# DOJ report on racism and shakedown-artistry in the Ferguson PD **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2015, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604 "2015-03-09T15:20:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/121 "2015-03-10T17:05:17Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Umm…why do you think they have been doing this work across the country…are you ignorant on how many PDs are under consent decrees or just ignoring that reality for effect? > > And by what standard of logic to do the good people of Ferguson need to wait to be protected from racist policies until the “liberal” cities get it right? > > Does the south have some special bathroom pass that allows them to be the last bigots standing? Why is Eric Holder going after Ferguson when I’ve shown that there are much bigger cities with much worse statistics than Ferguson? A black man in San Francisco or Portland has more to fear from the local police than a black man in Ferguson. Is Holder threatening to take over the SFPD or the Portland Police? Why not? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/122 "2015-03-10T17:17:03Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Gannett News Service is making things easy for us. Click below and you can find out how often your local police force arrests black citizens, and whether that number corresponds to the percentage of blacks in the general population: > > [http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experiments/usatoday/2014/11/arrests-interactive/](http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experiments/usatoday/2014/11/arrests-interactive/) > Look up Ferguson, Missouri, and what do we find? That police arrest 186 black residents per 1,000 and only 66 whites. That means black residents are almost 3 times as likely to be arrested in Ferguson as their white neighbors. > > Looks bad, doesn’t it? Prima facie evidence of bias among the police, you say? > > Okay, let’s see how liberal Portland, Oregon compares. In liberal Portland, police arrest a mere 258.7 blacks per 1,000, while arresting a whopping 63.3 whites. Wait… that’s actually a lot WORSE than in Ferguson, MO. > > Oh well, that’s just an outlier, I’m sure. Let’s look as San Francisco, where the politicians are so liberal they feel free to condemn the bishop for telling Catholic schools to teach actual Catholic doctrine (that theocratic fascist!). In Frisco, the police arrest just 312 blacks per 1,000 and an astounding 28 whites! > > Uh… say Mr. Holder? Are you really sure FERGUSON is the city whose police department most needs to be taken over by the federal government? > > Well, moving along, surely things are MUCH different in majority black cities with black mayors and black police chiefs. The stats in Atlanta must be much better. Let’s see… 265 blacks arrested per 1,000 and just 25.8 whites. > > Yeah, looks like the Justice Department has a LOT of racist city police departments to take over before getting around to poor little Ferguson, MO. This ignores the many other points of evidence as to bad practices and racial bias by the Ferguson PD… but is this supposed to be a defense of bad police practices? It certainly doesn’t surprised me in the least that at least some of the Ferguson issues might be present in many other cities, whatever the political leanings of the population. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/123 "2015-03-10T17:17:07Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Why is Eric Holder going after Ferguson when I’ve shown that there are much bigger cities with much worse statistics than Ferguson? A black man in San Francisco or Portland has more to fear from the local police than a black man in Ferguson. Is Holder threatening to take over the SFPD or the Portland Police? Why not? Do you watch the news? Assuming you don’t there was a big case that may have attracted a lot of national attention in Ferguson, it is not like they were tossing darts at a map. But I do agree, why didn’t Eric Holder go after other racist police policies in other places, like in his home state of Washington [OH THATS RIGHT, HE DID!!!](http://www.wsj.com/articles/seattle-police-sue-to-halt-use-of-force-policies-1401399385) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/124 "2015-03-10T17:18:33Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Why is Eric Holder going after Ferguson when I’ve shown that there are much bigger cities with much worse statistics than Ferguson? A black man in San Francisco or Portland has more to fear from the local police than a black man in Ferguson. Is Holder threatening to take over the SFPD or the Portland Police? Why not? This isn’t the first, nor the last police department the DOJ has investigated. Do you really think they aren’t looking into any other cities? If they are looking into other cities, does this line of “criticism” (if it can even be called that) go away? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/125 "2015-03-10T17:25:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Correct. Although, just to be clear, “profiling” in this context doesn’t necessarily refer to racial profiling, but to anything associated with guilt but not overt evidence of it. I think you have to make four assumptions for your argument to work. They are (1) the Ferguson police have a profile for “reasonable suspicion” searches that just-so-happens to correspond with race–something like, a young man who makes furtive gestures in a high crime area; (2) the police will also search anyone, white or black who have more overt evidence of contraband, but there aren’t enough such people to focus on exclusively; (3) the search profile could not be improved in a way that would make it less race-correlative; and (4) the profile is not accurate enough to successfully offset the higher hit rate from the overt evidence cases. In terms of using this argument to dispute the DOJ conclusion, you also have to assume that the DOJ did not control for searches when the stated reason was some overt evidence of contraband (and I’m not clear on whether they did or not). That’s all theoretically sound, as far as I can see. But it seems to me that the practical question is whether those assumptions and suppositions are all likely to apply in Ferguson, based on the other information we know. What is the likelihood that the Ferguson police have constructed a profile of who to search that is both (1) optimal in terms of maximizing hit rates for non-overt evidence searches; and (2) just-so-happens to correlate to race but isn’t race-based? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/126 "2015-03-10T17:30:39Z")
[QUOTE=astorian] Gannett News Service is making things easy for us. Click below and you can find out how often your local police force arrests black citizens, and whether that number corresponds to the percentage of blacks in the general population: [http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experimen...s-interactive/](http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experimen...s-interactive/) [/QUOTE] I looked up my community (of course) and it was something like four times the black arrest rate vs. the white arrest rate. There are, however, about fourteen times as many whites as blacks in my town. I suppose this means Eric Holder is going to investigate us for black privilege. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/127 "2015-03-10T17:33:27Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Are you really sure FERGUSON is the city whose police department most needs to be taken over by the federal government? That is not even on the agenda. Possibly letting the **county** take it over is on the agenda. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/128 "2015-03-10T17:37:52Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > But I do agree, why didn’t Eric Holder go after other racist police policies in other places, like in his home state of Washington > > [OH THATS RIGHT, HE DID!!!](http://www.wsj.com/articles/seattle-police-sue-to-halt-use-of-force-policies-1401399385) > > :rolleyes: I meant “in his home state or a liberal one like the state of Washington” Here is the DOJ PDF covering the Seattle Police Department, if anyone wants to make the “But Billie did it too and didn’t get in trouble” defense, it is now dead without some cite. Warning PDF > **[spd\_findletter\_12-16-11.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf)** > > 1416.07 KB ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/129 "2015-03-10T17:51:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you cite the law that outlaws police discretion? > > Regards, > Shodan In the context of arrests for directing abusive language at an officer? It’s in the report: > [@](#): > > FPD’s approach to enforcement results in violations of individuals’ First Amendment rights. FPD arrests people for a variety of protected conduct: people are punished for talking back to officers, recording public police activities, and lawfully protesting perceived injustices. > > Under the Constitution, what a person says generally should not determine whether he or she is jailed. Police officers cannot constitutionally make arrest decisions based on individuals’ verbal expressions of disrespect for law enforcement, including use of foul language. Buffkins v. City of Omaha, 922 F.2d 465, 472 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that officers violated the Constitution when they arrested a woman for disorderly conduct after she called one an “asshole,” especially since “police officers are expected to exercise greater restraint in their response than the average citizen”); Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that the First Amendment prohibited a police chief from arresting an individual who pointed at him and told him “move the f\*\*\*\*\*g car,” even if the comment momentarily distracted the chief from a routine traffic stop); Gorra v. Hanson, 880 F.2d 95, 100 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that arresting a person in retaliation for making a statement “constitutes obvious infringement” of the First Amendment). As the Supreme Court has held, “the First Amendment protects a significantamount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.” City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (striking down as unconstitutionally overbroad a local ordinance that criminalized interference with police by speech). > > In Ferguson, however, officers frequently make enforcement decisions based on what subjects say, or how they say it. Just as officers reflexively resort to arrest immediately upon noncompliance with their orders, whether lawful or not, they are quick to overreact to challenges and verbal slights. These incidents—sometimes called “contempt of cop” cases—are propelled by officers’ belief that arrest is an appropriate response to disrespect. These arrests are typically charged as a Failure to Comply, Disorderly Conduct, Interference with Officer, or Resisting Arrest. It’s unconstitutional to arrest someone for verbal criticism. There is no discretion in this area. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I agree with this. Although I suspect that this is true of tha majority of police forces and municipal courts in the country. Perhaps, perhaps not. Ferguson’s system seems to have a few novelties, though: refusing to accept partial payments (p.4), a bevy of novel court fees (p.14), unlawful stops for the purpose of determining if a pedestrian had outstanding warrents (p.17), and not having a correctable violation (“fix-it ticket”) program (p. 12, which even my conservative Kentucky hometown has had for years). ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/130 "2015-03-10T17:51:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > aDo you think a minivan full of white folks who look like they just got out of church should get stopped _precisely_ as often as a beat-up ol’ POS full of purple-haired white kids who look like they are out to score some crank for the Dethklok concert? > [@kayaker](#): > > Does probable cause exist for either stop? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > ISTM that this is part of the initial question. IANALEO, but I don’t see probable cause in the descriptions given. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/131 "2015-03-10T18:13:29Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In the context of arrests for directing abusive language at an officer? It’s in the report: > > It’s unconstitutional to arrest someone for verbal criticism. There is no discretion in this area. He wasn’t arrested for verbal criticism. He was arrested for dancing in the street. The “discretion” part comes in when they decide whether or not to arrest him for the offense. They tried not to, but he changed their minds. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/132 "2015-03-10T18:23:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > He wasn’t arrested for verbal criticism. He was arrested for dancing in the street. The “discretion” part comes in when they decide whether or not to arrest him for the offense. They tried not to, but he changed their minds. > > Regards, > Shodan You don’t understand the law here. If the arrest is motivated by the protected conduct–even if an arrest could otherwise have been made validly–it is still a constitutional violation. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/133 "2015-03-10T18:30:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The DOJ’s method is presented and defended here: [http://athena.sas.upenn.edu/petra/papers/jq.pdf](http://athena.sas.upenn.edu/petra/papers/jq.pdf) > > It might be helpful if you address those author’s claims, which support the DOJ. What that paper argues is that if blacks are more likely to carry drugs than police officers will search more black people at stops. Black people will then respond to this by carrying fewer drugs. Police officers will then respond by searching more white people and eventually an equilibrium is reached where whites and blacks carry drugs at the same rate and there is no reason for police to search one group more than the other. The reason this is not correct is one of economic theory’s blind spots, reinforcement schedules. Different types of reinforcement schedules have different effects on behavior. The chances of a person with drugs being pulled over is small even in a ticket happy town like Ferguson. If your black and carrying then the chance of being searched is 11% of whatever that small number is. This slight chance of being caught with drugs is not enough incentive to change people’s behavior so they no longer carry drugs. Thus the feedback mechanism is ineffective and the equilibrium is never reached. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/134 "2015-03-10T18:33:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think you have to make four assumptions for your argument to work. They are (1) the Ferguson police have a profile for “reasonable suspicion” searches that just-so-happens to correspond with race–something like, a young man who makes furtive gestures in a high crime area; (2) the police will also search anyone, white or black who have more overt evidence of contraband, but there aren’t enough such people to focus on exclusively; (3) the search profile could not be improved in a way that would make it less race-correlative; and (4) the profile is not accurate enough to successfully offset the higher hit rate from the overt evidence cases. In terms of using this argument to dispute the DOJ conclusion, you also have to assume that the DOJ did not control for searches when the stated reason was some overt evidence of contraband (and I’m not clear on whether they did or not). 1. is the key here. Remember: the context here is that the report is using these stats to prove that the higher level of searches is not the result of higher crime levels in the black population. This is where the argument falls short. Because if there are in fact higher levels of crime in the black community, then the fact that the profile correlates to race is not “just-so-happens” - it’s just the results of the higher level of crime. (For example, suppose that wearing gang-related clothing is part of the profile. If a higher percentage of blacks are in gangs than whites, then you would naturally have a higher percentage of blacks wearing gang-related clothing, and fitting that part of the profile - it’s not “just so happens”.) If it’s not true that blacks in Ferguson have a higher level of crime, then that wouldn’t be true. But since the report is using these stats to prove that disparate crime rates are not the cause, it can’t be assumed. I’m not sure what the second half of your second clause means. I don’t agree that my point rests at all on 3), unless I’ve misunderstood you. I think 4) is trivial. Few if any profiles will be accurate enough to overcome a rate driven by overt evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/135 "2015-03-10T18:57:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > \*f there are in fact higher levels of crime in the black community, then the fact that the profile correlates to race is not “just-so-happens” The “just-so-happens” applies to the creation and use of the profile, not the correlation. If police officers believe that black people commit more crimes, but know they aren’t allowed to profile by race, and so create a profile that allows them to target black people, that isn’t a “just-so-happens” profile. If they genuinely notice that criminals tend to use “furtive gestures,” and genuinely profile everyone–black and white–who use “furtive gestures”, and this leads to more black searches, that would be a “just-so-happens” profile. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure what the second half of your second clause means. The most effective profile is one where you search people who are openly holding contraband. Presumably, you need other profiles because you can search 100% of such people and still have a lot of time on your hands. But as the “sure fire” search criteria gets less overt (bulges, say), it becomes less and less obvious why the police don’t just focus on searching those guaranteed hits instead of their less-successful profile. Your model assumes that there aren’t enough of the people showing higher-reliability indicators for contraband to simply focus all searches on them. I think that’s probably true, but can imagine a world in which it were false. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t agree that my point rests at all on 3), unless I’ve misunderstood you. If the search profile has a disparate impact on race, and the police know that it has that impact, and the search profile could be improved but the police choose not to, then the police are likely acting out of racial bias. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I think 4) is trivial. Few if any profiles will be accurate enough to overcome a rate driven by overt evidence. I think you misunderstand me on (4). Your assumption is that the profile is tracking some real underlying crime rate, however closely or loosely. If it were a really excellent heuristic, then it would not be the case that the profile hit rate would be lower than the non-profile hit rate. Your model rests on the assumption that the profile is good but not great. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/136 "2015-03-10T19:42:52Z")
OMG never mind, why would I even bother to post here. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/137 "2015-03-10T19:46:35Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Okay, let’s see how liberal Portland, Oregon compares. In liberal Portland, police arrest a mere 258.7 blacks per 1,000, while arresting a whopping 63.3 whites. Wait… that’s actually a lot WORSE than in Ferguson, MO. > > Oh well, that’s just an outlier, I’m sure. Let’s look as San Francisco, where the politicians are so liberal they feel free to condemn the bishop for telling Catholic schools to teach actual Catholic doctrine (that theocratic fascist!). In Frisco, the police arrest just 312 blacks per 1,000 and an astounding 28 whites! How many race riots were in San Francisco or Portland last year? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/138 "2015-03-10T19:58:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The “just-so-happens” applies to the creation and use of the profile, not the correlation. If police officers believe that black people commit more crimes, but know they aren’t allowed to profile by race, and so create a profile that allows them to target black people, that isn’t a “just-so-happens” profile. > > If they genuinely notice that criminals tend to use “furtive gestures,” and genuinely profile everyone–black and white–who use “furtive gestures”, and this leads to more black searches, that would be a “just-so-happens” profile. OK. But “furtive gestures” wouldn’t really be a good example of what I’m talking about, because even if blacks committed crimes at higher rates than whites, there shouldn’t be more blacks who are not in the process of committing crimes who are using furtive gestures than there are whites in that situation, so you shouldn’t be getting a higher rate of misses for blacks if that was what you were using. That’s why I chose the gang insignia example. Because if the police decided that gang insignias were part of a profile that they tended to search (presumably in combination with other things), then they would still be coming up empty more often on those searches than on searches of people based on suspicious bulges or bags of white powder, since while gang insignias are undoubtedly correlated with criminal activity, there are probably many many gang members who don’t happen to be carrying contraband at a given time - probably more than the number of suspicious bulges which turn out to be false alarms. But that would still mean that the higher rate of initial searches was ultimately based on higher crime rates, since the correlation is legit, if weaker than overt evidence. > [@](#): > > If the search profile has a disparate impact on race, and the police know that it has that impact, and the search profile could be improved but the police choose not to, then the police are likely acting out of racial bias. Possibly, or maybe it’s just institutional inertia and/or incompetance. > [@](#): > > I think you misunderstand me on (4). Your assumption is that the profile is tracking some real underlying crime rate, however closely or loosely. If it were a really excellent heuristic, then it would not be the case that the profile hit rate would be lower than the non-profile hit rate. Your model rests on the assumption that the profile is good but not great. Right. I’m saying that virtually all profiles are “good but not great”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/139 "2015-03-10T20:01:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Possibly, or maybe it’s just institutional inertia and/or incompetance. “Institutional inertia” or “incompetence” that leads to racial bias and mistreatment seems to be functionally the same thing as racism – the three possibilities together (when paired with disparate impacts on race) seem like the perfect definition of “institutional discrimination”. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604/140 "2015-03-10T20:12:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You don’t understand the law here. If the arrest is motivated by the protected conduct–even if an arrest could otherwise have been made validly–it is still a constitutional violation. Then by all means show that the arrest was motivated by the person screaming profanities at the cops, rather than because he made it clear by his conduct that he was not likely to stop doing what he was originally stopped for. If you notice that there is no way to prove this, then [list=a][li]that’s why we have police discretion, and [\*]_de minimis non curat lex_.[/list][/li]Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-report-on-racism-and-shakedown-artistry-in-the-ferguson-pd/714604.md?page=8)