He didn’t understand the reasoning behind the Justice Department’s drawing their conclusion from the numbers they cited. Perhaps you didn’t understand it either. Whatever.
But at any rate, the idea that “at least some part of the disparity in searches is probably due to racial bias on the part of the Ferguson PD” is obviously what the Justice Department is concluding - no dispute about that.
What part of the reasoning didn’t/don’t we understand?
I don’t know what you understood or not.
If you read his posts, Regginbrow does not appear to have understood that the JD is assuming that absent racism/stereotyping the prima facie assumption is that the percentage of blacks being searched would be the same as the percentage of whites being searched (and that the excess percentage of was therefore likely to be the results of racism and/or sterotyping). And further, that were it not for these excess searches of black people due to racism/stereotyping then the percentage of searched blacks found with contraband would likely be roughly the same as the percentage of searched whites found with contraband (with which they support their point that the higher rate of searches is related to racism/stereotyping and not to actual higher levels of contraband).
The cite was being circumspect. What it found has been reproduced many times. For example here, here, and here. There are other studies, but you get the point.
From the report" " From October 2012 to October 2014, 11% of stopped black drivers were searched, whereas only 5% of stopped white drivers were searched.
… 24% of searches of African Americans resulted in a contraband finding, whereas 30% of searches of whites resulted in a contraband finding."
This means that of all the stopped white drivers, 1.5% were carrying contraband and of all the black drivers stopped 2.6% were carrying contraband. This means that black drivers were 73% more likely to be carrying contraband than white drivers. This is likely why black drivers were more likely to be searched.
Significantly the 11% of stopped black drivers that were searched in Ferguson is slightly less than the 11.5% rate for the state of Missouri as a whole and is significantly less than the 15% rate for the county Ferguson is located in.
Nonsense. The cite gave concrete reasons to think that the disparity was because of the testing procedure, so your claim that they were just being PC isn’t very persuasive.
Since I’ve now read and deconstructed your inaccurate characterization of a study, I’m putting the presumption back on you. If one of your cited studies actually agrees with the conclusion you want to draw–that there are underlying disparities in the rates of overall drug use across the races that are downplayed by self-reporting because black people misreport their drug use more often–then please quote it for me.
I don’t think this is accurate.
Some of that 73% disparity was undoubtedly due to the increased number of searches. There’s no reason to think that no whites who were not searched had contraband. So if more whites had been searched, it’s almost certain that those searches would have found some level of contraband, and the disparity would have been less than 73%. Although whether it would have been 0% is apparently in dispute.
The DOJ’s method is presented and defended here: http://athena.sas.upenn.edu/petra/papers/jq.pdf
It might be helpful if you address those author’s claims, which support the DOJ.
The author’s methodology is flawed, in the comparison to urns where the likelihood of a hit is random within each group.
In reality, the likelihood of a hit in a police search situation is not random within each subgroup, in that there could be overt signs of contraband which trigger a search in a given instance, and this will be relatively higher in populations that don’t fit the profile.
I didn’t understand this as a necessary part of regginbrow’s post, but I also don’t see it as necessarily conflicting with the DOJ report.
I understood both the DOJ and regginbrow to agree that at least part of the disparity (but not necessarily all of the disparity) in searches is due to racial bias.
You’re ok with giving police the discretion to break the law? Wow. You’re not alone in that view, of course, and not being poor or a minority insulates you from most of the consequences of it.
I would urge those who can’t be bothered to care about racial discrimination to at least read the sections of the report detailing the details and consequences of FPD’s policing-as-revenue approach. Even if all the claims and evidence re: racial discrimination were untrue, this is enough to condemn the FPD, and hopefully disband it.
Takes some pretty big balls to lecture other people for not understanding something that you yourself have not read. But you know, whatever.
You seem to be saying that when profiling is in place then you will expect proportionally more hits in the un-profiled populations, because they are more likely to be searched on reasonable suspicion instead of being searched because they fit the profile.
Do I have that right?
I’ve read the parts that I’ve been discussing. (You may have missed this upthread.)
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. And rather than “reasonable suspicion” I mean “overt evidence” (not the legal term).
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/
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.
I agree with this. Although I suspect that this is true of tha majority of police forces and municipal courts in the country.
One ironic consenquence of cracking down on this is that it’s likely to harm the residents of Ferguson as a whole. Because some percentage of the revenue from traffic violations comes from non-residents. If they have to make up the revenue from other sources, it will likely have to come from Ferguson people. (I suspect this is one reason towns like this source of revenue - the other being that it’s less visible.)
Other Solution: Don’t be black in Ferguson :rolleyes:
Could you cite the law that outlaws police discretion?
Regards,
Shodan
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?
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? Do they automatically become people worthy of basic human rights once the “liberal” cities win the game; as if the main vampire was vanquished in a horror flick? Or does the south have some special bathroom pass that allows them to be the last bigots standing?
I think I read enough of the thread.