Racial profiling update

(UPDATE:  Welcome, readers of Bonfire of the Vanities and Carnival of the Vanities!)

A new study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics is the starting point for an AP story today, to wit:

Black, Hispanic and white motorists are equally likely to be pulled over by police, but blacks and Hispanics are much more likely to be searched, handcuffed, arrested and subjected to force or the threat of it, a Justice Department study has found.

And why is this a story, you ask?  That's easy:

Traffic stops have become a politically volatile issue as minority groups have complained that many stops and searches are based on race rather than on legitimate suspicions.

Well, that, and a little political dig they manage to get in regarding the Bush administration, but I'll let that pass for now.

"When someone in law enforcement who is willing to speak the truth about racial profiling gets demoted for it, that's absolutely chilling," said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau. "To manage any problem, we must first measure it."

Yes, we should measure it.  Measuring is good.  Drawing logical conclusions from said measurements is also good, but one can't have everything.

So, just what is this data that the NAACP wants to draw attention to?

The data showed that black, Hispanic and white motorists were equally likely to be pulled over by police; about 9 percent of each are stopped. Traffic stops were the most frequent form of police contact with the public; an estimated 16.8 million drivers were stopped in 2002.

The racial disparities showed up after that point:

_Blacks (5.8 percent) and Hispanics (5.2 percent) were much more likely to be arrested than whites (2 percent).

_Hispanics (71.5 percent) were much more likely to be ticketed than blacks (58.4 percent) or whites (56.5 percent).

_Blacks (2.7 percent) and Hispanics (2.4 percent) were far more likely than whites (0.8 percent) to report that police used force or the threat of it. Force was defined as when an officer pushed, grabbed, kicked or hit a driver with a hand or object. Also included were police dog bites, chemical or pepper spray or a firearm pointed at the driver, or the threat of any of these.

_Handcuffs were used on greater percentages of black motorists (6.4 percent) and Hispanics (5.6 percent) than whites (2 percent).

_Black and Hispanic drivers and their vehicles were much more likely to be searched than whites and their vehicles. Black motorists were searched 8.1 percent of the time; Hispanics, 8.3 percent; whites, 2.5 percent. Vehicles driven by blacks were searched 7.1 percent of the time; by Hispanics, 10.1 percent; by whites, 2.9 percent.

Sorry for all the statistics, but they are essential to the point of the story.  You see, according to this particular study, white drivers were pulled over at the same rates as blacks and Hispanics.  But after being pulled over, there were racial disparities, as more blacks and Hispanics ended up being arrested, ticketed, have their vehicles searched, report threats of "force," etc. 

Now, what does this raw data tell you?  Just think about it for a moment.  Think also about what it does not tell you, namely what circumstances the police officers found in the vehicles of the people stopped, or how the occupants of the vehicles behaved.  Buried in the very last line of the story, we find that

The study, first reported by The New York Times, said the interviews did not ask enough questions about circumstances - such as whether drugs were in plain view - or about driver conduct to "answer the question of whether the driver's race, rather than the driver's conduct or other specific circumstances," led to the search.

Why that wouldn't make this study pretty much useless isn't explained.  In addition,

Based on interviews of almost 77,000 Americans age 16 or over in 2002, the study drew no conclusions about the reasons for the racial disparities in post-stop treatment.

I can see why:  the data gives too little information to draw prima facie conclusions.  Well, except, maybe, for one, although this is certainly not the conclusion you are supposed to reach:  that police are unnecessarily pulling over far too many white drivers (as evidenced by the fact that far fewer of them end up being arrested, searched, ticketed, etc.).  Oops.  Heh, heh, never mind.  These aren't the data you're looking for.  You can go about your business.  Move along.

What we're supposed to think is something like the scene in Driving Miss Daisy in which the two ignorant, Southern, redneck deputies pull over Hoke and Miss Daisy because, why, here's a Negro driving an expensive car that he couldn't possibly afford, and he's chauferring a Jewish woman around, for goodness' sake.  No good could possibly come of this.

Instead, what we find is that while whites are pulled over at the same rate as other races, the other races statistically end up giving the police more reason to take action against vehicle occupants, and surely this must have racist implications.  Especially that "threat of force" thing--police are, we are supposed to believe, hitting those poor drivers, or using handcuffs or some such, simply because they are of a minority race. 

The trouble is that there is no evidence to show that this is true, at least not in this story.  And they even say so.  But don't pay that no never-mind, because we all know how racist the police are.

Now, if police are treating people unfairly because of their race, that's not only deplorable, it's illegal.  But what we have here is data that not only fails to support that conclusion, it actually leads one to the opposite conclusion--yet in spite of that, the NAACP will use this study to defame the police and the administrations under which they perform their duties.  And there are people who hate so much to use their brains for anything more strenuous than watching television who will believe them.

(Hat tip to Ralph Bristol.)

UPDATE:  Thanks to TWM for the link--and the kind, if somewhat too kind, words.

Comments

[Individ]

I have law enforcement experience, and I would urge ANY person, white, black, green or whatever, to see a lawyer if they think they have been stopped or searched or arrested "unfairly". To perform a "pat down" or to determine that a car does not have weapons that can place the officer in danger, a police officer must have an ARTICULABLE, reasonable suspicion that the subjects of the car may be a danger to the officers or the community. Many jurisdictions now require an officer to write a report whenever they perform a 'stop" or frisk beyond a routine traffic stop. For a full search or arrest, the officers require an ARTICULABLE PROBABLE CAUSE for the search or arrest. I personally have never seen someone pulled over, or searched, or arrested because of their color or ethnicity, and my jurisdiction is dominantly black. In any jurisdiction I am familiar with, an officer who would pull a stunt like that would be putting their paycheck in serious jeopardy. The story you cite is just more examples of the misuse of data by the corrupt and lying Left, whose aim is to drive wedges between people - they want to keep minorities down, keep them in the status of victim, demean them, debase them, and erode their dignity,all the while using them for their own political gain. Now, shall I tell you how I really feel?

[Rob]

My brother is a Sheriffs deputy in Bexar country (San Antonio).. He's gotten tagged several times for supposed "profiling" due to the racial statistics on the tickets he writes. Sometimes he will end up with 80% of his tickets going to Hispanics (He's mexican like me). Seriously, he's patroling the south side of SA. If any of you know San Antonio it's surprising to me that he's able to find 20% that ISN'T hispanic. Then when he's patrolling the north side of town (loop 1604) he pulls 70% white. Now he gets tagged for harassing white people... nevermind that's the deomographic for that area. When it's pitch black out (he works nights) and your sitting with a radar gun the only profiling going on is who is driving too fast... But a sleezy lawyer (oxymoron? :-) could spin that easily.

[Vicki Small]

"sleezy lawyer (oxymoron? :-)" No, not an oxymoron; merely redundant. ;>) Appreciate all the stat's. Leave it to the Left to leave out inconvenient facts.

[Obi-Wan]

Now, shall I tell you how I really feel?

Come on now, Individ. I get the feeling that you're holding back. ;o)

And thanks for your input, Rob and Vicki. Actually, I expected to get flamed to a crispy crunch over this, and may be yet, but frankly, I don't really get enough attention yet for that sort of thing to occur much.

[rob]

oxymoron..err... redundant yeah, that's what I ment to say.. :-} Hey, don't get me wrong, I don't hate lawyers.. in fact I think they're delicious.. :-}

[Obi-Wan]

I wonder if "Carnival of the Recipes" ever has any good ideas for using lawyers? I mean, I love a good roast lawyer as much as anyone, crispy outside, juicy inside, mmmm...but I get tired of all the cold legal sandwiches for a week afterwards. Perhaps a good casserole, or tort tarts, or something.

Plus, I never know whether to serve red or white wine...

[MB]

>unnecessarily pulling over far too many white drivers >far fewer of them end up being arrested, searched, ticketed O you are good!..