The Disproportionate Risks of Driving While Black

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses--even when the cops don't know the race of the person involved. (For example, because a plate reader squawked about the car.)

Please explain in detail why the following is not problematic to you:

Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason.

Because this claim isn't supported by the evidence.

Your response that there was a traffic violation disproportion is contradicted by there being "no discernible reason."

They used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.

In this other statistic, even if the original reason for pulling over black drivers was because as you assert more traffic violations, it would not absolve police officers from using that as cover to search vehicles.

And you overlooked the relevant factor: Blacks are arrested more often and there's always a search as part of an arrest whether there is suspicion or not. Once you subtract out the arrests the searches cease to show a racial pattern.

This was discussed some months ago on here, nothing has changed. The data does not support the notion that the cops are racist.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

I assume nothing. The numbers speak for themselves.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses--even when the cops don't know the race of the person involved. (For example, because a plate reader squawked about the car.)

Proof?

Loren, care to explain

• [Police] used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.
• Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason.
• [Police] were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.

You learned nothing when this was discussed before.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses--even when the cops don't know the race of the person involved.

So are you going to use numbers and prove it isn't discrimination and blacks are just worse drivers?

It was proven before on here by others. You failed to note the facts then, digging them up now would just be a waste of time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses--even when the cops don't know the race of the person involved.

So are you going to use numbers and prove it isn't discrimination and blacks are just worse drivers?

It was proven before on here by others. You failed to note the facts then, digging them up now would just be a waste of time.

Did I? Care to cite that? Oh wait, that'd be a waste of your time as well.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Please explain in detail why the following is not problematic to you:

Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason.

Because this claim isn't supported by the evidence.

Your response that there was a traffic violation disproportion is contradicted by there being "no discernible reason."

They used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.

In this other statistic, even if the original reason for pulling over black drivers was because as you assert more traffic violations, it would not absolve police officers from using that as cover to search vehicles.

And you overlooked the relevant factor: Blacks are arrested more often and there's always a search as part of an arrest whether there is suspicion or not. Once you subtract out the arrests the searches cease to show a racial pattern.

This was discussed some months ago on here, nothing has changed. The data does not support the notion that the cops are racist.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

I assume nothing. The numbers speak for themselves.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses--even when the cops don't know the race of the person involved. (For example, because a plate reader squawked about the car.)

Proof?

Loren, care to explain

• [Police] used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.
• Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason.
• [Police] were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.

You learned nothing when this was discussed before.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses--even when the cops don't know the race of the person involved.

So are you going to use numbers and prove it isn't discrimination and blacks are just worse drivers?

It was proven before on here by others. You failed to note the facts then, digging them up now would just be a waste of time.

Hand waving FAIL!

Loren, it is YOU who do not learn.

Willful ignorance is not a noble stand on solid ground but a shameful cowering in a dark corner.

The NYT did the research, did the analysis, and came to the conclusions.

Where is your research? your analysis of data? your evidenced based conclusions?

Oh, that's right, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY

as usual.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Because this claim isn't supported by the evidence.

Maybe you could cite some.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traffic-stops-driving-black.html?_r=0

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses--even when the cops don't know the race of the person involved. (For example, because a plate reader squawked about the car.)

Ziprhead nailed it!

You are too fucking predictable, Loren.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And you overlooked the relevant factor: Blacks are arrested more often and there's always a search as part of an arrest whether there is suspicion or not. Once you subtract out the arrests the searches cease to show a racial pattern.

You are not making sense, at least the way you are describing it. You started out saying that blacks get more traffic violations and now you are saying they get arrested more. (1) Traffic violations are not a basis for reasonable suspicion to search vehicles. They are also administrative offenses, not creating police arresting people but instead fines. (2) If you actually do mean arrests instead of traffic violations, then you have the original problem to deal with.

Perhaps if you can actually cite the study you are alluding to we can try to make some sense out of this. Since I know you will provide us with links, I will hold my breath waiting.

 

[RavenSky]

Perhaps if you can actually cite the study you are alluding to we can try to make some sense out of this. Since I know you will provide us with links, I will hold my breath waiting.

Don PLEASE do not hold your breath. We adore you far too much to lose you to asphyxiation

 

[Underseer]

And you overlooked the relevant factor: Blacks are arrested more often and there's always a search as part of an arrest whether there is suspicion or not. Once you subtract out the arrests the searches cease to show a racial pattern.

You are not making sense, at least the way you are describing it. You started out saying that blacks get more traffic violations and now you are saying they get arrested more. (1) Traffic violations are not a basis for reasonable suspicion to search vehicles. They are also administrative offenses, not creating police arresting people but instead fines. (2) If you actually do mean arrests instead of traffic violations, then you have the original problem to deal with.

Perhaps if you can actually cite the study you are alluding to we can try to make some sense out of this. Since I know you will provide us with links, I will hold my breath waiting.

Yes, but they are black. If they run a stop light, that is grounds to arrest them, search the car, etc., whereas it would not be reasonable to do the same thing to a white person, because Aryans are the superior master race.

Speaking of Aryans, the Aryan myth that forms the basis for Loren's assumption of inherent superiority is based on cockamamie ad hoc just-so stories about white people being the descendants of Atlantis, not that I'm judging Loren for his views.

 

[barbos]

I wonder how often police know the race of the driver before they stop the car?

 

[iolo]

As is obvious, and waiting for an NRA statement to prove it, any 'black' driver should be heavily armed, and it stopped by a policeman should shoot him at once, in self-defence.

 

[Rhea]

As is obvious, and waiting for an NRA statement to prove it, any 'black' driver should be heavily armed, and it stopped by a policeman should shoot him at once, in self-defence.

Dude. STOP advocating for violence against police. It's destructive and wrong. Don't advocate for violence against ANYONE. The idea that violence is the solution is _exactly_ the problem that we are concerned about here. You are just as bad if you think it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you overlooked the relevant factor: Blacks are arrested more often and there's always a search as part of an arrest whether there is suspicion or not. Once you subtract out the arrests the searches cease to show a racial pattern.

You are not making sense, at least the way you are describing it. You started out saying that blacks get more traffic violations and now you are saying they get arrested more. (1) Traffic violations are not a basis for reasonable suspicion to search vehicles. They are also administrative offenses, not creating police arresting people but instead fines. (2) If you actually do mean arrests instead of traffic violations, then you have the original problem to deal with.

Perhaps if you can actually cite the study you are alluding to we can try to make some sense out of this. Since I know you will provide us with links, I will hold my breath waiting.

When the driver gets arrested because the plate reader squawked about the car it's a traffic stop and an arrest.

We went through this some months ago--once you correct for arrests and the actual rate of traffic offenses the racial disparity vanishes. (Or, actually, swings the other way--more searches of whites.)

 

[Rhea]

You are not making sense, at least the way you are describing it. You started out saying that blacks get more traffic violations and now you are saying they get arrested more. (1) Traffic violations are not a basis for reasonable suspicion to search vehicles. They are also administrative offenses, not creating police arresting people but instead fines. (2) If you actually do mean arrests instead of traffic violations, then you have the original problem to deal with.

Perhaps if you can actually cite the study you are alluding to we can try to make some sense out of this. Since I know you will provide us with links, I will hold my breath waiting.

When the driver gets arrested because the plate reader squawked about the car it's a traffic stop and an arrest.

We went through this some months ago--once you correct for arrests and the actual rate of traffic offenses the racial disparity vanishes. (Or, actually, swings the other way--more searches of whites.)

You assume that the cops never pull over cars unless the plate-reader color-blindly tells them to.

Booooolshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When the driver gets arrested because the plate reader squawked about the car it's a traffic stop and an arrest.

We went through this some months ago--once you correct for arrests and the actual rate of traffic offenses the racial disparity vanishes. (Or, actually, swings the other way--more searches of whites.)

You assume that the cops never pull over cars unless the plate-reader color-blindly tells them to.

Booooolshit.

You can compare the officer-initiated stops with the plate-reader initiated stops. If you see a similar distribution you can figure there's no racism involved.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Once again you assume the numbers prove discrimination.

Reality: Blacks commit more traffic offenses-

Of course they do. They drive in the wrong neighborhood, drive a fancier car than they should, and listen to R&B (or once listened to it). Cops need to prevent these criminals from committing violent crimes and put them behind bars

I remember reading a story about a New Jersey dentist who bought a new gold BMW car. He got stopped over 100 times driving on a local highway to his place of business. He was never ticketed or cited for any reason. Not by the same cop. When he drove his gold BMW he could be sure he'd be stopped at least once a week. Surrrrrrrre it had nothing to do with his race.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are not making sense, at least the way you are describing it. You started out saying that blacks get more traffic violations and now you are saying they get arrested more. (1) Traffic violations are not a basis for reasonable suspicion to search vehicles. They are also administrative offenses, not creating police arresting people but instead fines. (2) If you actually do mean arrests instead of traffic violations, then you have the original problem to deal with.

Perhaps if you can actually cite the study you are alluding to we can try to make some sense out of this. Since I know you will provide us with links, I will hold my breath waiting.

When the driver gets arrested because the plate reader squawked about the car it's a traffic stop and an arrest.

We went through this some months ago--once you correct for arrests and the actual rate of traffic offenses the racial disparity vanishes. (Or, actually, swings the other way--more searches of whites.)

You are writing about something completely different.

Here in North Carolina’s third-largest city, officers pulled over African-American drivers for traffic violations at a rate far out of proportion with their share of the local driving population. They used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists — even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.

Emphasis added. You claimed that an arrest and searching car was automatic. The article says, no, the police used their discretion.

Also, if what you are saying were true, then one would expect the black frequency of having contraband to be higher since allegedly people who are committing crimes would have higher frequency of having drugs.

Officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason.

Emphasis added. Therefore, nothing to do with plate readers. Plate readers would be a discernible reason.

And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.

Emphasis added. Again, nothing to do with plate readers. It has to do with physical resistance.

Greensboro police officials said most if not all of the racial disparities in their traffic enforcement stemmed from the fact that more African-Americans live in neighborhoods with higher crime, where officers patrol more aggressively. Pulling over drivers, they said, is a standard and effective form of proactive policing.

“The way we accomplish our job is through contact, and one of the more common tools we have is stopping cars,” Greensboro’s police chief, Wayne Scott, who is white, said.

Emphasis added. So the police chief disagrees with Loren. He says that police are more aggressive in higher crime areas where blacks tend to live at a higher frequency.

So, again, nothing to do with plate readers.

Loren, I suggest you read the article instead of assuming it is about something else that is irrelevant.

 

[barbos]

You assume that the cops never pull over cars unless the plate-reader color-blindly tells them to.

Booooolshit.

You can compare the officer-initiated stops with the plate-reader initiated stops. If you see a similar distribution you can figure there's no racism involved.

Police have automated license plate scanner?
Cool.

 

[ronburgundy]

National surveys show that blacks and whites use marijuana at virtually the same rate, but black residents here are charged with the sole offense of possession of minor amounts of marijuana five times as often as white residents are.

This jumped out at me.

Apologists will just tell us that is because the blacks are lying on the surveys.

What an honest and rational person would say is that blacks are far more likely be either using or dealing drugs in generally high crime areas, especially out on the streets (in contrast to dealers who sell only to acquaintances who come to their house but never stood out on the corner looking for buyers). And even the white guys that deal on the streets are more likely to do so in neighborhoods with high % of black residents. Rationally, cops looking to bust dealers patrol these areas, and a huge % of the people busted for mere "possession" are dealers, but a possession charge is far easy to prove. Others are just users who use in dealing areas, so are far more likely to get busted as cops seek out the dealers and other more serious criminals.

This also explains the slightly higher contraband rates for whites. Whites stopped in these high crime areas are less likely to actually live in these areas, meaning they are there for some other purpose which often means drugs. If cops are patrolling and stopping and searching people cruising these areas, then most of them will be black but those that are white will be the most likely to actually have drugs on them.
IOW, both stops that occur for no specific violation, and searches that occur without good evidence of contraband are most likely to occur when cops are patrolling high crime areas.

Blacks are more likely to be driving in areas with not only more drug dealing, but more violent crime of every category, including gang shootings and drive bys. At the very minimum, "traffic stop" stats have to control for the amount of crime in the area, or they are completely meaningless. Even then, other confounds need to be controlled, which include the number of passengers and their ages, outstanding warrants, past conviction records, etc.. In sum, the larger crime related context heavily determines a stop and then a search during a stop. The most valid evidence would likely come from highway stops and searches, where neighborhood variation in crime is less relevant to who gets stopped and who gets searched.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This jumped out at me.

Apologists will just tell us that is because the blacks are lying on the surveys.

What an honest and rational person would say is that blacks are far more likely be either using or dealing drugs in generally high crime areas, especially out on the streets (in contrast to dealers who sell only to acquaintances who come to their house but never stood out on the corner looking for buyers). And even the white guys that deal on the streets are more likely to do so in neighborhoods with high % of black residents. Rationally, cops looking to bust dealers patrol these areas, and a huge % of the people busted for mere "possession" are dealers, but a possession charge is far easy to prove. Others are just users who use in dealing areas, so are far more likely to get busted as cops seek out the dealers and other more serious criminals.

This also explains the slightly higher contraband rates for whites. Whites stopped in these high crime areas are less likely to actually live in these areas, meaning they are there for some other purpose which often means drugs. If cops are patrolling and stopping and searching people cruising these areas, then most of them will be black but those that are white will be the most likely to actually have drugs on them.
IOW, both stops that occur for no specific violation, and searches that occur without good evidence of contraband are most likely to occur when cops are patrolling high crime areas.

Blacks are more likely to be driving in areas with not only more drug dealing, but more violent crime of every category, including gang shootings and drive bys. At the very minimum, "traffic stop" stats have to control for the amount of crime in the area, or they are completely meaningless. Even then, other confounds need to be controlled, which include the number of passengers and their ages, outstanding warrants, past conviction records, etc.. In sum, the larger crime related context heavily determines a stop and then a search during a stop. The most valid evidence would likely come from highway stops and searches, where neighborhood variation in crime is less relevant to who gets stopped and who gets searched.

Data and analysis please?

 

[ksen]

What an honest and rational person would say is that blacks are far more likely be either using or dealing drugs in generally high crime areas, especially out on the streets (in contrast to dealers who sell only to acquaintances who come to their house but never stood out on the corner looking for buyers). And even the white guys that deal on the streets are more likely to do so in neighborhoods with high % of black residents. Rationally, cops looking to bust dealers patrol these areas, and a huge % of the people busted for mere "possession" are dealers, but a possession charge is far easy to prove. Others are just users who use in dealing areas, so are far more likely to get busted as cops seek out the dealers and other more serious criminals.

This also explains the slightly higher contraband rates for whites. Whites stopped in these high crime areas are less likely to actually live in these areas, meaning they are there for some other purpose which often means drugs. If cops are patrolling and stopping and searching people cruising these areas, then most of them will be black but those that are white will be the most likely to actually have drugs on them.
IOW, both stops that occur for no specific violation, and searches that occur without good evidence of contraband are most likely to occur when cops are patrolling high crime areas.

Blacks are more likely to be driving in areas with not only more drug dealing, but more violent crime of every category, including gang shootings and drive bys. At the very minimum, "traffic stop" stats have to control for the amount of crime in the area, or they are completely meaningless. Even then, other confounds need to be controlled, which include the number of passengers and their ages, outstanding warrants, past conviction records, etc.. In sum, the larger crime related context heavily determines a stop and then a search during a stop. The most valid evidence would likely come from highway stops and searches, where neighborhood variation in crime is less relevant to who gets stopped and who gets searched.

Data and analysis please?

Obviously the higher rate of finding drugs and contraband on white people is because black people gave it to them.