Oregon Blacks Refuse To Do Their Duty

[Luke T.]

Portland police stopped African American motorists at more than twice the rate of white motorists, and were more likely to search them when stopped, according to 2004 and 2005 traffic data released Wednesday.

Yet when searched, African Americans were less likely to have drugs or other contraband on them, police figures show.

Link (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1147922708299210.xml&coll=7)

C'mon, Leroy. Don't you know you are supposed to be hooked on crack? You're gonna give white nationalists a bad name.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe the black motorists were breaking the law at twice the rate of whites.

[Luke T.]

Maybe the black motorists were breaking the law at twice the rate of whites.

"African Americans were more than twice as likely to be searched when stopped than whites. Of the 10,702 African Americans stopped, 2,933, or 27 percent, were searched. Of the 54,218 whites stopped, 6,803, or 12.5 percent, were searched.

Of the 2,933 African Americans stopped and searched, police founds drugs in 131, or 4 percent, of those searches. Of the 6,803 whites stopped and searched, police found drugs in 392, or 6 percent, of those searches."

Pretty big disparity.

[Grammatron]

It doesn't say the reasons why they were stopped and circumstances leading to those choices.

[Luke T.]

"Of the 6,801 Latinos stopped, 1,750, or 26 percent, were searched. Of the 1,750 Latinos stopped and searched, police found drugs in 64, or 4 percent, of those searches."

So the cops searched 27 percent of blacks they stopped, 26 percent of Latinos, and only 12.5 percent of whites. And yet whites are more likely to have drugs.

[Luke T.]

It doesn't say the reasons why they were stopped and circumstances leading to those choices.

I think what happens after they are stopped says it all.

[rocketdodger]

Pretty big disparity.

There is not nearly enough data here to make any conclusions. It would be an insult to knowledge to try and repair the damage caused by 200 years of misinformation on the part of the white majority by using misinformation that suggests opposite conclusions.

[Grammatron]

I think what happens after they are stopped says it all.

Well, I've never been searched and I've been pulled over few times. What does it actually take to get searched?

[thaiboxerken]

Well, the police will have to stop and search even more blacks and latinos just to make sure that the sheer number of drug convictions of those minorities will be higher than whites.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, I've never been searched and I've been pulled over few times. What does it actually take to get searched?

Are you not paying attention? Play some rap music on the radio and get a really good tan.

[Luke T.]

Can a cop search your car if you were just speeding? What probable cause does he have to have?

[Luke T.]

Well, I've never been searched and I've been pulled over few times. What does it actually take to get searched?

Ah. You beat me to it. That's what I'm trying to find out with google.

[Kerberos]

"African Americans were more than twice as likely to be searched when stopped than whites. Of the 10,702 African Americans stopped, 2,933, or 27 percent, were searched. Of the 54,218 whites stopped, 6,803, or 12.5 percent, were searched.

Of the 2,933 African Americans stopped and searched, police founds drugs in 131, or 4 percent, of those searches. Of the 6,803 whites stopped and searched, police found drugs in 392, or 6 percent, of those searches."

Pretty big disparity.
Well if blacks or latinoes are more likely to have their cars seached without specific reason or without as good reason, that could accound for the difference.

[Grammatron]

Are you not paying attention? Play some rap music on the radio and get a really good tan.

Right, but they still pulled over and searched whites.

[Grammatron]

Are you not paying attention? Play some rap music on the radio and get a really good tan.
BTW, any reason you assume rap music was played?

[Cheesejoff]

You could say that blacks are just less likely to carry drugs in their cars or have the drugs better hidden...

[Luke T.]

Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe that evidence of a crime could be located in the area to be searched. With probable cause, law enforcement officers may search any area of the vehicle where the probable cause leads him/her to believe that evidence may be found. In addition to a probable cause search, any time a law enforcement officer sees evidence of a crime in his/her "plain view," s/he can immediately seize the evidence without a warrant.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/arrests_and_searches/consent_officer.htm

[Ziggurat]

I think what happens after they are stopped says it all.

Actually, it doesn't say it all. It says that there's a problem, and while it's easy to make assumptions about what the problem is, we don't actually know.

The obvious possibility is that cops unfairly think blacks are more likely to have drugs on them, and so search them too often. But that's not the only thing that could lead to such results.

Another possibility is that most-white cops are better at reading subtle signs from other whites, and thus can determine better who is likely to be carrying drugs. Fewer people without drugs are searched, and more people with drugs are searched. But when they pull over blacks, there are enough cultural differences that they cannot read such signs as easily, and so do more searches.

The later situation isn't good either, but the cause is quite different. Which means if you want to solve it, the corrective measures probably won't be the same either.

[Luke T.]

Right, but they still pulled over and searched whites.

They pulled over whites at less than half the rate. And then searched at less than half the rate of other races.

[Luke T.]

So either blacks break road laws at more than twice the rate of whites, or something's fishy.

[Grammatron]

So either blacks break road laws at more than twice the rate of whites, or something's fishy.

Which is what I want to know, it seems like a very important information not to divulge.

[thaiboxerken]

BTW, any reason you assume rap music was played?

I didn't assume anything.

[Luke T.]

Which is what I want to know, it seems like a very important information not to divulge.

Since blacks are poor, they drink twice as much. So they drink and drive twice as much. I've actually been looking for stats to back that up. :)

Can't find any.

"Officer, I was speeding to get to my second minimum wage job!"

[Aurelian]

In our neck of the woods, this is called "racial profiling" - if that helps the research.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So either blacks break road laws at more than twice the rate of whites, or something's fishy.

Correct. Which is why statistics like this are irrelevant, unless you have more information.

[Luke T.]

Ah. Link (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3/DrugDriving/DrugDriving.pdf)

5 percent of whites reported drinking and driving in the last year. 4.5 percent of blacks. 3.7 Hispanic.

But that's a self-reporting survey.

[Luke T.]

African Americans generally have the same rate of alcohol involvement for drivers and passengers as Caucasian Americans but have a slightly higher rate for pedestrians and cyclists. In age groups above 40, African American drivers and pedestrians tend to have higher percentages of alcohol-related fatalities than Caucasian Americans. Fatally injured African Americans are less likely to be belted at the time of the crash than are Caucasian Americans.

Among Hispanics, Cuban Americans stand out for their low percentage of alcohol-related driver, passenger, and pedestrian fatalities. Cuban American fatally injured passengers are more likely than any other ethnic group to have been using restraints at the time of the crash. Next to Native Americans, Mexican Americans have the highest alcohol-related fatality rates among all four types of road users: drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists. This is true for both men and women.

Native Americans have the highest percentage of alcohol-involved driver, passenger, and pedestrian fatalities of any ethnic group. Three out of four drivers and eight out of ten pedestrian fatalities occur in alcohol-related crashes. Fatally injured Native American drivers and passengers have the lowest safety belt usage rates of any ethnic group.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/ethnicity/ethnicity.html

[bigred]

Link (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1147922708299210.xml&coll=7)

C'mon, Leroy. Don't you know you are supposed to be hooked on crack? You're gonna give white nationalists a bad name.

Oh goody, a race card troll. Viva Oregon.

:rolleyes:

[bigred]

It doesn't say the reasons why they were stopped and circumstances leading to those choices.
Oh there you go trying to throw reasons n stuff in there.

Racist.

[Luke T.]

You are missing the point, folks. Regardless of why they were pulled over, or searched at more than twice the rate, blacks were LESS LIKELY to have drugs or other contraband found in their vehicle than whites. That is what I bolded at the top.

[Grammatron]

You are missing the point, folks. Regardless of why they were pulled over, or searched at more than twice the rate, blacks were LESS LIKELY to have drugs or other contraband found in their vehicle than whites. That is what I bolded at the top.

Actually Luke you are misusing the data. What we do know is that black were less likely to be found with drugs than whites.

[Skeptic]

So the cops searched 27 percent of blacks they stopped, 26 percent of Latinos, and only 12.5 percent of whites. And yet whites are more likely to have drugs.

Not exactly. It means whites are more likely to have drugs FOUND on them IF STOPPED BY THE POLICE.

If, for example, many middle-class or professional blacks (who are very unlikely to carry drugs in their cars) are stopped by the police "just in case", while few whites of the same class are, it is not surprising the % of blacks who are found with drugs when searched by the police is lower, since there is a pool of "extra" innocent blacks stopped, which lowers the percentage of blacks found with drugs.

But this tells us little of what % of blacks or of whites actually use drugs; it tells us much more about the cops' behavior.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You are missing the point, folks. Regardless of why they were pulled over, or searched at more than twice the rate, blacks were LESS LIKELY to have drugs or other contraband found in their vehicle than whites. That is what I bolded at the top.

Maybe they had already sold the drugs before they got pulled over.

[luchog]

Can a cop search your car if you were just speeding? What probable cause does he have to have?
Well, where I spent my teen years, simply being a teenager was considered probably cause for most city PD cops. "Acting suspicious" was typically the justification. By "acting suspicious", that means not immediately answering the officers leading and often improper questioning with a confession to some sort of wrongdoing. DWB has occasionally been an issue as well, even in more affluent neighborhoods; both there and my current residence. Being black in the wrong neighborhood can get you pulled over and searched.

[Manny]

You are missing the point, folks. Regardless of why they were pulled over, or searched at more than twice the rate, blacks were LESS LIKELY to have drugs or other contraband found in their vehicle than whites. That is what I bolded at the top.That's one thing, and well worth examining. But what really jumped off the page for me was in post number 3. Only around 5% of searches actually turned up drugs?!?! What the hell kind of "probable cause"1 training are they doing up there? That's a civil liberties infringement and massive waste of police resources all rolled into one. They should seriously mine the data of their successful and unsuccessful searches and hone their technique accordingly.


1: In fact, I suspect the police had probable cause in a tiny fraction of all searches, and simply used persuasion to encourage suspects to submit to a search voluntarily. If true, that may also have some effect on the disparity in the percentage of successful searches -- blacks may be more willing to voluntarily submit to searches if they are innocent and/or more aware of their rights if they prefer not to be searched.

[Ohmer]

Actually, it doesn't say it all. It says that there's a problem, and while it's easy to make assumptions about what the problem is, we don't actually know.

Exactly. I think this data should prompt a review of the dashboard video of these stops. Something is wrong. A review of the data should help determine what it is. These videos are supposed to be used for training. Let’s use them.

It would also be interesting to break these stops down by location. I live in the lily white Southwest part of town and I would bet that the West side cops don’t do nearly as many drug searches as the east side cops do. That’s just my impression. I don’t have evidence and I could be quite wrong. I’m white I have never been stopped in the 17 years I have lived here.

[Rob Lister]

Actually Luke you are misusing the data. What we do know is that black were less likely to be found with drugs than whites.

Actually, it tells me that whites carrying drugs are far more likely to be idiots and consent to a search than are blacks carrying drugs.

Black people carrying drugs are smarter.

More white people think the cop is bluffing when he asks, "oh, btw, do you mind if I look in your vehicle?"

Dumbass cracker.

[Zep]

I DO like statistics for these comparative percentages... It can be SO misleading. :)

Let's say for example that, last month, there were just two driving fatalities by Native Americans, one of which involved drink-driving. Why, that's a 50% drink-driving fatality rate for Native Americans, isn't it! Worst in the country! Shouldn't give them licenses!

Do we think we can have the actual numbers involved, and NOT just percentages, please?

[Luke T.]

I DO like statistics for these comparative percentages... It can be SO misleading. :)

Let's say for example that, last month, there were just two driving fatalities by Native Americans, one of which involved drink-driving. Why, that's a 50% drink-driving fatality rate for Native Americans, isn't it! Worst in the country! Shouldn't give them licenses!

Do we think we can have the actual numbers involved, and NOT just percentages, please?

I believe the link of drunk driving casualties gives those figures.

ETA: It does. The percentage of each ethnic group by age group and gender among the 199,316 cases analyzed in the current study is shown in Table 2.

Besides Table 2, there's a pie chart, Figure 1.

[Luke T.]

Not exactly. It means whites are more likely to have drugs FOUND on them IF STOPPED BY THE POLICE.

If, for example, many middle-class or professional blacks (who are very unlikely to carry drugs in their cars) are stopped by the police "just in case", while few whites of the same class are, it is not surprising the % of blacks who are found with drugs when searched by the police is lower, since there is a pool of "extra" innocent blacks stopped, which lowers the percentage of blacks found with drugs.

But this tells us little of what % of blacks or of whites actually use drugs; it tells us much more about the cops' behavior.

This issue brings back memories from my time on Stormfront. While researching racial profiling, I discovered that blacks were more likely to be convicted of drug charges than whites.

I haven't gone and done the same level of research for this topic, but I did find this:

The comparison of racial proportions of drug users and drug arrests in the period 1979 to 1998 reveals a markedly higher arrest rate of black drug offenders compared to both whites and to the black proportion of the drug using population (Table 18). The percentage of current drug users who were black and white did not vary significantly in this twenty-year period. Among those arrested on drug charges, however, the percentage of blacks rose markedly, and the percentage of whites decreased correspondingly. For each year, the percentage of black drug arrests was at least double the percentage of blacks among current drug users. Whites, conversely, were under-arrested; that is, they constituted a smaller percent of drug arrests than they did of drug users.

Human Rights Watch. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm#P345_75102)

[Luke T.]

Ostensibly color blind, the war on drugs has been waged disproportionately against black Americans.

Our research shows that blacks comprise 62.7 percent and whites 36.7 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prison, even though federal surveys and other data detailed in this report show clearly that this racial disparity bears scant relation to racial differences in drug offending. There are, for example, five times more white drug users than black. Relative to population, black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men. In large part because of the extraordinary racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenses, blacks are incarcerated for all offenses at 8.2 times the rate of whites. One in every 20 black men over the age of 18 in the United States is in state or federal prison, compared to one in 180 white men.

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00.htm)

[casebro]

Meanwhile, back at the opening post:

Could it be that those poor blacks can only afford one jolt, while them rich-ass crackers can afford two doses, one for now, one to get busted for still possessing?

[jj]

Link (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1147922708299210.xml&coll=7)

C'mon, Leroy. Don't you know you are supposed to be hooked on crack? You're gonna give white nationalists a bad name.

Same as the NJ State Police a few years ago, many people were arrested, held, and then let go for the sole offense of "DWB" (driving while black).

I worked with a fellow (black fellow) who was a very successful, well-known research scientist. He had a list of such events. Seems that some people could not accept that a black person might be driving an expensive (not stereotypical either) automobile.

Even happened to me once, and all I did was have a black summer student in the back seat. (It was local police, and you can bet your (**(& we filed a formal complaint, after the officer admitted that he stopped us and demanded that he be allowed to search the car directly in front of the house of one of the people in the car because "there's a black person in the car". Gosh, I wonder why we stopped there in the first place?)

[Dr Adequate]

The maths of the situation is simple.

Take the amount of police resources available for such searches to be fixed and finite. Assume that on average it takes the same amout of resources to search a motorist of any race.

Suppose further that the judgeement of police officers on who constitutes a suspicious character is accurate. Then searches of any group of people will be subect to a law of diminishing returns. So if police search n% of all people named Harry (for example) getting to pick and choose their n%, then we expect the ratio People called Harry found to have contraband / People called Harry searched to be larger than if police searched n+1% of Harrys.

And finally, let us suppose that the obective of the police in performing these searches is to maximize the number of people busted for possession of contraband.

Then this will be achieved by the distribution of resources (between races, genders, initial letter of surname or whatever) in such a way that People of group X found to have contraband / People of group X searched is equal for all choices of X.

As LukeT points out this is not what we find in this case. So the assumptions in our model must be wrong. Specifically, either the police are NOT trying to maximize the number of criminals caught, but are using the powers entrusted to them for some other purpose (conscious racism) or they are genuinely trying to achieve this goal but systematically and grossly overestimate the likelihood of finding contraband when searching blacks as opposed to whites (unconscious racism).

Whatever the cause, so long as they are getting a significantly higher percentage of successful searches for one race over another they are wasting resources (assuming that their job is to catch criminals).

[strathmeyer]

Actually, it tells me that whites carrying drugs are far more likely to be idiots and consent to a search than are blacks carrying drugs.

No, you can't infer this from the statistics. However, they do suggest that a black person is more likely to consent to a search if they are not carrying drugs.

Face it, there's just not enough data here for social nerds like us. I'd like to see statistics on consented searches vs probably cause searches, and what kind of drugs they turned up.

[corplinx]

Well, I've never been searched and I've been pulled over few times. What does it actually take to get searched?

I was driving at night drinking a snapple. A rookie cop saw me tipping back a glass bottle and pulled me over. He called for backup. He looked inside the car and saw the snapple bottle and looked up at me embarassed and asked "Snapple drinker eh?". I replied "made from the best stuff on earth". He searched my car, I guess he was hoping to find a methlab or something so he wouldn't have everyone laughing at him for pulling over a guy for drinking Snapple.

Snapple bottles don't look like beer bottles much. I kinda felt sorry for the guy since he was young. I lost my sympathy when he searched my vehicle.

[Rob Lister]

Why did you allow it?

[Huntster]

...Portland police stopped African American motorists at more than twice the rate of white motorists, and were more likely to search them when stopped, according to 2004 and 2005 traffic data released Wednesday..

Try driving through Oregon anywhere with out-of-state plates. It's like a state cop magnet.

The only place I've seen the like was Idaho........

[Dr Adequate]

Face it, there's just not enough data here for social nerds like us. The analyss which I posted above is valid whatever the unknown data. We do have suficient data to draw the conclusion I've drawn.

[patchbunny]

Perhaps black drivers are more nervous at being pulled over (because the may in fact be getting pulled over for being black), the police officer senses the nervousness and decides to search the vehicle under the belief that the the apprehension may be because of drugs?

Just a thought.

[Elind]

"African Americans were more than twice as likely to be searched when stopped than whites. Of the 10,702 African Americans stopped, 2,933, or 27 percent, were searched. Of the 54,218 whites stopped, 6,803, or 12.5 percent, were searched.

Of the 2,933 African Americans stopped and searched, police founds drugs in 131, or 4 percent, of those searches. Of the 6,803 whites stopped and searched, police found drugs in 392, or 6 percent, of those searches."

Pretty big disparity.
Not quite. Seems like someone is taking liberty with the numbers to make the story more controversial.

The actual difference in finding drugs is 1.296% NOT 2%, if one doesn't round the numbers dishonestly.

Or, to put it differently, the writer boosted the percentage difference by 54.3%, for some strange reason.

I can't remember how to calculate statistical significance anymore, but I would question just how significant is the difference of 38 drug finds (the additional finds necessary to place blacks on par with whites in this case) in a sample of only 2933 blacks searched (a relatively small number for statistical testing to be meaningful).

Another simple reason for the stops disparity could be that lower income groups tend to drive older cars that are more likely to have damage and things like non working lights and in my personal experience such cars, whoever is driving them, are often less careful on the road.

Of course one could also consider that blacks are aware that they are more likely, for whatever reason, to be stopped, and they are therefore more careful about carrying drugs and like to sell them all to a white person before they drive around.

[Elind]

This issue brings back memories from my time on Stormfront. While researching racial profiling, I discovered that blacks were more likely to be convicted of drug charges than whites.


Not surpising since they are much more heavily involved in selling the stuff. You aren't trying to suggest something else are you?

[Elind]

:bump:

I think it significant that this thread was about numbers that are significantly wrong given the nature of the accusations. Is that too boring?

[strathmeyer]

Aren't the accusations wrong and not the numbers?

[Dr Adequate]

I think it significant that this thread was about numbers that are significantly wrong given the nature of the accusations. Is that too boring? Read my post.

[Elind]

Read my post.

Yes I did, please read mine.

[Elind]

Aren't the accusations wrong and not the numbers?

If the accusations, some of them anyway, are based on wrong numbers what do you think?

[Dr Adequate]

Yes I did, please read mine. Of course I read your post when you posted it.

The fact that I quoted your post and commented on it should have made this fact obvious even to the dullest of poseurs.

Your post has no relevance to mine.

Why do you mention it?

Do you have anything to say on this subject?

Can you find one single statement that I've made which is false?

If not, on what basis do you disagree with me?

If you are not able to disagree with me, what is the purpose of your post?

[Elind]

Of course I read your post when you posted it.

Good for you.

The fact that I quoted your post and commented on it should have made this fact obvious even to the dullest of poseurs.

You didn't comment on it.

Your post has no relevance to mine.

I know that, so why did you comment?

Why do you mention it?

Because I'm wondering why you seem so disjointed.

Do you have anything to say on this subject?

Which subject are you referring to?

Can you find one single statement that I've made which is false?

I haven't bothered to consider them that far.

If not, on what basis do you disagree with me?

Not, obviously

If you are not able to disagree with me, what is the purpose of your post?

To answer your rudeness and pretend stupidity.