It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
*snip*
If blacks accounted for 67% of stops, it would make sense. They don't.
If whites accounted for 29% of stops, it would make sense. They don't.
It is not proportionate to population.
Where is the evidence showing that any of the stops were not valid??
However with one caveat IF there is a larger portion of black people disproportionately committing crime, than of course police would pull them over more than perhaps you or I.
Again, it is a difficult question to answer. Of course, one might consider the idea of being innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, in there somewhere.
So i suppose my next question is; is profiling justified ever or is it always a "evil" concept that has no precedence?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I did come close to hitting someone once (mentioned in an old thread of mine), but he was blonde and white, like me.
So you didn't.
On the other hand, if he was black and didn't look like you...
Nice little assumption there, and we know what that makes one....
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TechniXcality
Here's another way to look at it. I'm white, quite white (I am). Let's say I break into a store and there are no witnesses. Statistics say that I am less likely to be stopped as a suspect than a black man. So, a black man is stopped and released because there is no evidence against him. I am not stopped, but I'm carrying a bag full of stuff from the store. He goes free, I go free. But, if it had been him who had done the crime, the ending would be quite different because the police stopped him based on a racial profile. I did the crime, but was not a suspect because I did not fit the racial profile.