1. I did expalin how Rampart had very little to do with racism. Would you like me to repeat it?
Knock yourself out. So far I haven't bought it.
And actually, if you analyze it further, I'm willing to bet that minorities were way overrepresented among those who were framed as being gang members too. After all, it fits the fact that gang members seem to overwhelmingly be non-white
, which is also consistent with the idea that they engage in these activities due to a relatively greater scarcity of opportunities compared to Whites. It would be odd if the "gang members" they caught were mostly White, don't you think?
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. All use of force by police was self reported, therefore subjective. Outside complaints may be objectively verifiable, but since we comparing this number to a subjective one, the observed relationship is not objective or verifiable.
So what you are arguing is that we can't observe actual use of force. But this doesn't mean it's impossible to study the matter: If your outcome is observed with just random error, then the only problem you'll get is that the estimates are noisier. But they should not be biased.
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. If no one should need to protest, but black people need to do so in order to hold cops accountable, then either the system is set up so that blacks would need to do this, or the system failed in some way. You have not shown how the system failed. Quite the opposite, you argue that it works perfectly. So do I, but with the caveat that the system is meant to allow cops to kill innocent black people with impunity, while you think of this as a puzzling aberration.
No legal system is perfect, and no one should expect them to be - including the American one. But the fact that the system is imperfect doesn't make it set up to be racist
That's why I'm asking you what your proposal in this matter is. The American system is indeed flawed, but what's your alternative? Making DAs an appointed position rather than an elected one? That could indeed fix some problems, but I can imagine creating others (such as creating a legitimacy crisis if they are incompetent or corrupt, plus nonfeasance can clearly be a problem here as well). Forcing DAs to pursue cases even if lacking evidence? I can imagine this being used as a political and social weapon against undesirables, particularly if they lack the means to respond, and also being expensive in general.
One proposal I found, which is perhaps a not so invasive one that probably has little downsides, is to allow private citizens who are annoyed by a DA's decision not to prosecute to file and get a court declaration saying the DA is committing nonfeasance. This would not in itself have any direct consequences against him or her, but it would damage reelection prospects if the public agrees with the Court's reasoning.