<p>Um, no. You can’t make that assumption. Take, for example, marijuana arrests. Whites and blacks use marijuana at very close to the same rate. Therefore, you’d assume that whites and blacks would be arrested at about the same rate, yes? Well, you’d be very, very wrong.</p>
<p>Why can’t police ask more questions? A simple request to see ID and a check of where the producer just came from would have solved this one. And as always I like to know what description was given. Was it just “black male”?</p>
<p>Razorsharp, police arrest the wrong person all the time - they’re not omniscient. But patterns are patterns, and if you refuse to recognize patterns, you’re missing the obvious point. </p>
<p>In the Daily Show clip, Jon Stewart says that two of his employees entered a building to interview someone. The scruffy white camera man was allowed in without question, while the well dressed black guy was stopped and questioned. You think that’s just the luck of the draw?</p>
<p>I worked with a well-to-do black woman who drove an expensive car back and forth from her expensive home everyday. I can’t even count the number of times she was stopped and questioned by police for DWB in her own suburb. </p>
<p>See, here’s the thing. If I accidentally walk into my puppy, I apologize for kicking her. She accepts my apology and licks my face. If I starting kicking her every day, pretty soon she would learn it’s not an accident and she would stop trusting me. If an animal cowers from its owner, or cringes when the owner raises his hand, It doesn’t take a genius to evaluate what’s going on. </p>
<p>No one has EVER said this–that it’s ALWAYS police bias. But we are showing you several cases here that seem to be indicative of some kind of bias, and you refuse to comment on them. Now why is that? Could it be because of your false belief (BIAS) that “African American men are more likely to commit crime”? You seem to be tacitly excusing the actions of these various police departments on the grounds that they are just going on the “facts” that blacks are more likely to be criminals than whites. So when they arrest any black person–doesn’t even have to be the right gender, don’t have to have any proof that they have the right guy, can ignore basic details like the color of a car–THEY’RE not racist. It’s the people who think it’s racist to indiscriminately group people into one category who are. Got it!</p>
<p>In the last two weeks, I got pulled over three times by different police agencies. (The car had no license plates and the temporary permit was difficult to read). I was very nice to the police officers and they were very nice to me. I knew they were just young men and women trying to do their jobs. I didn’t get mad or even huffy or indignant. One officer said they were looking for a car thief, and even though I’d wager very few car thieves are middle aged white women, I understand. </p>
<p>Tatin, you got pulled over because you had no plates on your car and the temporary permit was difficult to read. Not because of the color of your skin.</p>
<p>Well, the producer was pulled over because he fit the description of suspect in a bank robbery that just happened a block away and a witness on the scene positively ID’d him so that one does seem legit. Race was part of the description. Also, people seem to be missing the fact that most crimes occur in high-crime areas so people in those areas are going to encounter more of this. Beverly Hills is not such an area, though.</p>
<p>“Why can’t police ask more questions? A simple request to see ID and a check of where the producer just came from would have solved this one. And as always I like to know what description was given. Was it just “black male”?” </p>
<p>They did ask more questions. Apparently they asked 4 1/2 hours of questions. There was also waiting for the attorney to show up after calling the NAACP. And, they reviewed the video which involved going to the bank and obtaining the video. The FBI and the LAPD were also involved so it’s would not surprise me one bit if basic bureaucratic inefficiency played a larger role than racism in the hold up. It’s interesting people think in this case they arrested him legitimately but then treated him badly by making him wait because he was black. My only point is that nothing is ever as easy as a few sentences and a conclusion and every one of these cases if different. We can’t just lump them all together and go…See!</p>
<p>Actually, until recently Southern California was the bank robbery capital of the country. Even now bank robberies are an almost daily occurrence. </p>
<p>The St. Paul case was not in a “high-crime area.” Neither was the road in Texas where the woman and her kids were stopped in a car completely different from the suspected getaway vehicle.</p>
<p>The thing is, if you are black there is seemingly nowhere you can go and not be treated this way. I can’t tell you how many times I see black people pulled over in low-crime residential areas, even with tags on their car and just minding their own business.</p>
<p>Sally, unless you know why they are pulled over you can’t just assume it was because they are black, either. I saw several people of different races pulled over yesterday. I have no idea why, though. </p>
<p>Yes, and here is the pattern on this board. Nearly everyone (but not me) assumed when they read the first post of this thread that Mr. Belk had been improperly detained because of he is black. They also presumed that it was just another example of police arresting a black man because he was black and not for any legitimate reason. </p>
<p>If you don’t make assumption (as I chose not to make an assumption) you can see that Mr. Belk was located a block away from a robbery committed by a black male wearing similar clothing and have a similar appearance to Mr. Belk. Then you learn that a witness identified Mr. Belk as the robbery. With that information, it should be obvious that Mr. Belk was not arrested for walking while black he was arrested because he had characteristics similar to the robber and was located near the robbery. Mr. Belk’s arrest was unfortunate, horrible, annoying, etc, but it was not racially motivated and those who made that assumption should be ashamed of themselves. </p>
<p>So when people are pulled over inappropriately (i.e. the mom in the wrong-color car), what’s the excuse? How about the guy in St. Paul waiting on a bench for his kids? When the police give no reason to detain someone, it seems reasonable to assume it’s because there IS no reason.</p>
<p>We don’t know the reasons in those cases. That does not mean the police had no reason. The case we do know more about seems not so clear cut, anymore.</p>
<p>As Belk said, he was hurrying to his car to feed the meter. What if he had run? Anyone care to bet whether they would have shot him if he didn’t stop because he didn’t realize he was the person they were yelling at?</p>
<p>I was pulled over for police to check if I had stolen my car. My guess is that the least likely demographic for car theft is middle aged women. Sadly, the crime statistics for black men committing robberies and violent crimes make all black men more vulnerable to being stopped. </p>
<p>Well, that’s a huge assumption and fortunately that that did not happen. They have apolgized for mistakenly detaining him. Had they shot him it would be a much bigger problem.</p>
<p>“Had they shot him it would be a much bigger problem” – pretty low standard for proper police behavior, don’t you think? Let’s see, they denied him basic rights, they didn’t do their job and they once again gave proof to double standards at a time of increased scrutiny (and dismay by the public). But hey, they didn’t SHOOT him… so it’s not so bad.</p>
<p>Really? Can’t we expect a little more professionalism from our police? </p>
<p>Did they deny him basic rights? I thought the problem was that the ordeal was a mistake that took too long to clear up. What rights were denied? Their job is to catch bank robbers. A witness singled him out at the scene. They took him in and then they cleared him and apologized publicly. </p>
<p>Maybe the police weren’t wrong to detain Belk given the information they had at the time - although the length of time still seems excessive. That doesn’t change the fact that there seem to be a LOT of cases in which African-Americans are being pulled over, harassed, and even killed with far less justification.</p>
<p>And here’s the thing: I get why the police would be more wary of a big black man than a tiny white woman, or why they would be more vigilant in an area known for violent crime - which may be mostly minority – than in a quiet suburb. But if you are a trained police officer, a big part of your job is or should be knowing the difference between reasonable and unreasonable AND being able to de-escalate confrontations whenever possible. And I think we have gotten enough information about some of the cases mentioned in the thread to at least have a pretty good idea that that isn’t happening.</p>
<p>Now, if the response to these cases by the police had been an unequivocal rejection of the officer’s behavior, that might be another story. Too often, however, the response seems to be that the officer DID follow protocol, and that’s scary. </p>