Obama's New Racial Profiling Rules

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Fri Dec 05, 2014 at 10:33:43 PM EST
Tags: racial profiling (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Eric Holder will announce the Obama Administration's new racial profiling rules next week. There will be curbs on racial profiling by law enforcement, including the DEA.

Exempted will be most of the Department of Homeland Security (TSA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection)which will still be allowed to use racial profiling at airports and at the border.

Apparently, the plan was also to ban DHS from racial profiling, but they objected and were for the most part exempted. [More...]

Holder today:

“In the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement,” he said in a speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. “This will institute rigorous new standards and robust safeguards to help end racial profiling, once and for all. This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.”

The FBI will get one exemption -- they will still be allowed to use mapping:

The FBI to continue the policy of “mapping” — under which demographic data about particular ethnic groups is used to designate a particular neighborhood for possible investigations and to recruit informants.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | NY Protesters Stage "Die In" at Apple Store and Macy's >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's New Racial Profiling Rules | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

So, I guess this means (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by fishcamp on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 07:16:00 AM EST

Homeland Security, and the rest of the Feds, can still zoom around and disturb the fish, and the fishermen, looking for evil Cubans floating around down here. Also, it sounds like the surveillance balloon "Fat Albert" will remain active down in the lower keys. Can they see me standing on a Grouper one inch too short, to make it legal?

I think what is persuasive is (5.00 / 9) (#5)
by Anne on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 08:48:30 AM EST

(1) that Darren Wilson didn't belong in the uniform of a police officer, and

(2) that you'd probably be much happier shilling your theories on jim's blog.

Here's the thing: you may be able to string intelligible sentences together, but your facility with the English language doesn't disguise the essential ugliness of the message and point of view that has been an ongoing theme in your comments.

I have no idea why you think the majority of the people who comment here would have any interest in being persuaded by your offensive arguments of white superiority; you aren't converting people as much as you are hardening their belief that it is people like you who are the real problem.

Heres (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 08:55:48 AM EST

A link

You might actually be able to post a comment he won't delete.

Look forward to reading the stimulating exchange of "ideas"


Why didn't he belong in the uniform? (none / 0) (#16)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 11:23:09 AM EST

Are you confusing Wilson with the officer who shot Tamir Rice? I thought Wilson had a fairly clean record as a cop? And the shooting was found to be justified by a grand jury.


You might want to read up on this stuff (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 11:27:01 AM EST

Before commenting

Darren Wilson's first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities


How does that article show Wilson (none / 0) (#19)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 11:40:03 AM EST

was unfit to wear his uniform? I think the worst thing said about him there was...

Fuesting, who overlapped for about four months with Wilson during a transitional period, described him as "an average officer."

"My impression is he didn't go above and beyond, and he didn't get in any trouble," Fuesting said.


: I gave you A reason (none / 0) (#21)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 11:46:06 AM EST

there are plenty of other reasons a reasonable person observing his actions during and IMO even more after the shooting would say he had and has no business in a uniform.
You may disagree. That would be YOUR opinion.

This an excellent example (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 09:24:26 AM EST

of using statistics in a misleading manner.

In a previous thread, I displayed the math, and yes, blacks commit murder at a per capita rate (nationally) roughly 7 times that of whites.

The problem is using that stat to justify "racial profiling." The argument that the disparity establishes "reasonable suspicion" for police to initiate a "Terry stop" (a "brief" detention of a person to investigate a suspected crime) fails to support the thesis that race is a valid criterion to establish reasonable suspicion. The murder rate by blacks might be 7 times that of whites but that relative number does not in any way mean that a particular black person can be suspected because he is black based on statistics.

The statistics also show that the rate of murder by blacks is approximately 140 per million annually. Thus, color of skin has very little statistical correlation with murder. The probability of any random person of any race, color, ethnicity or national origin having committed a murder is so infinitesimal that there is no "reasonableness" involved in using such characteristics to establish suspicion.

Now, to avoid perpetuating the deception you initiate, I will acknowledge that because murder is among the least frequently committed crimes that the probability of any random person walking the street having committed " a crime" as opposed to a murder is much higher and that blacks do "commit "crime" generally at a higher per capita rate than do whites, but that still is not a valid factor to establish reasonable suspicion that a particular person committed a specific crime. A significant e majority of people of each race, etc. have not committed a reported crime thus meaning the probability that a specific person of any race, etc., having committed a crime based on belonging to a group with a higher crime rate is much too low to make suspecting him of crime reasonable.

Moreover, reasonable suspicion is not based on whether a certain person has ever committed a crime. The relevant question is whether there is articulable evidence that he has recently committed or is committing the crime the police are then investigating.

A cop stating, a store was robbed by a black guy, so I stopped him because he is a black to inquire whether he robbed the store is not reasonable. A cop saying, a store was robbed by a tall thin black guy wearing a red t-shirt and the victim said he fled south down the street, would be reasonable grounds to stop a tall thin black guy in a red shirt located 2 blocks south of the store a few minutes later, even though there is a fair chance that it could just be a coincidence.

I have no idea (none / 0) (#11)
by whitecap333 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 10:05:46 AM EST

what you are attempting to propose. Extraordinary rates of criminal behavior (and we aren't just talking about murder) by Blacks, particularly young males, makes it inevitable that the incidence of arrests and "investigative detentions" will be higher where they are found. Yet you would turn reality on its head, and argue that the frequency of such incidents is evidence of irrational and unlawful prejudice.


You appear (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 10:24:45 AM EST

to understand fully what I meant and just not agree with it. Feel free to offer some refutation beyond the conclusory allegation I am turning reality on its head and explain why it is rational and lawful for police to initiate investigatory contact based on the race of people in the absence of any other grounds for suspicion.


Now all you need (1.00 / 5) (#14)
by whitecap333 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 10:38:26 AM EST

is credible evidence, from unbiased sources, that the police routinely conduct "investigative detentions" based solely on race.

As for the rest of it, let's see how simple I can make it: Would you feel comfortable strolling through the Canfield Gardens area after midnight?


: I totally would (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 11:10:13 AM EST

if I could take you with me.

: There are a LOT of high crime ... (5.00 / 6) (#20)
by Yman on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 11:43:46 AM EST

... areas people wouldn't feel comfortable strolling through late at night, all of which has nothing to do with race.

Not poor people? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Yman on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 09:39:41 AM EST

Leaving aside your own, sill, personal conclusions, if you want to abuse statistics in the same manner that you do quotation marks, shouldn't we profile poor people, since the correlation between socioeconomic status and criminal behavior is much stronger than race. Actually, you'd probably be just fine with that, unless you're poor.

OTOH - since men commit murder at 9-10 times the rate of women, maybe we should just profile all men. You might be on to something.

I congratulate you (none / 0) (#9)
by whitecap333 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 09:51:12 AM EST

on your "cultivated" mindset.


10 Most Annoying Misuses of Punctuation (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 10:05:28 AM EST

#10: Using Quotation Marks Inappropriately
Quotation marks have a cool and unique ability to imply sarcasm or to encourage readers to interpret the information for themselves. When used correctly, they are a valuable asset for humor and reader engagement. When used incorrectly, quotation marks raise suspicion and cause unintended gaffes. If a sign reads, Day Old "Bread", example, you might wonder if it is actually bread, or some other substitute concoction.

Now, no doubt your intention is to be annoying. But it's also funny. Like an idiot co-worker who constantly uses "air quotes".


Found a home for him (none / 0) (#48)
by Yman on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 04:24:39 PM EST

The "blog" of "unnecessary" quotation marks.


: Amazing (none / 0) (#50)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 04:59:13 PM EST

there really is something for everyone on the intertubes

Just using your own "logic" (none / 0) (#12)
by Yman on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 10:12:55 AM EST

... against you, which is why you attempt to distract, divert, etc. ...


People are fickle (none / 0) (#18)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 11:31:53 AM EST

They'll go one way on a issue until they get tired of it and then go the other. Right now, crime is down and white cops killing black people are all over the media, so people are upset about racial profiling. In a year or two when the media gets back to focusing on white women killed by their husbands, few people will care about racial profiling.

The Pendulum & Societal Attitudes (none / 0) (#24)
by christinep on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 12:32:45 PM EST

The broader swing in attitudes may be somewhat involved here, in a sense. Let me suggest that attitudinal change in perception of authority categories could be at play AS WELL AS the specifics of each recent, highly-publicized case concerning the use of force by police officers in different cities.

A parallel issue, for me, has to do with how American society views police officers and other authority figures such as various categories of military personnel. My general recall is that periodic, general polling about career categories and public esteem does shift over time--almost like a slow pendulum. An obvious shift occurred following 9/11 ... that attack quickly led to an enhanced image for a range of authority figures viewed as necessary protectors. Right at the top of the admired careers/personnel were military, police, and firemen. BTW, that attitudinal shift--some might say--reversed a less generous view of authority figures that took hold near the conclusion of Vietnam and following Watergate.

After the first decade of this century with the military misadventure in Iraq and with the great recession, we may be entering into another sociological attitudinal change ... in the broadest sense. Maybe climatologists are entering an ascendant trajectory OR diplomats OR Far Eastern scholars???

the pendulum is a good analogy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 01:31:10 PM EST

That's sort of a concrete analogy for dialectic philosophy. The thesis (dominant idea or attitude) provokes an antithesis (opposed idea or attitude) which through conflict and/or compromise then results in a synthesis (basically a new dominant idea or attitude which begins the process anew).

Marx kind of made the dialectic approach unpopular in mainstream Western philosophy, but, really, it's only his deterministic premise that it could be employed to "prove" the inevitability of the triumph of communism not the conceptual validity of dialectic thinking that is problematic.

I do believe the dialectic approach helps explain history. One of the reasons I'm probably less negative about mankind's progress than many here is that I think we can observe over time (going back to the pendulum) while it continues to swing back and forth the arc in which it swings does move in the direction of positive progress (not in a consistent linear progression but a perceptible one over the long view)


: How Hegelian of you :) (none / 0) (#33)
by christinep on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 01:47:21 PM EST

Good points (none / 0) (#30)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 01:31:43 PM EST

Right after 9/11 it was cool to support police and fire fighters. Remember all the NYPD t-shirts and hats? Now it's cool to march and protest against police.

Do most of the recent protesters really know the facts of the Brown, Rice and Garner cases? Or are they looking for a group or cause to belong to?


Too little credit (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by christinep on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 02:07:35 PM EST

Frankly, your comment seems to belittle the intention(s) of protesters in the recent use-of-police-force incidents. While neither of us can know the motivational thoughts of any/all the protesters, we can conclude that there is no credible evidence or other indications that protesters march because it is "cool" in these cases. Quite the contrary, imo, because the uncertainties of street outcomes would show that this matter is undertaken seriously by most participants.

Your econd paragraph, btw, appears to be a statement of your predisposition without more.

Side note: Have you ever actively participated in a march or other demonstration or protest on behalf of a specific social cause or cause for justice? There is no need to answer; but, I am curious as to your experience with being a "protester." In my experience, the decision to enter into a protest takes significant commitment. We may not all resemble Gandhi or Dr. King, but we can understand the great commitment to change for the better that they initiated.


My opinion is based on TV and internet coverage (none / 0) (#36)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 02:31:58 PM EST

I don't know what the protestors experiences are or what they really know about these cases but, IMO, they look foolish.... especially when doing the "hands up" thing.

The Ferguson protests seemed fueled by emotion more than facts. They started before the grand jury evidence had been released.

Some of the Garner protests look like a social event. Some look like an excuse to protest in general. My guess is these are some of the occupy crowd.

I have never marched in protest. I was once caught in the middle of a riot. Police with riot gear, tear gas, angry/stupid mob throwing rocks and burning cars.


Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by Yman on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 02:59:43 PM EST

You're suggesting the Ferguson protesters were ignorant of the facts of the case and that they're "fueled by emotion more than facts" based on their appearance?

Oy.


"Based on their appearance" (none / 0) (#44)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 03:12:16 PM EST

are your words.

I do believe they were ignorant of the facts. We all were until the grand jury evidence was released. I do believe the protests and riots were fueled by emotion and slanted media coverage.

Since I've never been to Ferguson, I can only go by what I see, hear and read from the media.


By that standard, we're all STILL ignorant ... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by Yman on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 03:39:58 PM EST

... of the facts, considering that most of the critical facts were not proven by the grand jury evidence - merely whether the jury thought there was enough evidence to prosecute Wilson.

You, OTOH were suggesting the protesters were doing it because it is the "cool" thing to do.

Now it's cool to march and protest against police.

... or because they didn't really know the facts of the cases (aka they were ignorant):

Do most of the recent protesters really know the facts of the Brown, Rice and Garner cases? Or are they looking for a group or cause to belong to?

(BTW - The recent protests include many that occurred after the Ferguson GJ testimony was released)

... or because - watching them on TV - you thought their gestures were silly.

My opinion is based on TV and internet coverage. I don't know what the protestors experiences are or what they really know about these cases but, IMO, they look foolish.... especially when doing the "hands up" thing.

You were suggesting they were motivated by a desire to be "cool" or part of a group, rather than legitimate grievances. You were also suggesting that they didn't know the real facts of the cases (aka they were ignorant). Based on what you can see of them on TV.

That's some pretty impressive ESP at work.


Response (none / 0) (#46)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 03:58:00 PM EST

"By that standard, we're all STILL ignorant of the facts, considering that most of the critical facts were not proven by the grand jury evidence - merely whether the jury thought there was enough evidence to prosecute Wilson"

There was enough information released to believe Wilson acted in self defense. I can understand the desire to see a trial but, other than entertainment, it would be a waste of time... no chance of a conviction.

"You were suggesting they were motivated by a desire to be "cool" or part of a group, rather than legitimate grievances."

That's how the NY protests appeared to me.

"You were also suggesting that they didn't know the real facts of the cases (aka they were ignorant). Based on what you can see of them on TV."

That's how the Ferguson protests appeared to me.


I know that's how ... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Yman on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 04:17:06 PM EST

... it appeared to you. i just think it's funny when people think they can read the minds/motivations/knowledge of entire groups just by watching protests on TV.

That's the funny thing about "enough information to believe". There was also enough information to "believe" just the opposite, or any one of a number of conclusions in between. You were just attempting to delegitimize the motivations and knowledge of the protesters - without the slightest bit of evidence - because your opinions and "beliefs" differ from theirs.


: I guess we don't agree (none / 0) (#49)
by McBain on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 04:34:40 PM EST

but I do respect your opinion. You've made some good points. I don't think we'll ever be able to prove who is correct.

Is this what is really at the root of your (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by ruffian on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 03:06:19 PM EST

objections...the chose expression of the dismay looks foolish...and of course the dirty effing hippies.

How very Nixonian of you.


How we see things (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by christinep on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 07:22:40 PM EST

Sort of like how we say things ... to-may-to or to-mah-to and all that. Our own perceptual screens; our predispositions.

What struck me about your comment on forming your opinion as to the attributes of the protesters in the Ferguson and Garner matters were two things: (1) The same media images viewed by different people can be described & felt so differently. What you call "foolish" in terms of the hands-up expression is looked at as a succinct, recognizable symbol by people like me. Knowing how to make a statement via that kind of shorthand is rather astute, imo. The other obvious example is how we differ in our seeing of the NY protesters ... whereas you felt that it conveyed a "social event," my take has been that the protesters conveyed appropriate seriousness.

What such marked differences tell me is that viewing protest events reflect a lot about the emotional screen of each viewer. IOW, I'm guessing that you are every bit as emotional regarding the protests as you have suggested others are. Perhaps, your third paragraph underscores your approach all the more.

And (2) Your comment here about protests seems straightforward and open. We differ, certainly. But, honest commentary is essential to any real communication. Thanks for your comment.


: I think this is what I have been saying (none / 0) (#52)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 07:25:44 PM EST

he may have views that drive us up the wall but he presents them honestly and without malice.

Don't you think it is possible that both (5.00 / 8) (#42)
by ruffian on Sat Dec 06, 2014 at 03:02:37 PM EST

were prompted by genuine opinions and not just trendiness? Appreciation for the very real sacrifice of police officers and firefighters on 9/11, and current dismay at the behavior of some officers and the injustice of the system that lets them get away with that behavior?
