According to USA Today: “Last week a federal judge ruled that the policy [Stop & Frisk] was unconstitutional because it disproportionately targets blacks and Hispanics.”
Allow me to lay out a scenario. Let’s say there is a city, and in this city, there are three different groups of people. Out of a large population, 33.2% have brown eyes, 22.9% have blue eyes, and 28.7% have green eyes. However, the crime rates for this city don’t match up with the percentages. Why? It just so happens that a larger number of the blue-eyed people are involved in gangs and live in high-crime areas. A similar situation is occurring with the green-eyed people.
Despite the higher percentage of brown-eyed individuals overall, the statistics show that blue and green-eyed individuals commit more crimes. Is it because they have blue and green eyes that they are criminals? No. It may be cultural differences, as well as income differences that distort the crime rate. Nevertheless, the fact remains that more blue-eyed people are committing crimes. That is a fact. With that in mind, is it ok to target blue-eyed people?
Over the last decade or so, New York City has implemented a program called “Stop & Frisk.” If a police officer suspects that someone has weapons or drugs on their person, the officer has the right to stop that person, and check them for those materials. The Left is getting up in arms about the policy because it disproportionately targets Blacks and Hispanics. The mother of Trayvon Martin said this:
“You can’t give people the authority, where it’s a civilian or police officers, the right to stop somebody just because of the color of their skin.”
There have been allegations that over 200,000 stops have been unwarranted. In response to this, NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelley said:
“Nobody wants to be stopped. We have engaged in a major training evolution for several years, focusing on these issues, to do these stops with courtesy, do them with respect.”
Let’s look at NYC crime statistics:
1. “The race/ethnicity of known Robbery suspects is primarily Black (70.3%). Hispanic suspects account for an additional (23.5%) of the suspect population. White suspects account for (4.7%) of all Robbery suspects.”
2. “Shooting victims are most frequently Black (71.4%) or Hispanic (24.7%). White victims account for an additional (3.0%) of all Shooting victims. The race/ethnicity of known Shooting suspects is most frequently Black (74.7%). Hispanic suspects accounted for an additional (21.9%) of all suspects. White suspects (2.7%) accounted for the remaining significant portion of suspects.”
3. “The Firearm Arrest population is most frequently Black (69.4%) or Hispanic (26.3%). White arrestees account for (3.6%)”
Using those statistics as a basis for “Stop & Frisk,” it makes sense that Blacks and Hispanics would be targeted more often. Is this racial profiling, or simply obviousness? The fact is that high-crime neighborhoods are predominantly populated by Blacks and Hispanics. The fact is that most gang-related violence happens among minorities. If you send police into high-crime neighborhoods and gang areas, most of the people being stopped will be Black and Hispanic. It’s pretty basic.
We have to give a measure of trust to the NYC police to act at their own discretion. We have to accept that more minorities will be stopped, simply because minorities are the ones predominantly populating the high-crime areas. In addition, given the statistics, we have to accept that more minorities will be stopped because a majority of NYC violent crime is gang-related. Finally, minority criminals outnumber White criminals in most areas. Yeah, I said it.
So, what do we have? Is this racial profiling? Perhaps. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. What is a profile but a compilation of statistics? If the statistics point in one direction, should we go in the opposite, just to avoid “profiling?” That’s just PC nonsense.
What’s your opinion? Sound off below.