LMAO. You just cried that police target certain people. They do so because they believe they are more likely to commit a crime based on their intel. You then cried that white collar people don't get frisked. I said it was a false analogy and that the SEC does in fact target some over others. You agreed that Wells gets targeted more...because of past behavior.
See...the road I took you on?
My 14 year old is more intuitive and smarter than you.
I expected this was the direction you were going, but I wanted to make sure before I responded. I think your analogy is obviously flawed, and it fails in a way that demonstrates precisely the kind of prejudice that I'm talking about. Indeed, it is the kind of prejudice that I would expect a 14 year old to be able to spot.
So, in your new analogy, Wells Fargo stands in for black people, and BMAL for white people, or some other group. I would hope that just stating the analogy plainly makes the prejudice clear, but I'll spell it out anyway: Wells Fargo is a specific,
individual entity with a history of illegal behavior. It's not unreasonable for their actions in relation to that kind of behavior to receive heightened scrutiny. The problem is that "black people" is not a good analogue to Wells Fargo, and treating it as such is explicitly prejudicial. Doing so involves treating millions of people as if they were literally known criminals
with no individual reason to do so. It's a form of guilt-by-association where the association (race) does not actually provide any legitimate reason to suspect anyone of a crime.
A better analogue to Wells Fargo would be an
individual with a history of crime, not an entire diffuse group of people, many of whom are entirely innocent and merely going about their day to day lives. So, if a police officer was more likely to pay attention to the movements of some known thief when that thief was spotted in an unlikely area in the middle of the night, that would be defensible. Stopping people
solely on the basis of their race is not.