Mom beats son for participating in Baltimore riots

debsey

Fri, May 01 2015, 1:02 am

chani8 wrote:

If you trust cops then you never heard of the Stamford Prison Guard study

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....iment

or the Cookie Monster phenomenon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvl46PmCfE

Not an exact parallel, because in the Stanford experiment, they were looking at the mechanisms of facism and totalitarian power. Cops do have rules and regulations to follow, so there are checks and balances on their behavior.

On the same token, adrenaline is contagious (not in the physical sense, in the psychological sense) - so if one cop is fearful and adrenalized, his partner might make a poor judgement call as well.

My question is - since the field of neuroscience has advanced so much, and we know so much of this, why hasn't the training of police officers changed to account for this? Gladwell makes a pretty compelling case for how cops are not trained to handle adrenalized situations well.

chani8

Fri, May 01 2015, 2:50 am

debsey wrote:

You don't think she was acting out of fear? I watched it and felt such compassion for her. Here's her kid doing something SO dangerous......I'm sure she panicked.

Sure, she was likely reacting with her *familiar* stress response. What does that say about her.

If it was her foster son, does her reaction warrant the same compassion?

If it had been a policewoman beating that teen, what would people say about that?

Pushing and shoving him out of there was acceptable, hitting him over the head crossed the line from 'love' to 'abuse'. Assault, actually.

ETA - if you justify this mother's actions then you justify police brutality as well.

chani8

Fri, May 01 2015, 3:04 am

debsey wrote:

It's almost an exact parallel because though they were researching totalitarianism, they were observing people as prison guards who, like policemen, also have rules and regulations to follow.

I don't think police officers need more training in how to deal with adrenaline. Rather, they need to be better protected somehow, so that every situation isn't a possible threat of life or death.

ora_43

Fri, May 01 2015, 6:36 am

debsey wrote:

death is the ultimate disenfranchisement. The Holocaust was 70 years ago. Then those survivors came HERE and faced yet more discrimination. Discriminatory attitudes towards Jews are quite pervasive until today.
I am not drawing an exact parallel, nor is there any way to compare suffering - it is too subjective. But I consider it the ultimate in discrimination (and yes, in disenfranchisement - the removal of voice) to say "well Jews don't face discrimination." we certainly did and we certainly do.

I think most people aren't saying Jews didn't or don't face discrimination. More like "Jews don't face this type of discrimination."

Like with bad experiences in general, it's not like if you experience one, you understand any equally bad or less-bad experience. Someone can lose a sibling but never be unemployed, or have cancer and not understand why some people are overweight.

I know what it's like to have terrorists fire rockets at me, to be attacked in the street for being Jewish, and to have innocent children murdered just minutes from my house just because, like me, they were Jewish. But I've never had to deal with discrimination in the workplace due to my skin color. So it would be silly for me to say, like, "why can't black people get jobs as easily as I can, after all, I face racism too." I absolutely face racism. But it's just not comparable. It's not "less bad" - it's just not comparable.

I think everyone here agrees that there's no way to compare suffering. That's the whole point of the posts you're responding to. Remember, the arguments in this thread about blacks facing worse discrimination than Jews in some areas only started because people were comparing, and were saying things like "we did it, why can't they."

ora_43

Fri, May 01 2015, 6:54 am

chani8 wrote:

If you trust cops then you never heard of the Stamford Prison Guard study

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....iment

or the Cookie Monster phenomenon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvl46PmCfE

What does "trust cops" mean? Trust them to what?

Nobody trusts all cops.

The Stanford prison experiment didn't test cops, it tested civilians. In a prison-like setting that was different in potentially significant ways from actual prisons with actual trained guards. It's useful for learning about human psychology and for understanding just exactly why it's a horrible idea to throw people in jail with guards who are told nothing more than "make their lives uncomfortable and keep them in line." It's not a study of police psychology.

saw50st8

Fri, May 01 2015, 8:02 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

Some posters r calling me racist. I think I'm a realist. Is there anybody here that wouldn't be more scared (actually terrified) if they were alone, walking down the street in Harlem new york while wearing jewelry? How would u feel if instead of harlem it was boro park? You would certainly be more comfortable. Does that mean that u believe all blacks r dangerous and all Jews aren't? How would sone of u explain why u would fear for ur life walking in harlem amongst people u dont know and have never even met? Does it make u racist?

I regularly go to Harlem and the South Bronx for my job. If it's daylight, I'm not afraid of anyone who isn't holding a gun. I am only afraid at night because I can't see danger as well.

I am just as afraid as when I go to Boro Park. Jews don't give me a sense of security. Leiby Klutzky wasn't murdered by a black man.

33055

Fri, May 01 2015, 8:14 am

debsey wrote:

For starters, this article http://www.securitynewsdesk.co.....rain/

A police officer who is in a confrontation with a suspect - who maybe had to chase him or who felt at all angered or threatened - his brain will become adrenalized - and then he's going to overreact. Malcom Gladwell has a whole chapter on how high-speed police chases lead to police brutality because by the time you've caught the guy, your brain is so flooded with adrenaline, you're primed for violence. (Malcom Gladwell also has an article about how the worst offenders for police brutality are often the same people, over and over, and a simple solution would be to strongly investigate the officers with the most complaints about them, but that's a whole different discussion)

A truck driver may be in the statistically more dangerous job, but he's not likely to feel a level of threat or adrenaline when he's sitting in his cab making a routine run. It's kind of like how people are nervous on airplanes, but statistically, crossing the street or driving to Grandma's is more dangerous. The stats are irrelevant, the emotional state is what matters.

I feel like police are being held up to a ridiculous standard with no training to deal with it. Just because on TV a cop can shoot to wound, or the cop seems to have a sixth sense about who's holding a toy gun and who's really dangerous, doesn't mean in the real word a cop can do this! Police officers are trained to shoot to kill, because in an adrenalinzed situation, you shoot the largest target (since your brain is so "not smart" at that point, you could miss and hit a bystander). You can't put people in dangerous, highly adrenalized situations and expect them to always make the best choices.

It's kind of how Israel does its best to minimize civilian casualties, and then is held up to the most ridiculous standard by the court of public opinion. You're asking them to fight a war, be shot at from a building, and then
first ask, before shooting back "was this building perhaps once a school?" No other country is asked to wage war this way, but Israel is condemned, even though they try to do this.

In the same way, it's so easy to be a Monday morning quaterback and say "the police should have known that guy was unarmed." But when it's dark and scary and a guy is yelling and waving something that might be a gun, training takes over and the cop shoots!

If you want to say the training is at fault - fine. But you can't condemn the police in a blanket way.

The adrenaline excuse is just the same excuse for winning armies to enter towns and rape the civilian population. Their blood was running hot. Historically we accepted rape, kill pillage and burn by conquering armies.

Today we know men can control their blood lusts. We don't allow the US army to victimize the soldiers who were just shooting at them. The troops face professionally trained troops and therefore their adrenaline should be running higher.

As a society we should not allow a death every 8 hours by cops with 2 in 5 not resisting at the time.

You cannot separate the organization from the training. That is like saying unlicensed therapists are just as good as licensed therapists but for the training.

ora_43

Fri, May 01 2015, 10:06 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

I'm asking a simple direct question- in a hypothetical situation, if u were stranded in middle of the night, where would u rather be, Harlem or boro park? Sequoa lived in Harlem and would prefer to be stranded in Harlem. I respect that. That being said, if u don't think that 90%+ would choose boro park, ur fooling urself.

Remember that we tend to notice violent people more than non-violent people.

For example, 90% of my interactions with (certain culture) in my neighborhood have been with teenage thugs or pharmacists. That doesn't mean that 90% of people in that race are thugs or pharmacists - just that that's what's most noticeable to me, as someone who isn't part of that cultural group. If I lived in that community, I'd have a lot more interaction with the other 99%.

We all know that intellectually but emotionally there's a certain bias. That's actually a big part of the problem police can have - they deal with a really disproportionate number of criminals, so they can end up with a bias toward seeing people as criminals, without even realizing that they aren't seeing reality as it is.

That said I think that thinking one neighborhood can be safer than another is just common sense. I don't know about the neighborhoods you're talking about (I'm not in NYC), but I know that in my city there are places I wouldn't want to walk around late at night (including plenty of streets in my own neighborhood, ftr), and places I'd be more comfortable. And PC or not, culture is sometimes a part of that. But race isn't. I think that's an important distinction. Like, I'd be very nervous to be a woman walking around alone in Egypt, but not to be a woman walking around in an Arab neighborhood in Be'er Sheva or Haifa.

And again, it's important to remember that the fear is due to violence, but that not all people in that culture are violent. Even if some neighborhoods have triple the crime rate of others, that's still a small minority of people who are criminals. We just "see" criminals more.

33055

Fri, May 01 2015, 12:19 pm

chani8 wrote:

If that policewoman or foster mom hit him across the head to save his life, I would still praise them. Her intent was to keep him alive. Her son has pictures of himself holding a gun and another of an ankle monitor on presumably his ankle on his Facebook page. He is already in the system. Several of his friends are already dead. She didn't want him to be another Freddie Gray. I don't know what it takes to keep a teenager straight in that neighborhood. I will say that he didn't hit her back or otherwise disrespect him.

PinkFridge

Fri, May 01 2015, 12:37 pm

saw50st8 wrote:

When I mentioned a community with mezuzos upthread I was thinking of Leiby Kletzky. Which was a serious anomaly. I don't know what goes on in BP and I hope this thread gets locked if it devolves into a BP bashing, but I don't believe the physical crime and murder rate is the same.

Fox

Fri, May 01 2015, 1:04 pm

Sadie wrote:

"Lost respect"? Like you ever had any respect for black people in your entire life. You were probably raised hearing that shvartzes zenen beheimas since you were in the womb. Your opinion on the "black community" is worthless.

Actually, *all* of our opinions are pretty worthless regarding the causes and solutions to problems experienced by various groups who consider themselves part of the greater black community.

Does anyone here think that those identifying themselves as part of the black community lack leadership that is concerned about the various problems facing their constituencies? And I don't mean the Al Sharpton-type of race peddlers, either.

Peruse dialogues from black-identified writers, activists, pundits, and social observers, and you'll discover that they are equally mystified as to why some individuals and communities do just fine or even excel when presented with hardships while others sink even further into poverty and social disarray.

Believe me, if anyone had any solutions that haven't been tried, black-identified leaders would jump on them with both feet.

What is interesting, though, is that declining institutional and even "soft" racism in the US has unearthed an entirely different issue: rather than dividing across racial lines, Americans are increasingly dividing across socioeconomic lines.

A number of you have referred to this: Black-identified individuals of similar income and education as Imamother posters are likely to have similar views toward the so-called "underclass," which increasingly encompasses poor whites, as well.

Chris Rock built an entire comedy career around this phenomenon, and Charles Murray documented it in mind-numbing detail in "Coming Apart."

What we may discover, in a generation or two, is that a society divided by a culture of poverty doesn't look much better than a society divided by skin color.