have crime statistics from wave 1 and wave 2 to see if it is possible there was any correlation?

I am not sure what would happen in 2012 if a crackhead was driving the wrong way in excess of 115 mph and attacked the officers that were trying to arrest him.


Probably the same, or similar situation with Rodney King.

So ... A case study was done involving interaction with the community, and all ethnic groups increased at the same rate .... What does that prove?

Improved leadership?

added for emphasis: http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/09/13/man-beaten-by-police-for-two-minutes-until-arm-is-fractured/

 

[Jiro]

Patrick Smith, LAPD Officer, Faces Dismissal For Racial Profiling Against Latinos

A Los Angeles Police Department investigation concluded that one of their white police officers routinely targeted Latinos for traffic stops and falsified documents to cover up his record of racial profiling, according to the Los Angeles Times .

Officer Patrick Smith, who has been with the LAPD for 15 years, allegedly stopped Latinos based on their ethnicity while working alone on a motorcycle assignment in the department's West Traffic Division. The case marks the first time the LAPD has found one its officers "engaged in racial or ethnic profiling", according to the Los Angeles Times report.

However, a study conducted in 2008 by a Yale researcher found that the LAPD officers stopped blacks and Latinos at significantly higher rates than whites, "regardless of whether they lived in high-crime neighborhoods," according to the Los Angeles Times.

But Los Angeles isn't alone in its unflattering racial profiling history.

Last year, the Department of Justice released a 23 page report illustrating systemic discrimination against Latinos in East Haven, Connecticut by the local police department. The report found that Latinos were subject to disproportionate targeting for traffic stops, non-standard justifications for stops, and "serious incidents of abuse of authority."

"Discrimination and institutionalized indifference remain deeply rooted in the culture of the Police Department," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy L. Austin Jr. said at a press conference in New Haven, Connecticut.

Last year, Milwaukee, Wisconsin also garnered unwanted media attention for similar racial profiling charges. Black drivers in Milwaukee were seven times more likely to be pulled over by police than their white counterparts, while Latinos were five times more likely to be stopped, according to a study conducted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

While an average of 250 formal racial profiling allegations are brought against LAPD officers each year, all incidents have been "cleared" before those concerning Officer Smith, according to the Los Angeles Times. This may have to do with "the murky nature" of racial profiling cases, in that it is difficult to know "what officers are thinking in the moment they make a stop", according to LAPD officials.

Officer Smith will now face a disciplinary hearing, where a three-person board will decide if he will be exonerated or fired for his actions, according to the report.

LAPD officer profiled Latinos, internal probe concludes - latimes.com

For decades, the question of profiling — "biased policing," in LAPD vernacular — has bedeviled the department. Accusations that the practice was commonplace throughout the 1970s and '80s alienated the LAPD from the city's minority neighborhoods. And, despite dramatic reforms that have boosted the department's image in recent years, complaints of profiling have persisted, with hundreds of officers being accused of bias each year. Until now, none of those complaints has been substantiated.

The pressure on the department to overhaul its racial profiling investigations came, in large part, from the U.S. Department of Justice. Until 2009, the LAPD was under a federal consent decree that the Justice Department imposed in 2001 following the Rampart corruption scandal. It required the department to complete sweeping reforms on many issues and to submit to near-constant audits and monitoring.

I remind you - this was under GWB who recognized the gravity of this problem.