I was reading a discussion on profiling. The general point made by a person I agree with was that stopping a 5'10 Black male in his 20s after a report of a bank robbery by a 5'10 Black male in his 20s is perfectly fine. But getting a report that a bank robbery happened but the robber's race is unknown leading to stopping cars driven by young Black men because of a perception (or even if there is data) that they are more likely to be the culprit is wrong.
So here is the question. Let us say the police know this statistic from the Wiki - According to the
US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. Does that alone justify stopping a Black more often than a White? Current policing involves stopping people and trying to talk to them to get information that may lead the officer to believe they committed a crime. Since they can't know every car they pull over has a criminal, they have to make choices. If race plays a role in that choice, if the officer thinks a Black person in that area or driving that type of car is unusual enough to warrant pulling them over, is that a problem?
Or do we think police never note the race before pulling someone over. Which leads me back to the point about Senator Scott, if he has been pulled over many times like that there should be other White senators with the exact same story.
Now, I will agree with you on one thing you often bring up, often times this is economic related. But this then goes to the disparate impact question. If Blacks are being pulled over more often because they are more likely poor, does that make it racist even if the intent is economic?
And in reality, I think you and I are probably pretty close on this. I'd be particularly curious what CO thinks.
