I’m not going to read an entire book at your recommendation as the answer to a pretty straightforward question. Why would Africa be targeted arbitrarily? Remember that Europeans controlled large areas of the Asian continent (e.g. India, Vietnam and much of Southeast Asia). And yet these groups thrive in the US and are among the top earners. And what would account for the technological disparity between Europe and Africa that would allow Europeans to “subjugate”? Nothing backs up your claim that whites are responsible for blacks’ failures.
“The cop took Wong’s identification card and began walking away, prompting the octegnearian to protest”.
In other words, he wasn’t arrested for jaywalking, but arrested for resisting his ticket for jaywalking. He’s an odd looking black dude, too.
You can’t say jaywalking prompted that man’s arrest:
"Wong, who only speaks Cantonese and Spanish, did not understand what the cop was saying. The cop took Wong’s identification card and began walking away, prompting the octogenarian to protest.
Loo, joined by several more unidentified cops, pushed Wong up against a building wall trying to handcuff him, then knocked him to the pavement where he struck the back of his head and blacked out.
Besides jaywalking, Wong was also charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct , but the Manhattan district attorney’s office later declined to prosecute the case."
You aren’t too familiar with Ferguson are you?
@Would You Look,
Please look up jaywalking statutes before making such claims as you did. Jaywalking in many jurisdictions is a misdemeanor, while this means that it’s a low level offense; someone CAN still be arrested for jaywalking on it’s own. So NO you’re WRONG to say that you can’t be arrested for just jaywalking. Here is another example, purely jaywalking and nothing else…
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/jailed-jaywalking-pedestrian-crime-lands-some-behi/nhygy/
***************************************
…when she decided to take a shortcut. Rather than walk up to the nearby intersection, she walked across in the middle of the block. Cars were stopped, she said, waiting for a red light up ahead of them. But when she cut across the street, she did it in front of a police officer. “And he’s like, ‘Oh, you’re going to walk in front of me like that?’ I’m confused, I’m not really thinking about him, so I was like, ‘Yeah, It’s a red light.’” Williams said the officer rushed toward her, demanded she stop and handcuffed her. Williams explained what he said to her next, “Well, you’re about to go to jail for violating Georgia’s jaywalking laws.” Then, she told Channel 2’s Dave Huddleston, the officer called for backup. Williams spent eight hours behind bars before she bonded out of jail. Williams called it, “The worst day of my life. The worst experience I had in my life.” This Georgia State College student has something in common with an internationally known British historian who now teaches at Notre Dame University. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto was thrown in the slammer in Atlanta back in 2007. The crime: Jaywalking. He was in town for a history conference and was trying to get to a lecture. He never made it.
^ In every case, here, you’re summarizing the arrested person’s story. Why did the officer “rush toward her and demand that she stop” unless she was leaving? Again, sounds to me that he was issuing a ticket and she was trying to leave (i.e. resist).
@inkybinky, That’s not the issue here; I’m simply arguing that you CAN be arrested for just jaywalking. You obvioulys can be, please see quote below from the PD.
“ Our officers have always had the discretion to either issue a citation or make a physical arrest on any violation of the law, including jaywalking. Certainly, we believe instances of physical arrest for minor infractions are not common.”
Besides she nor the professor were charged with anything else but jaywalking. If they did run away they would have been charged with that.
Wow… good for you. First and foremost, I did NOT state that you CAN’T get arrested for jaywalking. I said you DON’T get arrested for jaywalking.
Please, since you’re so bent out of shape on this issue, I want you to find a few stats to bolster your argument.
-
Tell me how many jaywalking citations were issued, say in 2013 or 2014 (most recently available), including tickets, warnings, arrests.
-
Then, divide the number of arrests FOR JAYWALKING ONLY, by the previous figure from #1.
-
Then, find how many other citations were issued for the persons being arrested for jaywalking.
You will discover revelation… that, yes, you can be arrested for jaywalking and only jaywalking, however, the figures will overwhelmingly show that a) you gave the cops another reason to arrest you (disorderly conduct, distrubing the peace, outstanding warrants, failure to identify yourself, etc…); b) overwhelmingly more citations for jaywalking result in a ticket rather than being cuffed; c) the one and only “legititmate” example you’ve found means nothing in comparison. You would fail to reject the null hypothesis that the number of jaywalking cases ending in arrest is not statistically different than zero.
@inkbinky, “Why would Africa be targeted arbitrarily?”
No offense but did you just not take any history courses in college? I’m wondering here. The reason Africa was targeted was because of natural resources. Africa is the most mineral rich continent and Europe is one of the least (excluding Antartica). European countries HAD to be seafaring peoples because they needed the natural resources of others. So no, it wasn’t random or arbitrary; it was out of necessity and the need to increase their wealth.
The poorly written article didn’t detail their charges. The people arrested claim that they were arrested for jaywalking, but in both cases their stories implied resistance. Perhaps the resistence was minor and the cop was overly aggressive.
Technically a cop can arrest anybody even if they *don’t* violate any law. Because…well…they’re cops. I think the fact that the article notes that 266 tickets were issued and they had to go back to 2007 to find a second arrest “for jaywalking” indicates that you’re not right on this matter.
By the way, the professor with the hispanic sounding name is actually a white British dude. So I guess, at least in Atlanta, half of the people “arrested for jaywalking” are actually white.
Being so rich in natural resources, why was Africa not better developed than Europe by the time Europeans decided to set up colonies?
Would You Look, “I did NOT state that you CAN’T get arrested for jaywalking. I said you DON’T get arrested for jaywalking”…in philosphy class they would call this “a distinction with a difference”. You sound like Bill Clinton now, “it depends what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”
Unless you’re going to pay me at my hourly rate; I’m not doing any research for you.
@inkybinky, My simple argument here is that you can be arrested for jaywalking. This is a fact. I’m not sure what there is to argue here.
I don’t think any reasonable person would look at his statement and take away that it’s actually impossible to get arrested for jaywalking or that nobody in history has every been arrested for it. I would hope, for example, that a cop would arrest (or detain) a crazy person walking around in the middle of an intersection at least for that person’s own safety.
What’s peculiar is your claim that 95% of people arrested for “jaywalking” are black. I think everyone can agree that jaywalking arrests are exceedingly rare such that it’s probably not even a statistically valid sample. So what’s the point here other than that cops are racist or that racist cops are more likely to arrest people for jaywalking or whatever?
The reality is that blacks are more prone to commit crime. You might not like that hard truth and it might not fit with your cops-are-racist narrative, but it’s true. And blacks aren’t poor because whitey is keeping them down. Whitey kept Asians down once, too, and yet they’re now more successful as a group than whites.
that’s cute… however, there’s a big difference in “can’t” versus “don’t”.
For instance:
It’s not that I can’t (i.e. not allowed to, prohibited from) to smoke cigarettes. I just don’t (i.e. choose not to) smoke cigarettes.
“Unless you’re going to pay me at my hourly rate; I’m not doing any research for you.” - I’ll just take this as you give up because you know it’s a losing argument on your end.
Inkybinky, I feel like I’m teaching history class here. I feel that it would be good for you to watch some PBS documentaries. I’m not an historian as this is an AF forum.
“Being so rich in natural resources, why was Africa not better developed than Europe by the time Europeans decided to set up colonies?”
Africa had large cities, their structure of housing was different due to available resources (clay and brick housing versus stones in Europe). They didn’t wear a lot of clothes because it’s obvioulsy very hot in Africa and Europeans did wear a lot of clothes because it was cold. I would argue that the major difference between the two was electricity and gunpowder. The gunpowder one is easy because again it’s an issue of trade. If you look at Ethiopia which had success defeating colonial invasions from Italy; the difference was that the Ethiopian had guns. I can only presume that Ethiopia being on the eastern coast was able to take part in a lot of the trading routes throughout the Indies. Regarding electricity, the invention of electricity changed the game but by the time electricity came around colonialization and the slave trade were already in full swing. So I don’t think the Europeans would have wanted to trade their new discovery with the people they were subjugating.
I’m not an historian, these are my conclusions from what I know. Please do you personal research on this topic.
“however, there’s a big difference in “can’t” versus “don’t””…this is a clear sign that an argument is going nowhere. Let’s call an armistice on this one
“The reality is that blacks are more prone to commit crime.”…I’m not arguing against the stats. I argee that black communities contain more crime…NO ONE is arguing that. What I’m saying is that it’s not because they have more pigmentation in their skin, it’s because they’re poor. Poor neighborhoods have more crime, more blacks are poor, so black neighborhoods have more crime. You’re taking a unfortunate shortcut and exlcuding the poor part, which doesn’t add up.
“The reality is that blacks are more prone to commit crime.”…so does this mean that Colin Powell is more prone to commit crime then George Bush, simply because of the pigmentation of his skin???
What? No. It just means that if you pick a random black guy and random white guy, the black guy is more likely to be a criminal. Thus, if your goal is to catch as many criminals as possible with a fixed number of stops, one valid strategy would be to stop as many black people as possible.
I’m not sure why the subjugation of Africa by European colonists is relevant to the Ferguson situation. I know black people had a hard time in the past. However, so did other people, like Jews, Irish, Asians, or other immigrants. At some point, you just have to leave that stuff behind.
Ohai, “one valid strategy would be to stop as many black people as possible.” Aside from the fact that rounding up black people would be unconstitutional. You know that thing called probable cause in the other thing called the constitution; being black is not probably cause for a stop.
Just in case you are unfamiliar with teh Fourth Amendment…
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.