I’m also suggesting that it’s reasonable to assume racism as a likely (not definite) cause of such disparities, considering the history of our country. Is there any doubt that through most of American history, black people were treated disparately (and poorly) by the justice system, in general? Is it really that unlikely that some of these disparities, in some parts of the country, still exist?
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Let’s just talk about the searches. Black motorists are more likely to be searched than white motorists, and these searches result in less contraband found.
[/QUOTE]
Blacks are more often arrested on outstanding warrants (369) than whites (14), to consent to a search (128 vs. 12), or to resist arrest (8 vs. 0). IOW blacks are more likely to be searched for reasons other than suspicion of contraband, and therefore it is likely that they will be searched and found to have no contraband. A group that responds “Sure, go ahead - I got nothing to hide” ten times more often than another is going to be a group that gets searched and nothing is found.
Therefore the resolution to this alleged disparity is simple, and doesn’t involve any racism - if blacks simply respond “no searches” to every request the problem goes away. Or the Ferguson police can simply search whites more often - problem solved. Or blacks can take care of their outstanding warrants before getting behind the wheel.
Regards,
Shodan
If a plastic bottle is thrown at someone, it’s an attack. My opinion is that the police should have zero tolerance for being attacked.
It’s the “protests” that aren’t legitimate, not necessarily the grievances. A legitimate protest doesn’t involve violence and other criminal behaviour, it simply involves using legal methods to get your voice heard. And they’re not “protesting” against traffic stops, they’re “protesting” because Wilson hasn’t been railroaded in an unfair trial yet.
Yep, my true colours are having little or no sympathy with those who get hurt whilst breaking the law and attacking the police.
There exist plenty of legal remedies against unjust policing and government, if that is in fact happening. That the people of Ferguson (or probably more accurately, outsiders wanting to stir up trouble) choose crime and violence rather than the courts and democracy shows their true colours rather well.
Why aren’t the people of Ferguson voting? Or standing for election? Or joining the police force? Or taking these supposedly unjust police officers to court?
Don’t say money. If the amount of effort put into these “protests” went to fundraising, it would be easy. I’m sure you, and many others, who have written so much about the injustice there would be happy to put your money where your mouth is to fix it.
Shodan converts “water bottles” (which are universally plastic) to “bottles” (which implies glass). He then converts the scenario in question to throwing bottles at a police officer, which is not what the RoE says or implied. And, most importantly, he substitutes “don’t arrest” for “be more tolerant . . . when deciding whether to escalate the use of force”–two different propositions.
So instead of an entirely reasonable call to not be so quick to pull out the batons, riot gear, and tear gas every time someone chucks a plastic bottle, we get an unreasonable call for police not to arrest someone who assaults them.
It’s silly and dishonest, especially when there are other aspects of the RoE perfectly worthy of ridicule.
The arrest part is irrelevant, because the disparity I’m pointing out is about being pulled over and searched – I didn’t mention any disparity in arrests. The math for consenting to a search or resisting arrest doesn’t come close to explaining the total disparity in searches.
Again, these numbers don’t come close to explaining the disparity in total.
One of those solutions (searching white motorists as often as black motorists) actually would satisfactorily address this problem, which is (again) that black motorists are treated differently from white motorists, even including these disparities in warrants, consent, and resisting arrest.
Is lethal force warranted for a plastic bottle? If not, what level of force is warranted if there’s a crowd of protesters and a single plastic bottle sails out and lands next to an officer’s shoe?
There have been many, many protests, and most have not involved violence or criminal behavior.
This sounds like the Fox News version of Ferguson, rather than the reality.
Not sure why that’s relevant. But it depends on circumstances. If the rioters were throwing molotov cocktails, like they previously did, it would be reasonable for anyone who sees a bottle coming at them to think it could be deadly.
But I don’t want them shot, I want them arrested, tried, and if guilty punished. If they refuse to be arrested, however, and get killed, it’s their own fault.
Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of that situation, it shows what a difference it makes when the local community and government supports you. See my previous post where I suggest that the people of Ferguson should use the democratic and legal means at their disposal.
The rights and wrongs of it are, of course, that Bundy was defending what was his against an illegitimate government intrusion, although by illegal methods, and the rioters in Ferguson are taking the opportunity to “protest” with no cause. Much like the various Occupy groups, before anyone starts bringing race into the issue.
Maybe Bundy and co should be arrested. But a Senator, Congressmen, and the Governor from Nevada disagree. It’s a rather different situation.
No, it’s not irrelevant. Searches subsequent to arrest, and consensual searches, are probably going to find contraband less often than other searches that are triggered by a reasonable suspicion of the possession of contraband. If blacks are more commonly subject to consensual searches or searches subsequent to arrest for outstanding warrants, it is likely that the searches will return a lower hit rate for contraband. Do the math.
Regards,
Shodan
Because every search of a vehicle requires consent, right?
See: Michigan v. Long et Al. and “frisking the lunge area”.
CMC fnord!
:rolleyes: :dubious:
CMC fnord!
And where do we draw the line where throwing things at a policeman does and doesn’t constitute an attack? Empty water bottles? Full water bottles? Beer bottles? Rocks? Bottles filled with bleach or gasoline? Molotov cocktails? Maybe we should just be happy that these are liberal protestors and they’re not likely to try and exercise their “Second Amendment remedies” against the cops.
Throwing a bottle at someone with intent to harm or intimidate is at the very least assault, and possibly battery as well, magnified by the fact that it here is directed at a police officer. An officer has to assume any missile being thrown at him is potentially dangerous and has no time to conduct a forensic investigation of it in the middle of a riot to determine how dangerous it could have been. To suggest that police should look the other way from this kind of conduct only encourages more of it and more brazen attacks by the people out there who want to use these protests as an excuse to bash skulls and break stuff.
That necessary to arrest the thrower, and to defend the officers making the arrest if necessary.
If they continue to protest without criminal behaviour, then there’ll be no problem, then.
Fox News wants the black community to empower itself through elections and joining the police force? Perhaps I should start paying attention to it then, I assumed they were the racist arseholes they are often made out to be.
That’s the same sentiment that is causing the problem in the first place. The protesters you vilify have the exact same mindset. It’s a shame if this cop dies, but at least it’s one less pig using a badge to persecute minorities. One cop may have done something wrong, so they get to treat all cops horribly.
That’s not justice. It’s not the law. Cops do not get to just start firing weapons with everyone having to get out of the way. And civilians do not have a responsibility to apprehend dangerous criminals.
What you are describing is a military dictatorship.
By golly, it is good to see a proper regard for order and authority! Sadly lacking, in these times, especially amongst those who most need to be reminded! Where does that end, I ask you! How far will our weak-kneed and permissive attitude be permitted to threaten our safety and comfort?
Protest is all very well, if conducted in a sane and sensible fashion, quietly and orderly. Sure, a bit of chanting, perhaps, that would not be going too far, though it flirts with disorder…
“What do we want?”
“Justice!”
When do we want it?"
“Pretty soon, if that’s OK with you and its not too much trouble!”
Let this get out of hand, and you will regret it! Scoundrels and scallywags who would much improved by a stern whiff of grapeshot! What next? Dressing up like savage heathens and flinging perfectly good tea into a harbor? Heaven forbid!
No, it isn’t. In a military dictatorship, the public would not be able to join the police force, stand for election, vote for who they want in power, or challenge the actions of the police in court.
That these protesters think that violence is a better answer than respecting the system and using it correctly says far more about their own flaws than any flaws in the police or the system.
Certainly, though, if a cop is using force outside of his duties, and is killed in self defence, I have no more sympathy for him that for a rioter that has the same happen. The minority status or otherwise of anyone involved is irrelevant.
Exactly. It’s not like you to write something that makes sense, are you feeling OK?
Killing the police is one thing, I suppose it could be forgiveable, but wasting tea is definitely deserving of death.
That would be good. But its not the case. Which is, in a nutshell, precisely what the protest is about. It is not irrelevant, but it damn sure oughta be.
My point was that’s it’s irrelevant to my opinion of the protesters or authorities involved.
IANAShodan but…
It’s helpful to look down past the top rollup of the numbers (which is about as far as the NYT digs) to get a better picture. There’s a clue to why in that top roll up though. Blacks are more likely to be arrested as a result of the traffic stop. Being arrested gives a legal right for the police to conduct a search for their safety. There’s also an inventory search that is conducted when a vehicle is impounded. Impounding a vehicle or making an arrest based on an existing bench warrant don’t really speak to probable cause (or reasonable suspicion to ask for consent to search) that there’s contraband in the vehicle st the time. It’s likely those searches would be less productive.
So reading down the data searches of black vehicles for inventory or incident to arrest accounts for 526 of 562 searches ( 93.6%). For white drivers 40 of 47 searches fit those same categories ( 85.1%) Probable cause or reasonable suspicion played in to more searches of whites so it seems reasonable to expect a higher hit rate for contraband. The leading cause of black arrests (accounting for 76.4% of arrests) is outstanding warrants; only the minority are directly related to the stop itself (and possible bias in choosing arrest at that point). As a comparison 2% of white traffic stops vs 8% of black traffic stops end with an arrest on a previously existing warrant.
Let’s compute an adjusted contraband hit rate using the same methodology but excluding inventory and incident to arrest numbers from the search denominator. That will give us a better view of the results when there’s probable cause or reasonable suspicion of contraband. I’ll abbreviate and call the other searches “probably cause searches.” Obviously that number can exceed 100% since some of the other searches still find things. The adjusted number still illustrates whether there’s bias in pursuing those searches. For white contraband was found 18 times on 7 probable cause searches ( 257%). For blacks contraband was found 129 times on 36 probable cause searches (358%). I’m not seeing a bias in choosing to search blacks there.
Still why are they pulled over so often. Clearly that must be a bias. There’s some nice hints in the data there too. Two of the reasons listed for stops are “equipment” and “license”. A car with visible equipment violations or expired plates is a pretty clear reason for a stop. Bias is easier to leak in to the investigative stop or the traffic violation (“I saw you swerve”) stop. Black traffic stops for equipment/license reasons happen 57.1% of the time. White stops for those reasons only happen 32.3% of the time. Keeping the car maintained to code with current plates is something that’s obviously harder if poverty is thrown in.
I see a pretty clear bias against “driving while poor” in the data. I don’t see a clear case that it can be differentiated by race with the data given since major factors seems to be heavily influenced by poverty not officer judgement at the point of the traffic stop. There are some hints of possible racial bias (in pieces like the skewed number of investigative stops or skewed numbers of arrests for traffic violations) they are generally in areas that are smaller pieces of the total picture.
Math done – your argument doesn’t come close to making up for the disparity.