What is racial profiling?
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Professur said:
Anything that isn't 'blatantly' obvious as a traffic infraction. I'll use the example of the young man who was killed.
His first traffic stop was for not wearing a seatbelt. Something not noticable until after you're stopped for something else. Once he was stopped for that, they added the only serious charge he had...driving without a license. Not reckless driving. Not running a red-light. Not speeding. No loud music. No visible infraction at all. In other words, his driving wasn't a problem. The scenario also stated that the police car was stationary, and the ticketed car was moving at the legal speed limit of 35MPH (55KPH) perpendicular to the police car.
Professur
Well-Known Member
I see. So he wasn't stopped for anything other than being black. But once they'd stopped him, they did find several actual crimes. Doesn't that kinda justify the whole racial profiling thing?
Oh, and in most cars, you can notice the seatbelt not being worn, from the driver's side window. which would have been visible from a perpendicular position.
Oh, and in most cars, you can notice the seatbelt not being worn, from the driver's side window. which would have been visible from a perpendicular position.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Professur said:
Not when you stop a disproportionate amount of drivers of one race, and not of another. In other words, if the driver is doing nothing wrong, only driving, why is he, or she, stopped at all? Now you say that, because of this one stop, the whole matter is justified? I think not. Buried in that whole report is one, rather striking, comment. It seems that, when white drivers are stopped for those same non-moving violations, their stops lead to more serious crimes, on average, than when black drivers are stopped. I saw drug trafficking mentioned as the number one crime, which is much more serious than driving without a license, don't you think? So the question remains...Why are black drivers stopped at an average rate of 3X that of white drivers when stopping a white driver would, conceivably, lead to a more serious criminal activity?
prof said:
If the car is stationary, yes, I'd agree. But not when the car is moving. Plus the added fact that the car he was driving, a mid 80's Caprice, has it's belt attached to the 'B' pillar, and the belt cannot be seen from the side at all, buckeled or not.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm not gonna argue that, coz I agree with it. But then, I've been stopped many times, without any justification at all. Just coz I was driving the vehicle of the day. Red pickup, turbo anything, delivery van, 4X4 car. Gave the officer my thanks for keeping the roads safe at the end of it.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Professur said:
However...were you stopped 19 times over a 14-day period for driving the 'vehicle of the day'? I'm fairly certain you weren't, prof, and I've never said that the little bs stops were limited to blacks only. Just that a predominant number of them were focused on black drivers. There is a difference.
RDX
Member
What do you mean? They aren't following their lead. Richmond is the only city where more blacks are pulled over than whites.
What am I cherry-picking? I'm just presenting you with raw data.
An equal chance at what? What do you mean?
No... but it does mean that they should concentrate more of the resources to investigate white males between the ages of 24 and 40 rather than splitting all of their resources equally among all population groups. That's exactly what's happening as far as profiling is considered (including racial profiling).
I'm trying to point out that a person's characteristics play a role in determining the likelyhood that he will do something. Of course it does not mean that every individual must follow that trendline, but if you examine that population as a whole, certain risky behaviors will emerge.
Now this is where we branch off... age, gender, race, location, heck even things like religion and education make a difference. Some may make more of a difference than others, but they all factor in. Some monorities are more prone to commiting crimes than other groups. It's partially due to location. Sparsly populated states (such as ND where I am origionally from), are have a very very small black population. These states also typically have very low crime rates. Minorities tend to live in urban areas where there is much more crime over rural areas. It's partially due to lifestyles. It's partially due to religious beliefs. There are many factors involved, but race is one of them.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Gato-not having read the article in question, I would ask this one question. If a person meets the basic physical characteristics of a wanted felon and a police officer sees that person driving by him/her. Would it not warrant the officer doing a perfunctuary stop to get a closer look/
If they're looking for a tall white man with salt and pepper hair and a goatee and someone kina looking like that drives by a cop. Is the cop justified in doing a quick stop to take a look-see...and if that pans out to be 'not the guy' but the one you stopped violated other laws...it's OK to ticket them.
If this is the case, would 'racial profiling' warrant a traffic stop which led to a minor infraction. ..if they were looking for a black man in his early 30's with a short gumby, a goatee and wearing glasses...who happened to have committed another crime. Mr.X kinda looks like whom they're looking for, he gets stopped, he runs (guilty?) etc etc.
In the latter case..the only part of the racial profiling was colour of skin. The police offices wouldn't have stopped the first 30-50 black people who drove by them, but stopped the last guy becuase he was 'close enough'.
I hope that I'm making sence here...alck of sleep and all that.
If they're looking for a tall white man with salt and pepper hair and a goatee and someone kina looking like that drives by a cop. Is the cop justified in doing a quick stop to take a look-see...and if that pans out to be 'not the guy' but the one you stopped violated other laws...it's OK to ticket them.
If this is the case, would 'racial profiling' warrant a traffic stop which led to a minor infraction. ..if they were looking for a black man in his early 30's with a short gumby, a goatee and wearing glasses...who happened to have committed another crime. Mr.X kinda looks like whom they're looking for, he gets stopped, he runs (guilty?) etc etc.
In the latter case..the only part of the racial profiling was colour of skin. The police offices wouldn't have stopped the first 30-50 black people who drove by them, but stopped the last guy becuase he was 'close enough'.
I hope that I'm making sence here...alck of sleep and all that.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
Actually, you're not. These people who are stopped aen't stopped for open warrants, or because they look like somebody who may have committed a crime. They're just stopped because the officer has a 'gut feeling'. Unfortunately, those gut feelings seem to be based solely on race. Hell...according to the media, most burglars are white, and slip into your home under cover of darkness. Police know this is a fairy-tale, and facts back them up. Most burglars break into your home in daylight because there's less of a chance of confronting you, or your family, during the day. Also according to the media, most blacks are criminals, and regardless of this being proven to be a fairy-tale or not, we're still viewed as such by society at large. RDX is a perfectly good example of this. I don't know how many minorities he actually knows, but his labeling of low-income areas as havens for crime is also a bit shakey. I'll give you an example...
While I was in my 'undisclosed location' I was never stopped, never asked for my drivers license/registration, and never treated with contempt by another US citizen. I come home, and it's an entirely different ball-game. The reason you don't see it is because it's not directed at you. You don't want to know it's there because you'll then have to deal with it. Most people are apathetic, and tend to stay that way until disaster strikes.
RDX
Member
I do not view blacks as criminals. Is it just plain stupid to label a race as being "criminal". I'm just saying that many things do affect the chances that a person is breaking the law, and race is just one of them. I don't understand why we tolerate every type of profiling other than race profiling. Can someone explain why it is okay to use all other methods of profiling but not racial profiling?
Oh common, what am I, racist because I don't agree with your perspective on racial profiling? Perhaps if it happened more often to myself I would have a different persepective on it, but from a logical point of view it's really hard to argue effectively against it. And BTW, just because I have this stance don't accuse me of not knowing any minorities. My roomate next year is going to be black, and my roomate this year is from Mexico! Heck, my own brother is asian (adopted when he was rather young from Nepal).
Oh common, what am I, racist because I don't agree with your perspective on racial profiling? Perhaps if it happened more often to myself I would have a different persepective on it, but from a logical point of view it's really hard to argue effectively against it. And BTW, just because I have this stance don't accuse me of not knowing any minorities. My roomate next year is going to be black, and my roomate this year is from Mexico! Heck, my own brother is asian (adopted when he was rather young from Nepal).
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
RDX said:
Because government is supposed to be fair. Private industry should be fair. If I've done nothing wrong, then I shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the police at all. Even though you say it's stupid to label a race as criminal, it's done all the same. You refuse to believe it, even when you are shown the evidence, that's fine, but don't try to sweep the facts under the rug and put them down to 'criminal areas'. It has nothing to do with the area, and everything to do with the perception of the area.
Let's just say this...
Black drivers make up the minority of drivers in the US. Black drivers are more likely to get stopped and searched. If you stopped every vehicle on an even basis, you'll see that blacks are no more criminal than any other race, but it doesn't happen that way. There's not a black person in the US that this hasn't happened to at least 3 times in our lives, and it's not fair. My whole life has been spent walking on egg-shells due to perceptions of those around me, and you, who've experienced none of the problems I face on a daily basis, do not have the knowledge or experience to argue otherwise. Cops have a hard job, and I applaud them for some of the things that they do. This, however, isn't one of them. To a cop, I'm guilty until proven otherwise. You are not. Don't think you can say otherwise because it'll never happen to you. If it does, you'll probably hear nothing about it.
RDX said:
You're not racist because you don't agree with me. But your own statement, in bold, tells the whole story, doesn't it? If it isn't happening to you, then it's not a problem. Now that is certainly a logical point of view, isn't it?
As for your room-mate next year, perhaps he can teach you something, though you seem to be a bit headstrong in the lack of racial strife in the US. As for you room-mate this year, how long has he been in the US? Have you asked him how he sees race relations in the US? Your brother has probably seen his share, but, by now, is probably immune to most of it, so doesn't mention it...BTW...How many times have you had to defend your brother from the very things you say are minimal?
RDX
Member
We have not had any of these discussions come up yet. We get along great, I'm actually kind of curious now what his perspective is on this whole thing.
He's been here for 2 or the last 3 years (spent one in Germany). To be honest, he doesn't really care about most things (including racial ). Perhaps he is not normal in this sense. He hasn't been pulled over once since he has been in the US, so I guess he really can't complain.
My brother just got his driver's liscence, so he hasn't been pulled over yet either. He lives in ND (about the most unlikely place for racial discrimination unless your talking about the Norwegians discriminating against the Sweedes.
) Basically everyone there is either white or Naitive American. He defintely sticks out, but there really isn't any racial tension in that area at all. I can honestly say that he's never said anything to me about it. Once someone did make a nasty racial comment about him that I heard. I don't think they knew he was my brother, but I took the initiative to beat in his a$$ anyway.I do not experience it, and I do not see it either. Where do you live? Perhaps I have just not lived in these areas that have so much racial tension?
BTW, there is a difference between racial discrimination and racial profiling. I by no means feel that racial discrimination is justified. I do think that racial profiling is justified to a limited extent. I can't see the difference between that and age or gender profiling, but where I've lived cops don't pull over minorities any more than whites. If I were to do a detailed analysis, I'm sure there would be some slight differences, but nothing near to what you are describing.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
RDX said:
How do you think profiling starts? In a vaccuum?
RDX said:
Most likely not, but your statement about Norweigans and Swedes speaks volumes about how you perceive the entire racial situation in the US.
RDX said:
Actually, there is no difference between the two. Racial profiling is built according to racial discriminatory lines.
If your skin color is different, you are not to be trusted. You could be engaged in criminal activities. How did that statement sound to you? Was it based on racial profiling, or racial discrimination? You're trying to defend an indefensible position...
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
RDX said:
Whether you buy it, or not, doesn't make it a non-discriminatory act. The diference between the racial and any other discriminatory practice is in the subdivision. 18-24 year olds commit more crime than 25-30 year olds. This is statistically true, but you'll race doesn't come into play. What you do hear from the media, and from the police, is that 18-24 year old black males are more prone to commit crimes. Now, instead of having an even hand, you've skewed your outlook to one group only. That is why racial profiling is so insidious. It's nothing more than making an entire race of people a scapegoat for all of your societies ills. I saw more drugs in a mostly white college than I ever did growing up, yet why do you not hear of a college dormitory getting raided?
RDX
Member
OK, you say that according to statistics, yonger people are more likely to commit crimes. But this is also the case for certain minorities. You say that the minorities are appear to commit more crimes because they are targeted more, not because they actually commit more crimes. Why can't I say this about 18-24 year olds then? They don't actually commit more crimes, they are just targeted more. If we use your logic, every group of people commit the same amount of crime; it's just that some groups are targeted more than others and thus appear to be more criminal. Once again, we all know that 18-24 year old males commit more crimes than 76-84 year old females; the logic you are using isn't very...logical
If racial backgrounds relate to criminal behavior in no way, then why are the vast majority of gangs made up of minorities?
Hmmm...you saw more drugs in college than in grammer school. That's not much of a surprise. I don't care if a college is mostly white or mostly black, they are very seldomly raided. Colleges like to mainting their own campus security independent of the local law enforement. Most of the time, this campus security is pretty weak and does not do a whole lot. Colleges do not go on massive raids because it would anger and drive off large numbers of students. Frequent busts also make the college look poor in the public eye, hindering enrollment and financial gifts.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
RDX said:
That was my point exactly.
RDX said:
Guess you've never heard of the KKK, the neo-nazi's, the skin-heads, brown-shirts, etc...There are just as many white gangs, with just as many members per capita. They just don't get the press.
Just because you see something on the TV news it doesn't make it as vast as you think. Some folks would think that the entire area you grew up in is full of kidnappers, murderers, and those who file false police reports if you've been watching lately. (Dru Sjodin, and the idiot brunette who staged her own kidnapping) It's already been proven that the media tends to warp the perspective of most people...
So the money protects their criminal behavior. You didn't say it, but it's been implied. That, also, speaks volumes. It means that the more money you have, the less likely you are to be accused of criminal intent. That idea is extremely wrong. All members of society are capable of criminal action, just as all members of society are capable of altruistic and noble sacrifice. It looks to me as though you're inexperienced in racial interaction, and that's the reason you don't see the world the same way I see it.
*it was a long read
So what are you suggesting Gato, that racial profiling be implemented in a more fair way or not implemented at all?
IMO, as long as it is fair it isn't different than age or sex profiling. This is perhaps what RDX is arguing, however he doesn't seem to notice that it isn't fair (I take that from your posts Gato).
I had an experience about "profiling" a few years ago, I was waiting for my then-girl outside of her house, then a preventive police car stopped, and asked me what I was doing, an ID and then they put me against the wall and searched me. As you can imagine I got quite pissed about it, but now I have a different perspective. Isn't it suspicious to see a 17 year old guy smoking, that has long hair and is standing still outside somebody's house at 11:00pm?
So what are you suggesting Gato, that racial profiling be implemented in a more fair way or not implemented at all?
IMO, as long as it is fair it isn't different than age or sex profiling. This is perhaps what RDX is arguing, however he doesn't seem to notice that it isn't fair (I take that from your posts Gato).
I had an experience about "profiling" a few years ago, I was waiting for my then-girl outside of her house, then a preventive police car stopped, and asked me what I was doing, an ID and then they put me against the wall and searched me. As you can imagine I got quite pissed about it, but now I have a different perspective. Isn't it suspicious to see a 17 year old guy smoking, that has long hair and is standing still outside somebody's house at 11:00pm?