-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2006/07/05/numbers-released/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
wordslinger
96 comments · 42 points
-
Rich Miller
147 comments · 56 points
-
LoopLady
16 comments · 6 points
-
theoriginallynns
16 comments · 2 points
-
dupage dan
28 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
[thanks for the 4th of july piece!]
This is all the article says. The supporting stat doesn't, of itself, indicate that more minorities are being searched or that a stop will lead to a search - just that they are more likely to permit a search.
I'd like to see the stats on how many were asked to begin with.
'Roadside Safety Checkpoints' and 'Seat Belt Enforcement Zones' are springing up all over northern Illinois. I saw multiple ones over the holiday week and weekend.
Within two years, the percentage of minorities being pulled over will regress back to the mean, as far more non-minorities are pulled over to compensate.
And we'll all be safer because of this.
http://www.dot.state.il.us/trafficstop/2005summ...
The Consent Search stat is actually .74 white to 2.1 non-white.
The total in the table at the bottom is incorrect. They threw out the 'not specified' race. (781)
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_the_myth....
My law enforcement friends risk their lives daily for our safety. I want them to stay alive, and I respect their experiences. I don't stand over their shoulder and cluck each time they make a decision. They are out there, not me or you - how about a little respect? We need to stop obsessing over "fairness" and start living in the real world.
"...minorities made up 28.5 percent of the driving population but accounted for 31.8 percent of traffic stops in 2005."
I thought the disparity would be much higher than that. Minorities are more likely to be driving in high crime areas -- where there are more police on patrol and more traffic stops made.
Additionally, statistically speaking, minorities are more likely to be poor, which means they are more likely to drive old cars with broken tail lights, expired plate tags, etc. Which again, would make them more likely to get pulled over.
Add to that equation some good old fashion racism, and 31.8 percent seems low.
Maybe police officers around the state, (knowning these stats are being kept,) have been careful not to target minorities. Or maybe racial profiling isn't as bad as we thought.
Then again, racial profiling can be a two-way street. Say you're a Chicago cop on the West Side and you see a late model car, with a Schaumburg city sticker, filled with white kids, come off the Eisenhower. The car circles around the block a couple of times near an open-air drug market. What do you do? If you don't find an excuse to pull that car over, you have no business being a police officer.
The statewide statistics are misleading. Racial profiling is not a statewide problem, it is an agency by agency problem, related to the bad behavior of a few rogue individuals at the very least, or poor training and improper departmental policies at the very most. Looking at the statewide summary allows those bad apples to hide behind the vast majority of individuals that are doing their jobs abd doing them well.
For example, according to the complete report, the Effingham County Sherriff's department is 5.76 times more likely to stop minority drivers. The City of Champaign is 1.63 times more likely to stop minority drivers, Decatur 2.11, Springfield 2.13, Bloomington 1.63. Compare that to Chicago, 1.14 and Illinois State Police, .89.
I agree with the Illinois State Police that interpreting these numbers requires context, and I hope the legislative black caucus will organize hearings in Springfield and in these and other "hot spots" around Illinois to find out just exactly what is going on.
Let me get this straight: Ron argues that blacks are getting stopped more often because their cars are crappy, and you're arguing that blacks are stopped more often because their cars are too new? Sounds like the Redneck Party has it's bases covered.
I say bullcrap to your hands-off argument. Our military does not operate without civilian oversite, and neither do our police. Last time I checked, we lived in a free country that allowed free travel. There shouldn't be two speed limits: one for white people, one for everbody else.
I understand the irrationale of the minority stops. Cops are looking for drugs. They think minorities are more likely to have drugs, so they pull them over more frequently, ask them more questions, apply more pressure to get consent for a search.
BTW, in case you don't know, the request for a search usually goes like this:
"We've been on the look-out for explosives and guns since Sept. 11th. You don't have any guns or explosives in your vehicle, do you?"
"Do you mind if we take a quick look, just to make sure?"
Of course, they aren't looking for a dirty bomb. They're looking for enough drugs or cash to justify seizing your vehicle.
This is a civil rights problem, but it's also a law enforcement problem. That's because FBI data shows that the majority of people busted with drugs in traffic stops aren't minority, they're white.
Of course, if your name was ChocolateMan instead of VanillaMan, you'd probably see things more like me.
Also, 60% vs. 69% doesn't necessarily seem high enough to suggest blatant profiling.
you are again trying to play the race card when one does not exist. is there bigotry? yes, but it cuts both ways with bigotry on the part of some whites, democrats included, and some minorities. do minority officers stop more whites or minorities? is stoppoing a rampant and grave problem. no. ask me to due a study to prove a conclusion and i can give you all the scientific data you need to support it. sounds like you have been stopped yellow dog. don't call me a redneck party, when the democrats have controlled the major metro area police dempartments for decades. crime is still higher there. always looking for excuses and using the race card, instead of dealing the the real issues and solutions. democrats like you are hypocrits.
YDD is correct here. Utilizing the summary data, whites are stopped for moving violations about 5% more often than are their minority counterparts. Why is the 'apparent' speed limit lower for whites than the minorities? Limit the data to larger cities and you'll find the percentage difference increases to closer to 10%. Damnable bigotry in all its forms.
My feeling is that cops have agendas like any other human being, and they may or may not decide to use additional psychological pressure on certain types of people under certain circumstances. In their minds I think they feel justified, because in THEIR experiences, profiles actually DO fit most of the time.
YDD makes more sense today than usual. Maybe because he's not so partisan today.
As far as the copper, do you think the big differences among departments in rate of stopping minorities is just, say, coincidence? Has the copper really never heard a single white colleague make derogatory racial comments?
No way would I want to be a cop in this country. The criminals have all of the rights and the victims and police have none. All of the special interest groups only concerned with their BS instead of the good of the people/country breathing down their necks, second guessing each and every decision. No way. Can't shoot some criminal for running away from you during a stop or arrest - have to be a sprinter while carrying all of that equipment around.
Every ethic group commits crimes? What a shocker!