Feedback

[Lonestar_logic]

A 10 y/o probably knows it's not a good idea to pull people over based on skin color.

Unlike you.

Then they'd be as dumb as you are.

 

[BDBoop]

Did you see ACA passed? BooYAH!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's good for you and your preference to yield to authoritarianism and statism. Why should you be pulled over and searched because you are white? Were you driving erratically? If the only 'probable cause' to pull you over was the color of your skin, I definitely have a problem with that. I don't care what color you are, this is not supposed to be a police state, this is supposed to be a free country.

You sir are an idiot.

Racial profiling is a valid tool and very useful.

If a black man is seen drinving through a white neighborhood at 3 in the morning he should be stopped and questioned and vice versa.

Thanks for the compliment!!!

How is 'racial profiling a valid and useful tool'?

I'm glad I don't live in that part of America where people like you harbor that fucked up mentality when it comes to people's civil rights and the police state. You can keep that dumb shit where you live.

You truly are an idiot if you need it explained to you.

The empirical basis of racial profiling
There is strong and compelling evidence to support a relationship between race and crime that is not due to chance. As Randall Kennedy maintains, "Statistics abundantly confirm that African Americans-and particularly young black men-commit a dramatically disproportionate share of street crime in the United States". This assertion is based on several sources, but the ultimate foundation can be found in statistics compiled by the Department of Justice. These include the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR).

Certain authors maintain that the use of arrest data is unreliable because racist officers will look to arrest fewer whites and more minorities, then point to arrest data as proof that minorities commit more crimes than whites and use this as a reason to go on patrol and target more minorities.[31] While this criticism is most tenable in the discussion of drug offences and other crimes where the state is the complainant, it stands on shaky ground in crimes with victims. In such cases, the police will make an arrest based on descriptions provided by the victim and ultimately on her identification of a suspect. To say that the police seek to arrest minorities when victims have instead described their perpetrators as white is not only counter-intuitive but involves widespread collusion by crime victims, a considerable number of whom are minorities themselves.[32]

It is unfortunate that many of the arguments in support of the empirical link between race and crime published in peer-reviewed journals have been authored by the white separatist Jared Taylor.[33] Still, he uses data based on government-supplied statistics and subjects them to straightforward analysis to present relative rates of offence. While it is easy to find his conclusions and policy recommendations fatally flawed and extreme, it is useful to consider the data he presents.

Based on NCVS data, individual blacks are 50 times more likely to commit crimes against whites than vice-versa; groups of blacks are up to 250 times as likely to do so.[34] In fact, NCVS data suggests that blacks are responsible for 90% of all violent interracial crime.[35] What this implies is that in racially-mixed situations, blacks account for the vast majority of violent, interracial crime. A further implication is that if the police are patrolling such areas populated by a mix of white and black citizens, the sub-group of blacks among them contains significantly more criminals.

Taylor also notes that the data are skewed by the misleading characterization of Hispanics as white in federal crime reports. If a person of Mexican or Colombian descent, for example, is arrested for a robbery, it is recorded as a white person committing the crime. Hispanics may very well be closer to white than black in their racial makeup. Still, categorizing them as white is the bizarre exception to a general rule of considering them as a separate racial/ethnic group for the purposes of government data collection, and perhaps more importantly in the eyes of racists who discriminate against them. In fact, the only time Hispanics get their own category in federal crime statistics is not when they perpetrate a crime but instead when they are the victim of a hate crime.[36] The net effect is representing the population of whites as being larger than it actually is when comparing rates of offense based on race.

The main flaw with Taylor and Whitney's methodology is its focus on interracial crime. It thereby neglects the analysis of crimes committed intraracially, which are just as important to solve, deal with, and account for as interracial ones. The rate at which blacks commit crimes among themselves can yield useful data about relative offence rates and the degree to which chance might explain racial disparities.

To this end, this author conducted three Chi-Square tests for fit. The tests used the categorical variables of race and type of offence viz the total number of arrests of blacks and whites for those offences in 1997. The first crime chosen was murder, for several reasons. Murder is the crime least likely to be downplayed by the police. There are great efforts made to close as many murder cases as possible regardless of the race of victims or offenders. Also, it is as extremely difficult to doctor murder statistics as it is for the police to remove a dead body from a street or hallway and act as if nothing happened despite the inquiries of aggrieved family and friends.[37]

The second offence chosen was the aggregate category of arrests for violent felony crimes. These include robbery, aggravated assault, rape, and of course murder. This choice was made under the presumption that such crimes provide a more compelling case for proactive police measures such as profiling than property crimes, and because, in the case of all violent crimes, a witness or complainant must describe and identify a suspect prior to arrest, minimizing the potential for police bias.

The third offence chosen was arrest for illegal weapons possession, in light of the criticism that the NYPD has encountered for disproportionately targeting minorities for frisks in an effort to find illegal firearms. One criticism of this statistic, as mentioned earlier, is that one can find things only where one looks for them: "If blacks are stopped at rates that are shockingly disproportionate to any other group in the population. then it should not be a surprise that they are subsequently arrested, prosecuted and convicted more frequently than whites".[38] Still, a certain amount of these arrests are incidental to the investigation of other crimes such as disputes and assaults, and enforcement efforts searching for weapons are often driven by a neighborhood's reported rate of violent crime.

It was assumed that the black population in the United States is approximately 12 percent.[39] It was also assumed that whites make up 85% of the population, which is somewhat of an overestimate, but since Hispanic offenders cannot be separated from this group without guesswork, it was estimated that they offend at a rate equal to or less than whites for a margin of safety.

The data considered were taken from the 1997 FBI UCR,[40] which is the most recent year for which the FBI posts detailed race and crime data on the internet. It is summarized in Table 1, below (The complete table is published in Appendix A).

QUT | LJJ | Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement Decision making - QUT LJJ V1 No 2 2001

 

[BDBoop]

 

[Pheonixops]

 

[Pheonixops]

 

[Pheonixops]

 

[Pheonixops]

Here's the link:
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/racial_profiling_fact_sheet.pdf

You are obviously pretty wrong on a Constitutional and Operational basis there 'big guy'. Sorry dude!

 

[Pheonixops]

More education:
[Guest Post] Patting down the data on racial profiling in New York City « Prison Law Blog

 

[BDBoop]

Good job.

 

[squeeze berry]

First time I heard about DWB was when Blair Underwood was on LA Law.

I had no clue.

Did you see Crash?

fiction, right?

 

[BDBoop]

Not the first sentence. Why don't you go past that first?

 

[squeeze berry]

this thread should be moved to the conspiracy theory sub-forum

 

[squeeze berry]

Sure they are. Where is either one of those rights violated?

An officer has the right to search you if he has probable cause. I'd argue that with blacks representing 12 percent of the population while accouting for over 50 percent of all violent crime, then there is plenty of probable cause.

Where was the 'probable cause', the guy putting drinks into his own car while being black? I don't know or care where you got those stats from, but if you believe in the Individual, that sort of profiling and stomping on people's Constitutional rights, should piss you off.
How would you like it if people profiled and shit on your Civil Liberties because of the color of your skin?

Racial profiling does not bother me and it's widely used in law enforcement. I've been pulled over in black neighborhoods at three in the morning because I was white. The cop explained to me that the area I was in was a known crack area and asked my purpose for being there at that time of morning. I explained to him I was on my way home from the clubs and I was using a short cut that I always used. He searched me and my vehicle and then let me go. I was inconvienced but I was not upset because the cop was simply doing his job.

driving through black neighborhoods?

It's a wonder you are still alive..........