Understandably, the mere mention of the term, racial profiling conjures up all kinds of negative images, with just as many definitions. There was a time when it was standard operating procedure for police to pull over drivers based solely on race. Some will argue the practice still exists. Besides the intrusion, annoyance, financial inconvenience, and injustice, many times those random stops ended up tragically. It is more commonly called “Driving While Black,” DWB because a disproportionate number of the illegal police stops were of black drivers.
Thank goodness, the practice has waned. It was argued that the practice violated the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution that guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, and also the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.
But here we are some years later. Contrary to popular acceptance, racial profiling would greatly reduce the proliferation of gun violence and deaths perpetrated upon and by young black Americans. If implemented correctly, the cops would have a reason for pulling over black drivers: to get illegal guns off the street.
Of course, some rogue cops would misuse the system. But the result would be a mere sacrifice of some convenience for the prevention of the death of a young person.
Drastic times calls for drastic actions. The objections of groups like the NAACP, ACLU, Rainbow Coalition, or The National Action Network should be expected but overruled. Those groups or individuals are not preventing one young black life from being taken and the lives of many others from being destroyed. The actions of national black voices like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can be traced to infrequent/rare deaths of blacks at the hands of non-black shooters. Or any chance there is to manipulate white America into guilt, also known as a shakedown.
The cowardice practice of drive-by shootings has been perfected by young black thugs. Thus, warranting the appropriate return to the practice of stopping “suspicious “black drivers in high crime areas to conduct searches for illegal weapons. Since escalating incidents of black-on-black gun violence can be pinpointed to specific communities, the “suspicious searches” would be limited to those areas. This would either curtail the number of crimes committed in poor parts of towns or it would transfer the practice to other areas. Doing the latter, forcing the crime to white neighborhoods, would make elected officials react.
This practice would not occur everywhere. Primarily, it would take place in large urban areas, like Oakland and Los Angeles, CA, St. Louis, MO, Chicago, IL, Detroit, MI, and Washington, DC. You cast your line where the fish are.
Therefore, I hereby call for the immediate return of racial profiling. Henceforth, all law enforcement should pull over any suspicious looking black driver and search the car/person(s) for illegal weapons. If found, seize the gun, arrest the person(s), and confiscate the car. If fruitless, thank the driver for his patience and wish them a safe journey. I’d rather an innocent black man be inconvenienced for a few minutes than one lying in the street traced by white chalk.
While you’re preparing your objection to this, remember a black person is murdered every hour in America.
So, hurry. You might save a life.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
john blumenthal
cave_canem
TMaita
DiscoLemonade
Noahvose
Kind of Blue
Salon.com
Comments
Just what is 'suspicious looking'? Is it a certain type of clothing or hat? Is it because the 'suspect' was looking around? Or, is it because a Black person was driving in a 'White' neighborhood?
Can White people look suspicious? How about Asians or Hispanics? Should it be only men and not women? Young and not old?
I, too, want to see senseless violence ended on our streets. I just don't want it to be at the expense of our civil liberties. Trayvon Martin was thought to be "suspicious" by George Zimmerman. He was followed, stopped, and ultimately killed because of "suspicion".
The defense of "looking suspicious" should never justify stopping an innocent person for a specious search. Because more often than not "looking suspicious" is code for "I don't like those people" or "We don't want your kind in our neighborhood."
That is not an America I want to be a part of.
Ms Prochnow. I am black and I am sick of the senseless violence/killings.
Steele Breze. I am still working on becoming a man. However, I do love Spam.
First, you get the law totally and completely wrong from beginning to end. Not a good beginning for any journalist worth their salt. But hey, I’m not surprised if it’s the mentality (for lack of a better word) in Kankakee. And it’s why I (and man like me) got the hell out of the Midwest.
Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him WITHOUT probable cause to arrest, IF the police officer has a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person HAS committed, IS committing, or is about to commit a crime AND has a REASONABLE belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." That has been the law for over 40 years.
It is the abuses of good law that are now causing long over due backlash.
The 4th Amendment (search and seizure) and the 14th amendment (equal protection of the law) still first require the police to articulate SPECIFIC FACTS that give rise to REASONABLE SUSPICION that as person HAS or IS committing a crime AND that he may be armed and dangerous. Only once that REASONABLE SUSPICION is SHOWN may the police take the driver and the car into custody in which case no warrant is needed be issued to search the car. The police can’t just stop a driver because a cop subjectively thinks this black driver is suspicious. Only as white man, completely disingenuous about his racial advantages, and who has never repeatedly suffered the indignities imposed by an established pattern and practice arbitrarily and capriciously imposed on them by racist bigots could even dare suggest how he’d feel as an “innocent black man” under such harassive circumstances.
But your argument sounds like something I might have read in 1963. And do tell us, on what specific facts do the police (who need "clear bright lines) interpret the unconstitutionally vague and over broad term "suspicious looking black driver"? That description was repeatedly applied to General Colin Powell when driving while black but out of uniform and you beg the question which is: would you really rather be an innocent black man inconvenienced for a few minutes several times a week as you drove to and from work each day? Really. Are you really that out of touch with the reality that you can be so flippant and cavalier? Do you really think it’s a matter of an occasional detention? I seriously doubt the authenticity of your very disingenuous statement which is easy for a white man to pipe.
To justify this un-articulated license to harass on the sole basis of a high crime rate disproportionately committed by blacks (ergo rendering all blacks ‘suspect’) is the VERY definition of racial prejudice and bigotry. Sorry but you really told on yourself here.
And on what factual basis do you conclude that because incidents of black-on-black gun violence can be pinpointed to specific communities then "suspicious searches" could and should be limited to those areas? So not the police can target any ‘suspicious black' driver in that community but not Bell Air or Beverly Hills? Pulease.
And on what credible evidence do you conclude this clearly discriminatory practice "would curtail the number of crimes committed in poor parts of towns"? You just make your legal rationale as you go along? What evidence and facts make that statement credible? Or is unsubstantiated raw prejudice (pre-judging) all that’s necessary?
Most laughable is the rationale that it would be a good idea to deliberately crank up the heat in one hood so as to export (transfer) presumed and unsubstantiated criminal activity to other less "poor" areas and ergo “force the crime to white neighborhoods and would make elected officials react." Sorry but that one really had me rolling with laughter. Can we presume you’d be pleased if police harassment forced ‘suspects’ out of the ghetto and into your neighborhood? Really? I doubt it.
And this issue clearly does beyond the automobile exceptions. Tell me, for instance, what specific facts (prejudice and bigotry will not suffice here) warranted Trayvon Martin, who had a perfect legal right to walk a public easement and who was engaged in no criminal activity) to be treated by George Zimmerman as presumptively "suspect" and held answerable to a stranger?
Do you even see the problem with a solution that gives any bigot the legal right to interfere with another’s freedom (we call that ‘false imprisonment btw) purely on the rationale that he looked ‘suspicious’ without demanding that the law be more fact specific? We have a word for that too: ‘reasonable notice.... due process’
Sorry but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights simply do not permit people to just make things up as they go along and to suite their prejudice. “Hey, he had a rag on his head and was driving a beat up car an a poor part of town so he’s ergo suspect”? If you were Middle Eastern restaurant owner on the South Side of Chicago it’s doubtful you’d find anyone to come work for you. But hey they sure don’t have to worry about delivering take-out to the Gold Coast.
While the issue is a serious one it’s clear you have not given it much serious thought and even then based it on less than a thimble full of little legal knowledge. And, law aside, rational thinking might help. On this discussion you might like to take a look at “To Profile or Not to Profile? A Debate between Sam Harris and Bruce Schneier” at http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile/ and you might like to consider the profound negative impact your ‘solution’ might have to the notion of mutual trust and cooperation without which civil society can not exist. For that see Bruce Schneier most recent book.
Due process requires that we ALL have a right to know what the law means by ‘suspicious’ so we can behave accordingly. And absent specific facts not related to race, ethnicity, economic status, or culture, per-judging others in those regards, is, and always has been the essence of the stench of racism and bigotry that continues to plague America. What is so surprising is how little people have learned. No solution is easier than rank racism.
I hope your verbosity impressed yourself.
I live in the "hood" of my city. Most of the recent crimes including murders have occurred within a four block radius of my house. One murder less than 200 feet from my house.
You assume we have no black police. We do. I stand by my suggestion.
Geo Zimmerman was/is not a police officer. He had no right to question anyone.
And yes, if you force crime to the white parts of towns, govt will respond accordingly. Just look at Chicago when crime occurs in any part other than the south or west sides. They take initiative, they dont look for an initiative.
Please stop with the "white people have never suffered," crap.
And as I tell some of the young black men I work/associate with, "It's mid- July, your final GPA was below 2.0, you hate to read, you have a backpack filled with something. Yes, I suspect you have something illegal inside." We laugh.
Come off your high horse and try laughing.
First, what makes you think the young black men you work/associate with are not laughing at your own ignorance and bigotry? I suggest you take this to "the young black men [you] work/associate with" and get their response.
I doubt you realize how you have told on yourself yet again. Do you actually think prejudiced bigots don't come in black or even wear rainbow bed-sheets and violate others rights ‘under color of law’? Do I *really* need to remind any so-called journalist worth their salt of the color of the police officers who shot or murdered six of their unarmed black bothers in the aftermath of Katrina? Do I *really* need to remind any so-called journalist worth their salt that it was black New Orleans police officers who presumed other poor blacks were ‘suspect’ enough to shoot them down in cold blood and then try to cover it up?
Aside from that admission if ignorance your response is not a defense to my accusation but an *admission* of it! Again you tell in yourself for your prejudice is not just obvious but openly admitted here.
How does even a black police officer know (aside from bald, bold, prejudice and bigotry) that a black kid carrying a back pack has (a.) 2.0 GPA and (b.) hates to read? Ergo you presume (prejudge!) premise (a) and premise (b) are reasonable and credible evidence of criminal conduct. Those two insidious prejudices then allow you to bootstrap and ‘suspect‘ that the kid’s backpack is filled with something (yet a third prejudice) that you think you have a legal right to dig into. Absolutely amazing! What a telling admissions!
Your distinction between Zimmerman and authorities who violate civil rights ‘under color of law’ is one with no difference but rather begs the question which is: ON WHAT SPECIFIC FACTS MAY POLICE OFFICERS DETAIN LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS BASED ON THE VAGUE AND OVERBOARD TERM “SUSPICIOUS’?
Please notice how you avoid the only relevant question and only answer it by *admission* of prejudice that, even IF true, would still not give rise to a ‘reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity. Sorry but even if you or a police officer knew a black kid’s GPA was 2.0 and that he hated to read only a complete bigot could conclude such facts form a “reasonable suspicion” such a kid is a criminal who is carrying something suspect in his back pack and that the police have a right to search and seize. No, even if you know a black kid’s GPA is 2.0 and that he hates to read that it is not a rational (sane) basis to suspect he is a criminal who may be detained and searched just to disabuse you of irrational fear. My heart goes out to the young black men you work/associate with and who must suffer such sanctimonious claptrap. Prejudice and bigotry such as yours does not quell hatred of the police harassment but only pours napalm over the fires.
It is always breathtaking how prejudice and bigotry unwittingly tell on themselves - like the personae of a Browning poem. Even IF a police officer could *know* a kid’s GPA and that he hates to read that is no ‘rational basis’ (the ‘toothless’ “sanity test” for constitutional muster btw) to form a ‘reasonable suspicion’ the kid is engaged in criminal conduct. Wow do you ever tell on yourself!
When people make judgments about others (and detain them!) based on the color of their skin, their economic status, where they unfortunately must live, what their presumed GPA is, or whether it’s know they hate to read, we call all that *prejudice* by definition. And when the prejudiced obstinately and sanctimoniously insist (talk about a “high house”!) on asserting those prejudices to the detriment of others even after each premise and prejudice are proven false then that is the *very definition of bigotry*. You tell on yourself.
I can only hope that such yellow journalism is confined to the backwater Kankakee Chronicle for, to paraphrase Janet Malcolm in a different context "Every such journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."
I said youth that I work with and associate with. That means I know them personally. I have access to their report cards and their personal habits.
I have black and white racists in my family. I know racism firsthand. I dont need some govt sanctioned definition. Again, get off that high pony and learn to laugh at yourself as loud as I am laughing at you.
One more point. Stop Googling intelligent people to quote and try to come up with an original thought.
I said my profiling suggestion was illegal, but I don't think it would be wrong during drastic times. I stand by that.