Why are black people profiled and arrested in greater numbers than white people?
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
Buddy of mine is a sociologist. There are several theories. It's pretty interesting to discuss with someone who's educated on them.
Yes they are.
Driving While Black
A decorated Vietnam veteran black guy I know with 2 Purple Hearts was driving on I-35 north of Ardmore earlier this year on his way to Wichita, in his silver 1988 diesel Mercedes nicknamed "the Bear" and got pulled over while violating no law. The trooper asked him if he knew why he got pulled over. Valdez said "no." At that point the trooper said he had an emergency call coming in and had to go. He never said why he pulled him over. But undoubtedly the trooper did see the Big Red One cap in the back windshield.
Last edited:
It sucks for all the good people but a disproportionate percentage of crime is committed by black people.
They profile for the same reason law enforcement pays much more attention to Muslim radicals than pissed off Baptists.
You can argue the socio-economic reasons but the crime stats are what they are.
They profile for the same reason law enforcement pays much more attention to Muslim radicals than pissed off Baptists.
You can argue the socio-economic reasons but the crime stats are what they are.
Crucial differences between being radical Muslim and black:
Being radical Muslim is a choice.
Being radical Muslim can cause terrorism.
Being black isn't a choice.
Being black doesn't cause crime.
I say this everytime you bring up this dumbass argument (and JonnyVito agreed last time) using racial stats as justification for racial profile is racist.
+
I don't like it, I'm not saying it's right but it is the answer to the question posed. To just blame it all on base racism is a simplistic, ignorant answer.
I have no idea where you came up with the Radical Muslim, black person analogy. I didn't link them in any way. I specifically was pointing out that police profile on more than just race.
I didn't justify anything numbnuts, I was merely answering the question, why are blacks profiled. You say it's just because they are black and that is ignoring a giant FACT. There is high crime in black precincts and police are overly sensitive to it so it causes problems for non offending decent black people.
I don't like it, I'm not saying it's right but it is the answer to the question posed. To just blame it all on base racism is a simplistic, ignorant answer.
I have no idea where you came up with the Radical Muslim, black person analogy. I didn't link them in any way. I specifically was pointing out that police profile on more than just race.
Expecting anything less from a liberal is pointless. They refuse to acknowledge the link between the black thug subculture and crime. It's the white man's fault. Poverty's fault. Anybody but the blacks fault.
There is a subculture in the black culture that promotes violence, drinking, poor treatment of women, gang banging, material things, drugs, prostitution, etc. A liberal won't admit that this subculture is destructive because it doesn't bode well for the narrative that all problems the black race experiences are because of the white race.
It's beyond sad, but true. Until leaders who represent the black race are willing to speak out against the thug life, it will continue to grow and plague the black race. I'm not a racist. I'm a realist.
Last edited:
Man, if any officer stops somebody because of their skin color, that's a person who should find another line of work.
So...how long have you lived in a cave?
OK, let's recap.
Wyo: Any officer who stops a person because of their skin color needs to find another job.
CowboyUp: Do you live in a cave? (Picture of Sandra Bland).
Make sense so far?
People who happen to be white get arrested in greater number than people who happen to be black?
RACISM !!!!!!!
If an eyewitness to a crime says a black person committed the crime, it's not profiling to stop black people who meet the description of the perp. Nor is it profiling to exclude people who are not black from the search.
It's not profiling if a policeman stops a car whose driver committed multiple traffic violations and then finds criminal activity in the car. It's not profiling if the driver of the car cops an attitude and is "lit up".
Change black to white or brown and it's still the same.
It's not profiling if a policeman stops a car whose driver committed multiple traffic violations and then finds criminal activity in the car. It's not profiling if the driver of the car cops an attitude and is "lit up".
Change black to white or brown and it's still the same.
Up, Sandra Bland doesn't further your racist agenda because I don't believe anyone would defend the way that woman was treated it was awful and there is video evidence to prove it. The cop should at the very least be fired.
You see unlike liberals of your ilk most people on here look at things with an open mind then form an opinion based on facts. You don't have the ability to view anything outside of the liberal filter that biases everything you see or think. The conservatives on this board are just as likely to be critical of other self professed conservatives as they are liberals. You would never do that to a liberal unless Media Matters gives you permission.
You see unlike liberals of your ilk most people on here look at things with an open mind then form an opinion based on facts. You don't have the ability to view anything outside of the liberal filter that biases everything you see or think. The conservatives on this board are just as likely to be critical of other self professed conservatives as they are liberals. You would never do that to a liberal unless Media Matters gives you permission.
Perfect example.
Bland got pulled over for changing lanes without signaling so a Law Enforcement Officer could get past her. Trying to be a respecful driver, eventually arrested and jail. Two days later she was dead.
No white driver would have been pulled over in the first place.
Driving While Black. Same thing my Vietnam veteran friend with shrapnel still oozing out of his eye socket was pulled over for on the Purple Heart Highway in southern Oklahoma. Happens all the time.
Bland got pulled over for changing lanes without signaling so a Law Enforcement Officer could get past her. Trying to be a respecful driver, eventually arrested and jail. Two days later she was dead.
No white driver would have been pulled over in the first place.
Driving While Black. Same thing my Vietnam veteran friend with shrapnel still oozing out of his eye socket was pulled over for on the Purple Heart Highway in southern Oklahoma. Happens all the time.
You're thinking with your vagina again. Let's look at this analytically.
First, we would have to determine if the officer is a chickenshit or a racist...or possibly both. Or possibly neither.
I'd want to see all the traffic tickets he wrote for the last two years. I'd want to know what the violations were and I'd want to know the race of all individuals who received tickets. Throw in warnings as well. Establish a pattern of preference (if there is one).
Not sure what the open records laws are in Texas, but I'd be shocked if those weren't readily available at a reasonable cost.
If I was the attorney for the family, that's the first thing I'd want to know. Then I'd go for all email communications that the officer sent or received on his state email account. Is there a state owned computer in the state owned vehicle driven by the state employee that contain communication between him and other officers? Fork 'em over.
Maybe the guy is the biggest racist ever. But maybe he's not. I'd just want proof of it before calling him such. And if I got the proof, I'd win the largest settlement in Texas legal history.
Interesting and timely thread.
In terms of dating, I've encountered a few issues myself. I have a weakness for all women....but especially black women. Have dated maybe a half dozen in the last twenty years but nothing more than a month. One reason, every time I meet a gal, I tend to do a background check (I work for the DOC). It might be tacky but most women do it. Why can't we?
Anyway, EVERY black gal I've dated has had a record. Every single one. It's amazing.
I met a girl last month that had a great personality and works as a paralegal at a nearby law firm. Went out on a date. Had a great time. Almost didn't even do a background check because of her employment situation. Ran one and.....BOOM....arrested in January for possession of meth and a controlled dangerous substance. What?
Now, you could look at this in a way that blacks are more likely to get pulled over and searched vs. other ethnic groups therefore leading to more arrests. Or you could twist it to simply say blacks commit more crimes.
Regardless, I've found no above average candidates with black women. Granted, I'm sure it's just my luck and personal experience....but it is what it is.
In terms of dating, I've encountered a few issues myself. I have a weakness for all women....but especially black women. Have dated maybe a half dozen in the last twenty years but nothing more than a month. One reason, every time I meet a gal, I tend to do a background check (I work for the DOC). It might be tacky but most women do it. Why can't we?
Anyway, EVERY black gal I've dated has had a record. Every single one. It's amazing.
I met a girl last month that had a great personality and works as a paralegal at a nearby law firm. Went out on a date. Had a great time. Almost didn't even do a background check because of her employment situation. Ran one and.....BOOM....arrested in January for possession of meth and a controlled dangerous substance. What?
Now, you could look at this in a way that blacks are more likely to get pulled over and searched vs. other ethnic groups therefore leading to more arrests. Or you could twist it to simply say blacks commit more crimes.
Regardless, I've found no above average candidates with black women. Granted, I'm sure it's just my luck and personal experience....but it is what it is.
Sorry for saying you justified it, its just this is the first time you have ever not been enthusiastically in favor or racial profiling. Kudos on the change of heart.
Your words were "They profile for the same reason law enforcement pays much more attention to Muslim radicals than pissed off Baptists." To me that links racial profiling with Muslim radical profiling. The purpose of what I said was to point out why it is legitimate to profile based on belief and illegitimate to profile based on skin color.
I thought my reply was clearly a prompt for you to explain what you said. Things like who purposely engineered it and for what purpose? How was it engineered; any specific policies? What makes you believe this, is there any evidence?
It has nothing to do with race. Is race baiting all you liberals can think about? It's about who's committing crimes and who's committing terrorism. That's how they are linked. You are either obtuse or ignorant of what is going on.
And I showed you how they are not linked. Are you too obtuse or ignorant to understand the difference between an ideology that people choose that drives them to crime and a skin color people are born with that doesn't cause them to commit crime?
I don't know why you are even arguing. We both agree racial profiling is wrong and not an appropriate tactic.
No one is saying race causes people to be criminals, that's what you are saying we are saying and it's total BS.
If you don't know that crime is higher is black neighborhoods and that is what causes police to instinctively profile then there is nothing else to say you don't live in reality.
If you don't know that crime is higher is black neighborhoods and that is what causes police to instinctively profile then there is nothing else to say you don't live in reality.
And if you don't know that racial profiling is practically the very definition of racism then you don't live in reality. To even take mental note of the race of criminals is tacitly implying that you believe race has a causal relationship with crime.
I've noted this story before, but what happened in this instance is part of the reason why "statistics" can be skewed to show a higher pattern of crime by minorities than reality would indicate.
My two nephews (one white, one adopted and black) are approached while eating lunch at a Sonic by a guy who had been accused of raping a female friend of their's about a week before. He spouts off to them about how good their friend was in bed and then proceeds to call my one nephew the N word. My white nephew hits him and starts the fight, at some point the dude takes a swing at my other nephew who in return knocked him out.
Norman police show up, without even asking what happened immediately cuff my black nephew and put him in the back seat of the police car. My white nephew explains to them the underlying cause of the fight and even admits being the one who started the fight (after being goaded).
Out of the 3, the only "truly" innocent person was my black nephew who had every right to defend himself from being punched again by rapey guy. Who was the only person cuffed? Who was the only person charged? Who was the only person convicted in juvie court? If you guessed "the black guy" you would be completely right.
If the actual application of the law as the facts of this case dictated, the only person charged should have been my white nephew and possibly the guy who instigated it. So instead of one or two white perps showing up in the statistics, one black teenager shows instead.
BTW, not two months later - rapey guy gets caught breaking into a house in Edmond and attacking a teen age girl when her father hears the commotion beats him detains him and he's arrested on attempted rape charges. DNA tests show he was involved in at least 2 other rapes in Edmond (similar circumstances) and one in Cleveland County. (no telling how many others as the girl my nephews knew had refused to press charges.)
When I talked to the prosecutor about the case she simply dismissed anything I had to say and refused to explain why my nephew who started the fight was going scot-free and the kid who was simply lawfully defending himself was being prosecuted. When informed that the kid who instigated the fight had just been charged with 3 counts of rape and the underlying cause of the fight was him mouthing off to my nephews about raping a friend of theirs, she completely dismissed that as having any bearing on the case.
My two nephews (one white, one adopted and black) are approached while eating lunch at a Sonic by a guy who had been accused of raping a female friend of their's about a week before. He spouts off to them about how good their friend was in bed and then proceeds to call my one nephew the N word. My white nephew hits him and starts the fight, at some point the dude takes a swing at my other nephew who in return knocked him out.
Norman police show up, without even asking what happened immediately cuff my black nephew and put him in the back seat of the police car. My white nephew explains to them the underlying cause of the fight and even admits being the one who started the fight (after being goaded).
Out of the 3, the only "truly" innocent person was my black nephew who had every right to defend himself from being punched again by rapey guy. Who was the only person cuffed? Who was the only person charged? Who was the only person convicted in juvie court? If you guessed "the black guy" you would be completely right.
If the actual application of the law as the facts of this case dictated, the only person charged should have been my white nephew and possibly the guy who instigated it. So instead of one or two white perps showing up in the statistics, one black teenager shows instead.
BTW, not two months later - rapey guy gets caught breaking into a house in Edmond and attacking a teen age girl when her father hears the commotion beats him detains him and he's arrested on attempted rape charges. DNA tests show he was involved in at least 2 other rapes in Edmond (similar circumstances) and one in Cleveland County. (no telling how many others as the girl my nephews knew had refused to press charges.)
When I talked to the prosecutor about the case she simply dismissed anything I had to say and refused to explain why my nephew who started the fight was going scot-free and the kid who was simply lawfully defending himself was being prosecuted. When informed that the kid who instigated the fight had just been charged with 3 counts of rape and the underlying cause of the fight was him mouthing off to my nephews about raping a friend of theirs, she completely dismissed that as having any bearing on the case.
Police reports can be valuable resources if you're interested in differing perspectives. What did the police report say happened? What did the officers see as they arrived? What were the officers told was happening as they were being sent to the fight?
So much fail in this. It isn't taking a mental note to discuss statistics that the DOJ, yes the federal government, collects about crime and race.
Wyoming,
The problem in that instance (as was relayed to me by my white nephew) was the Norman Police did not give an F as to what was told to them when they arrived on the scene. They completely disregarded what he said to them (taking responsibility for starting the fight) and disregarding the fact that even the other kid involved admitted that my nephew who knocked him out had not thrown a punch or was involved in the fight until he hit him.
I don't give a crap what is being told to the police before they arrived. (perhaps it was enough to cuff him initially). What should be of concern is that it was their preconceived notion who was responsible and their failure to even listen to the others involved that he was not the perpetrator and had only engaged in self-defense. My white nephew said the cops had their minds made up when they pulled up and wouldn't change their minds even with the testimony of the other two involved.
What other reasonable conclusion could one draw from those factual circumstances other than their was some racial component involved? He wasn't the biggest one in the fight (he was the smallest), he wasn't aggressive, he wasn't the one tossing out racial slurs,etc. All of the other options are pretty much off the table as to why the Police would treat the 3 kids in a very disproportionate manner.
The problem in that instance (as was relayed to me by my white nephew) was the Norman Police did not give an F as to what was told to them when they arrived on the scene. They completely disregarded what he said to them (taking responsibility for starting the fight) and disregarding the fact that even the other kid involved admitted that my nephew who knocked him out had not thrown a punch or was involved in the fight until he hit him.
I don't give a crap what is being told to the police before they arrived. (perhaps it was enough to cuff him initially). What should be of concern is that it was their preconceived notion who was responsible and their failure to even listen to the others involved that he was not the perpetrator and had only engaged in self-defense. My white nephew said the cops had their minds made up when they pulled up and wouldn't change their minds even with the testimony of the other two involved.
What other reasonable conclusion could one draw from those factual circumstances other than their was some racial component involved? He wasn't the biggest one in the fight (he was the smallest), he wasn't aggressive, he wasn't the one tossing out racial slurs,etc. All of the other options are pretty much off the table as to why the Police would treat the 3 kids in a very disproportionate manner.
I was talking about the cops who Headhunter tells us can't help but racially profile since they see so many black criminals.
You seemingly have prejudged the officers' actions without the benefit of knowing what their knowledge was at the time they acted. Surely, as an attorney, you can appreciate the importance of this.
Wyoming,
No, I am judging them on the basis of the fact that they took no action to determine if their preconceived notions (if any) were in fact based on reality. They simply refused to believe my white nephew and the other kid - both of whom gave statements to the police that they were the two instigators of the fight and that my other nephew was in no way involved, UNTIL he was punched and then only acted in self-defense.
You're actually making the point for me. They had all the KNOWLEDGE they needed at the time they decided to arrest and charge my nephew, that knowledge should have lead to his immediate release. 3 people in a fight, 2 testify that the other was not an instigator or participant until punched and only acted in self-defense. How does that lead to the arrest and charging of the 3rd person (there was no other witness statements taken) when the propensity of the testimony and evidence completely contradicted their (police's) actions?
There's no way one could objectively look at those circumstances and not reach the conclusion that it was more likely than not that race played a role in who the cops decided to arrest and hold responsible.
It's been more than a dozen years since I reviewed the police report. But the officers observed nothing when they arrived as the fight was long over and my two nephews had moved several yards away from where rapey-guy was sitting on the ground. No testimony taken of any other witnesses than the 3 boys involved. Police report showed they believed black nephew to have started the fight, although statements from the other two completely contradicted that assumption.
From both nephews: No questions were asked, nor any steps taken to search the two white kids, but H. (black nephew was immediately cuffed and searched for weapons). My white nephew at that point, outweighed my other nephew by a good 40 lbs and was about 3 inches taller. The other kid was in between the size of those two. The fact that the police only cuffed and searched one of three should tell an objective observer of what preconceived notions the police approached with and it's fairly obvious from where those preconceived notions originated.
No, I am judging them on the basis of the fact that they took no action to determine if their preconceived notions (if any) were in fact based on reality. They simply refused to believe my white nephew and the other kid - both of whom gave statements to the police that they were the two instigators of the fight and that my other nephew was in no way involved, UNTIL he was punched and then only acted in self-defense.
You're actually making the point for me. They had all the KNOWLEDGE they needed at the time they decided to arrest and charge my nephew, that knowledge should have lead to his immediate release. 3 people in a fight, 2 testify that the other was not an instigator or participant until punched and only acted in self-defense. How does that lead to the arrest and charging of the 3rd person (there was no other witness statements taken) when the propensity of the testimony and evidence completely contradicted their (police's) actions?
There's no way one could objectively look at those circumstances and not reach the conclusion that it was more likely than not that race played a role in who the cops decided to arrest and hold responsible.
It's been more than a dozen years since I reviewed the police report. But the officers observed nothing when they arrived as the fight was long over and my two nephews had moved several yards away from where rapey-guy was sitting on the ground. No testimony taken of any other witnesses than the 3 boys involved. Police report showed they believed black nephew to have started the fight, although statements from the other two completely contradicted that assumption.
From both nephews: No questions were asked, nor any steps taken to search the two white kids, but H. (black nephew was immediately cuffed and searched for weapons). My white nephew at that point, outweighed my other nephew by a good 40 lbs and was about 3 inches taller. The other kid was in between the size of those two. The fact that the police only cuffed and searched one of three should tell an objective observer of what preconceived notions the police approached with and it's fairly obvious from where those preconceived notions originated.
Last edited:
Your foundation has crumbled. You have reached a conclusion based on incomplete facts. You have zero information from witness statements. You have zero information from official documents. You have zero information from recordings, either audio or video.
You have prejudged the officers without the benefit of any investigation on your own at all when public records are easily within reach should you chose to file a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of your nephew.
If you're that confident in your case as is, then why wouldn't you go ahead and file? Seriously, if what you say is true, then doesnt somebody have at least a moral obligation to correct the problem?
