American Riots, Michael Brown....is it justified ?

[BruceVC]

http://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-michael-brown-shooting-death-225723458.html;_ylt=AwrBT0eBg3VUJDMAxVRXNyoA

 

 

So most of us should be aware of this development. In summary a grand jury found that Officer Wilson would not face criminal charges for  the shooting of Michael Brown  and there have now been riots throughout several cities in the USA as people claim this was the wrong decision and this highlights how there is unfair treatment when it comes to African Americans in the US legal system

 

I have been following several discussions around this and I'm not convinced that the grand jury came to the wrong decision. A few points from my perspective

 

• The various witnesses that said Officer Wilson acted unlawfully were inconsistent with there testimonies around the sequence of events that lead to the shooting
• There were 2 shots that were fired within the police car so this supports Officer Wilsons version that Brown reached for his gun
• There was visible physical harm to Officer Wilsons face so that supports his story he was attacked by Brown

 

Anyway what do you guys think about this whole furore. Apparently the prosecutor didn't do a very good job at challenging Officer Wilson during the grand jury  deliberations...but I'm not sure this is justified as was there irrefutable evidence that Officer Wilson did act unlawfully?

 

Also why do people who riot feel that damaging properties is justified? We see this in South Africa during service delivery protests in impoverished communities where protestors burn schools and public buildings to the grounds. Apparently this is the only way to get governments to listen, I question this logic because all it does it negatively impact the communities even more

 

Anyway any opinions on this matter will be interesting and appreciated

 

 

[BruceVC]

I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.

Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.

 

Here is how I would describe.

 

1. Policeman shot a man.

2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.

 

That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?

The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.

 

 

As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.

 

I am also of the overall opinion that Officer Wilson acted within his rights, apparently there is a law in Missouri where a Police officer can use deadly force if his life is threatened and that doesn't mean the person has to be armed. So for me its obvious he acted within his rights as he was definitely attacked by Brown

 

This seems to have become a racial issue where the general accusation is that the police in the USA are fundamentally racist and they selectively target African Americans but I was watching an interview by Rudy Giuliani who said that 80 % of homicides in NY are committed by African Americans and they are mostly  black on black murders. So his argument is not that the Police are targeting African American communities but that is where the most crime is committed so that is where the Police are most active and make the most arrests?

[LadyCrimson]

Riots, looting, and violence that harm people or businesses having nothing to do with the percieved problem/insult is never justified. Protest, rally, and sit on the courthouse steps or something all you want - which may involve some authority confrontations, yes - but trying to get things changed by frightening/harming the common people - I don't agree with that.

 

As to the verdict ... I'm not well read up on it enough to make a judgement. I think there are too many cases like this that may be ... unfair ... and/or to the outside observor seem to form a disagreeable pattern, but not sure if this case was truly one of those or if it was just high profile enough to cause inflammation over the potential pattern itself, if that makes sense.

[Volourn]

The riots aren't justified. Even if the cop was guilty of murder, who are the riots hurting? Innocent people who did nothing wrong.

 

As for the actual incident, too much   suspicious testimony. It had to be tossed.

 

I also think this is one of those incidents that prove that racism is not a white only disease. Not that it need to be proven since it should be known already.

 

Also, there's a difference between PROTESTING and RIOTING. Sadly, a lot of people just don't get that.

[Rosbjerg]

It's never justified unless against an actual unjust society. Riots are mostly about pent up emotion and never really about the spark itself. The group behavior during the riots then tells us what emotions are being expressed.

 

And in this case, it really should be a wake up call to the western world, that our minorities and poor are feeling disenfranchised and frustrated... and unless we address it, however true or untrue, and help alleviate it - then these outbursts are only gonna escalate, providing foundations for further "us vs them" thinking on both sides of the fence, until you actually have injustice.

 

I've worked with kids like this and they don't feel like a part of society at all and can't really envision themselves in it, causing a great deal of emotional stress and anger for being 'excluded'.. Does that justify this? of course not, but if we blame them and them solely, then we are completely missing the causality that lead us here.

[Volourn]

"And in this case, it really should be a wake up call to the western world, that our minorities and poor are feeling disenfranchised and frustrated.."

 

Have a question.. why aren't Asians,  Muslims, and other minorities rioting as well?  Do you really think 'white amerika' is so intensly anti black  that they go out of their way to make that particular minority miserable including forcing blacks to murder blacks en masse AND elect a black president?

 

COME ON.

 

Also, plenty of blacks live worthwhile productive lives. And, plenty of THOSE grww up in poor neighbourhoods as well yet managed to  raise themselves up.

 

Racism exist. Racism is bad. But, it's not a one way street nor is there some huge  anti black conspiracy. I mean the KKK is a fringe barely legal organziation that has absolutely no influence and is utterly ridiculed. So much so some KKK punk  wants to completely change it.

 

There's also been absolutely no proof that this cop shot this guy because He. Just. Hated. Black. People. That. Much.

[butterfly]

I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.

Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.

 

Here is how I would describe.

 

1. Policeman shot a man.

2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.

 

That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?

The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.

 

 

As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.

 

The reason to involve race is the fact that when the police shoot and kill an unarmed man in the USA that person is disproportionately black. Like 21 times more than whites.

[Namutree]

I want establish something. The riots are NOT about the Ferguson case. That is just the ignition. The riots are the result of long standing mistreatment of the black community by law enforcement. Anything would have set them off. The government creates an incredibly unstable situation; then the black community predictably erupts. 

 

If the government wanted to end the terrible relations between the black community and law enforcement; they'd end the drug war. As long as it exists, you can bet America will get more and more unstable until it finally collapses. 

[BruceVC]

I want establish something. The riots are NOT about the Ferguson case. That is just the ignition. The riots are the result of long standing mistreatment of the black community by law enforcement. Anything would have set them off. The government creates an incredibly unstable situation; then the black community predictably erupts. 

 

If the government wanted to end the terrible relations between the black community and law enforcement; they'd end the drug war. As long as it exists, you can bet America will get more and more unstable until it finally collapses. 

I agree that part of this is a symptomatic problem created by mistrust and perception from certain sectors within minority communities

 

But I don't get the whole drug war aspect and why its so relevant ? You mentioned this before, can you explain what you mean when you say " end the drug war" ?

[Drowsy Emperor]

The underclass doesn't like being the underclass, nothing new there. As inequality rises further, and even the mirage of vertical mobility disappears, so will these events become both worse and more frequent.

[Namutree]

 

I want establish something. The riots are NOT about the Ferguson case. That is just the ignition. The riots are the result of long standing mistreatment of the black community by law enforcement. Anything would have set them off. The government creates an incredibly unstable situation; then the black community predictably erupts. 

 

If the government wanted to end the terrible relations between the black community and law enforcement; they'd end the drug war. As long as it exists, you can bet America will get more and more unstable until it finally collapses. 

I agree that part of this is a symptomatic problem created by mistrust and perception from certain sectors within minority communities

 

But I don't get the whole drug war aspect and why its so relevant ? You mentioned this before, can you explain what you mean when you say " end the drug war" ?

 

The Drug War is a government campaign to eliminate recreational drug use in America through law enforcement. It has several problems.

 

1) It includes laws that give local law enforcement more funding if they achieve more drug abuse convictions. This means that cops WANT to arrest people. Because of this they scour black neighborhoods looking to arrest people for even the smallest offence. The reason that black neighborhoods are targeted is because they are more poor than other communities, and thus can't afford decent legal representation. This is why even though white and black people use drugs at the same rate; blacks are 4 times more likely to be arrested for drug possession.

 

2) The drug war allows law enforcement to confiscate any property that was used in a given drug offence. If you drive a nice car and are caught with pot in the vehicle; they can steal your car. This is something they like to do. Again, convicting black people is usually easier than other citizens; so once again law enforcement will give special attention to black people for convictions.

 

This creates an incredibly hostile relationship between the police and the black community. If the campaign were dropped; law enforcement's incentives to harass the black community (thus sabotaging it) would diminish greatly.

 

EDIT: This is not even close to describing how bad the Drug War is, but these are the elements that are especially bad for blacks.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

The underclass doesn't like being the underclass, nothing new there. As inequality rises further, and even the mirage of vertical mobility disappears, so will these events become both worse and more frequent.

There was no mirage of vertical mobility. Most of America's richest people started off as poor immigrants until progressives introduced a bunch of government protectionism. Then of course it became much more difficult to achieve upward mobility. It's still possible though; I was born into poverty, but now I'm lower-middle class. In Michigan that really counts as middle-class since there are so many poor people around here that prices are unusually low.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I want establish something. The riots are NOT about the Ferguson case. That is just the ignition. The riots are the result of long standing mistreatment of the black community by law enforcement. Anything would have set them off. The government creates an incredibly unstable situation; then the black community predictably erupts. 

 

If the government wanted to end the terrible relations between the black community and law enforcement; they'd end the drug war. As long as it exists, you can bet America will get more and more unstable until it finally collapses. 

I agree that part of this is a symptomatic problem created by mistrust and perception from certain sectors within minority communities

 

But I don't get the whole drug war aspect and why its so relevant ? You mentioned this before, can you explain what you mean when you say " end the drug war" ?

 

The Drug War is a government campaign to eliminate recreational drug use in America through law enforcement. It has several problems.

 

1) It includes laws that give local law enforcement more funding if they achieve more drug abuse convictions. This means that cops WANT to arrest people. Because of this they scour black neighborhoods looking to arrest people for even the smallest offence. The reason that black neighborhoods are targeted is because they are more poor than other communities, and thus can't afford decent legal representation. This is why even though white and black people use drugs at the same rate; blacks are 4 times more likely to be arrested for drug possession.

 

2) The drug war allows law enforcement to confiscate any property that was used in a given drug offence. If you drive a nice car and are caught with pot in the vehicle; they can steal your car. This is something they like to do. Again, convicting black people is usually easier than other citizens; so once again law enforcement will give special attention to black people for convictions.

 

This creates an incredibly hostile relationship between the police and the black community. If the campaign were dropped; law enforcement's incentives to harass the black community (thus sabotaging it) would diminish greatly.

 

EDIT: This is not even close to describing how bad the Drug War is, but these are the elements that are especially bad for blacks.

 

 

This is a very interesting post, I didn't know much about what you saying

 

As someone who smokes weed myself I think it is preposterous that a person can get incarcerated or there property seized for having weed on them. That's why I am very supportive of the legalization of certain drugs, like Marijuana, as it will seem to reduce this type of tension between law enforcement and minority groups

 

But I don't think you can legalize all drugs like Heroine and Crystal Meth

[butterfly]

 

 

I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.

Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.

 

Here is how I would describe.

 

1. Policeman shot a man.

2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.

 

That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?

The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.

 

 

As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.

 

The reason to involve race is the fact that when the police shoot and kill an unarmed man in the USA that person is disproportionately black. Like 21 times more than whites.

 

Ok, I should just make a funny comment about person being disproportionately black and leave it at that.

 

Instead I just ask: was those shootings unjustified?

Because if they were not then the race doesn't matter and the police should answer for unjustified shooting.

And if they were justified then sorry, but you are defending criminals.

 

Also, according to statistics black people commit crimes 21 times more than whites, so the proportion of shooting white crimnals to black criminals is anything but disproportionate.

 

 

Looking at isolated cases is very different from looking at patterns. Each case might look OK in isolation, but when taken in context there definitely is a problem.

 

You're insistence that race shouldn't be an issue is ignoring the pattern. I can understand that you think there is no problem, i can't understand that you think there isn't even anything to discuss.

 

Defending criminals is a totally OK thing to, they are people too. It's crime and criminal behaviour which is the problem.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

 

This is a very interesting post, I didn't know much about what you saying

 

As someone who smokes weed myself I think it is preposterous that a person can get incarcerated or there property seized for having weed on them. That's why I am very supportive of the legalization of certain drugs, like Marijuana, as it will seem to reduce this type of tension between law enforcement and minority groups

 

But I don't think you can legalize all drugs like Heroine and Crystal Meth

 

While I believe drugs should all be legal; you wouldn't need to legalize them to end the Drug War. If the government took an approach of treatment rather than punishment; it would go a long way to fixing the problem caused by the Drug War.

 

The Drug War isn't just being against drug abuse; it's about trying to scare people into staying away from them. It doesn't work, and is incredibly destructive to society. Treatment would be cheaper, more effective, and less harmful to society.

[Chilloutman]

I kind of believe in conspiracy that so called 'Drug war' is actually well organized by some lobbist of mafia to keep prices high enough and some politicans must be part of their payroll. Hard to explain why spend billions of dolars to catch pot smokers

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.

Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.

 

Here is how I would describe.

 

1. Policeman shot a man.

2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.

 

That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?

The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.

 

 

As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.

 

The reason to involve race is the fact that when the police shoot and kill an unarmed man in the USA that person is disproportionately black. Like 21 times more than whites.

 

Ok, I should just make a funny comment about person being disproportionately black and leave it at that.

 

Instead I just ask: was those shootings unjustified?

Because if they were not then the race doesn't matter and the police should answer for unjustified shooting.

And if they were justified then sorry, but you are defending criminals.

 

Also, according to statistics black people commit crimes 21 times more than whites, so the proportion of shooting white crimnals to black criminals is anything but disproportionate.

 

 

Looking at isolated cases is very different from looking at patterns. Each case might look OK in isolation, but when taken in context there definitely is a problem.

 

You're insistence that race shouldn't be an issue is ignoring the pattern. I can understand that you think there is no problem, i can't understand that you think there isn't even anything to discuss.

 

Defending criminals is a totally OK thing to, they are people too. It's crime and criminal behaviour which is the problem.

 

There is no pattern. If more black people commit crime then more black people get shot during police intervention. If it was other way around then we could say about pattern or intentional shooting of black people. Right now the police is simply doing their job. What do you propose, they shouldn't catch black criminals?

 

- There is a shooting on Elm Street

- Copy that, we are on our way

- No, sorry false alarm. The criminal is black we passed the limit on black people, we need to catch 2 more white criminals before we catch another black.

 

This is what you advocating for?

 

Also, defending criminals from police is ok? Really?

 

 

From the statistics I've seen it appears that there is more black on black violence in the USA that other groups, so this should also be a consideration around the question " are the Police only targeting black people "

 

They aren't, they are going where the crime is and it can be more severe in some minority communities

[butterfly]

 

 

 

 

I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.

Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.

 

Here is how I would describe.

 

1. Policeman shot a man.

2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.

 

That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?

The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.

 

 

As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.

 

The reason to involve race is the fact that when the police shoot and kill an unarmed man in the USA that person is disproportionately black. Like 21 times more than whites.

 

Ok, I should just make a funny comment about person being disproportionately black and leave it at that.

 

Instead I just ask: was those shootings unjustified?

Because if they were not then the race doesn't matter and the police should answer for unjustified shooting.

And if they were justified then sorry, but you are defending criminals.

 

Also, according to statistics black people commit crimes 21 times more than whites, so the proportion of shooting white crimnals to black criminals is anything but disproportionate.

 

 

Looking at isolated cases is very different from looking at patterns. Each case might look OK in isolation, but when taken in context there definitely is a problem.

 

You're insistence that race shouldn't be an issue is ignoring the pattern. I can understand that you think there is no problem, i can't understand that you think there isn't even anything to discuss.

 

Defending criminals is a totally OK thing to, they are people too. It's crime and criminal behaviour which is the problem.

 

There is no pattern. If more black people commit crime then more black people get shot during police intervention. If it was other way around then we could say about pattern or intentional shooting of black people. Right now the police is simply doing their job. What do you propose, they shouldn't catch black criminals?

 

- There is a shooting on Elm Street

- Copy that, we are on our way

- No, sorry false alarm. The criminal is black we passed the limit on black people, we need to catch 2 more white criminals before we catch another black.

 

This is what you advocating for?

 

Also, defending criminals from police is ok? Really?

 

 

Statistics are a little more complicated than "blacks commit more crime" - " more blacks get shot by police" = 1-1 =0. It's actually a very complicated problem compiling and analysing all the data.

 

You're caricature shows to me that you're not really listening. Law enforcement is more than "see crime, arrest criminal".

 

What i'm advocating is that when there are doubts about police behaviour, those are investigated thoroughly. And that people don't say, like you do, "oh a police officer shot a criminal, that's OK then".

 

And could you explain to me why criminals should never be defended from the Police. There are in fact many such protections enshrined in law, do you disapprove of these?

[Namutree]

 

 

They aren't, they are going where the crime is and it can be more severe in some minority communities

 

They are. It's just a self-fulling prophecy. Thanks to the drug war they do target black people. Those black people go to jail where they are introduced into a hardcore criminal culture; while also being branded for life as a criminal. They get out of jail; now that they can't succeed in normal life, and are comfortable with criminal culture; they unsurprisingly become criminals for life. 

 

That leads to more crime in black communities; which in turn leads to more attention from law-enforcement. Then it repeats perpetually.

 

It's a vicious cycle, and it needs to be broken.

[Volourn]

This is a mostly black community... so these rioters are likely targeting black community businesses. So.. their logic is we are mad whitey is murdering our criminals  so... we'll destroy the hard work of our fellow blacks.

 

DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

\

 

Again, no answer. Why are blacks being picked on by whitety but not other  racist/culture groups? Not even Muslims/Arabs  get into this sort of trouble despite the aftermath of post 9/11 life...

Edited November 26, 2014 by Volourn

[Namutree]

This is a mostly black community... so these rioters are likely targeting black community businesses. So.. their logic is we are mad whitey is murdering our criminals  so... we'll destroy the hard work of our fellow blacks.

 

DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

\

 

Again, no answer. Why are blacks being picked on by whitety but not other  racist/culture groups? Not even Muslims/Arabs  get into this sort of trouble despite the aftermath of post 9/11 life...

For your first point: You are right. The riots are more them emotionally lashing out than a logical attempt at anything positive.

 

Why are they being pick on by law enforcement? (It's not just white cops, it's all cops; even black cops) I have already explained that. They have a financial interest in arresting people. Black people are the easiest to arrest because they are poor.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Namutree

[Rosbjerg]

An antagonistic approach to discussions will generally generate an antagonistic response... to get your point across - maybe drop the stereotyping?

 

I see the exact same stereotyping towards Poles, I'm sure you would disagree.

 

Stop turning things upside down. We are talking about convicted criminals or criminals caught in the act.

 

If you feel this is "turning things upside down" then you're not really getting this discussion, sorry to say. Everyone agrees that the criminal got caught and that the rioters are criminals. We're discussing why it's happening and what the implications of that is..

 

You might remember Bloom's Taxonomy from school - we've gone from comprehension and recollection of events, to analysis and evaluation.

[butterfly]

 

Statistics are a little more complicated than "blacks commit more crime" - " more blacks get shot by police" = 1-1 =0. It's actually a very complicated problem compiling and analysing all the data.

 

You're caricature shows to me that you're not really listening. Law enforcement is more than "see crime, arrest criminal".

 

What i'm advocating is that when there are doubts about police behaviour, those are investigated thoroughly. And that people don't say, like you do, "oh a police officer shot a criminal, that's OK then".

 

And could you explain to me why criminals should never be defended from the Police. There are in fact many such protections enshrined in law, do you disapprove of these?

Let's not change statistics into rocket science. It's fairly simple if black people commit more crimes then white people then more black people gets arrested statistically. If this do not happen then we have a deviation from statistic and other factors are in play.

 

Where did I say that if there are doubts the situation should not be investigated? All I said is that white policeman shooting black criminal is not a reasonable case "because racism". it's like I said in the very first post the case is simple "was the shooting justified", the color of skin is not a factor in proving that.

 

Stop turning things upside down. We are talking about convicted criminals or criminals caught in the act. If the police do not exceed the limits of the law then I don't see any reason to defend them, especially "because they black, and racism" argument. 

 

Everyone have the right for a lawyer in court that is obvious. SWJ defending criminals because of the color of the skin are not necessary.

 

 

Doing statistics correct IS a rocket science. How are you going to measure crime levels vs arrest levels. You can't use arrest levels obviously 'cause that would be circular. Data can be incomplete or manipulated. This link by example discusses the incompleteness of the record on police killings, with unjustifiable shootings not even being recorded.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/

 

An unarmed man was shot to dead at a considerable distance from the policeman who sustained no serious injury. How was this justifed again, and how is this it so clear that nobody could have reasonable even serious doubts about it?

[213374U]

Stop turning things upside down. We are talking about convicted criminals or criminals caught in the act. If the police do not exceed the limits of the law then I don't see any reason to defend them, especially "because they black, and racism" argument. 

 

Everyone have the right for a lawyer in court that is obvious. SWJ defending criminals because of the color of the skin are not necessary.

 

No one in this thread is arguing whether police acting perfectly lawfully in a scenario where violent criminals threaten their lives are entitled to use deadly force. That is not really what's happening here and elsewhere.

 

The problem is the perception shared by many that police will resort to (deadly) force without due justification and there will be no consequences for this behavior. This means that the rule of law is subverted by those tasked with upholding it, and trust in the rule of law is one thing keeping the social fabric from unraveling. Of course, "the full weight of Justice" (Obama dixit) will fall on those who dare rise up against a manifestly unjust establishment. Way of the world.

 

In fact, it is you who is turning things upside down because you are treating as fact some things that are merely assumptions, to wit, that convictions are fair, that law enforcement is applied equally across the different strata of society, that being caught "in the act" means somebody is guilty, etc.

 

Personally, it's especially appalling that you are suggesting that "being caught in the act" or even "being a criminal" is a liability waiver for law enforcement agents using deadly force.

 

And about this "statistics aren't rocket science", there is a reason why sensible sociologists, historians and political scientists are often wary about drawing immediate conclusions from statistics. Think about it — is the fact that more blacks are convicted a consequence of blacks actually committing more crimes, or is the statistic of crimes committed by blacks higher due to more blacks being convicted?

 

edit: beaten to the punch

Edited November 26, 2014 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

It's never justified unless against an actual unjust society. Riots are mostly about pent up emotion and never really about the spark itself. The group behavior during the riots then tells us what emotions are being expressed.

 

And in this case, it really should be a wake up call to the western world, that our minorities and poor are feeling disenfranchised and frustrated... and unless we address it, however true or untrue, and help alleviate it - then these outbursts are only gonna escalate, providing foundations for further "us vs them" thinking on both sides of the fence, until you actually have injustice.

 

I've worked with kids like this and they don't feel like a part of society at all and can't really envision themselves in it, causing a great deal of emotional stress and anger for being 'excluded'.. Does that justify this? of course not, but if we blame them and them solely, then we are completely missing the causality that lead us here.

 

The search for this causality can be misplaced at times by politicians. I have already heard that it is society's fault, that people shoule be feeling more welcomed, and that the current power-structure marginalizes minorities. Basically it is the majority's fault inheritly. While normal people can smell such accusations as BS, the politicians do not.

 

What i haven't heard is any politician (or even people in media) raising for serious research on anti-social behaviour on minority groups and how to develop preventative and rehabilitative measures. Because it is a complex problem, since as earlier mentioned in the thread, the same problem does not seem to happen in asian or first generation immigrants from africa.