Thursday, July 23, 2009

Officer in Gates Arrest Cannot Be a Racist: He Gave "Mouth-to-Mouth" to a Black Man

The Boston Herald has published an article that implies James Crowley, the officer in the center of controversy over the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, cannot be a racist because he gave "mouth-to-mouth resuscitation" to deceased Celtics basketball star Reggie Lewis in a failed effort to save his life. I assume for the sake of argument that Gates's arrest was unrelated to racism. The fact that Crowley tried to save one black man's life, however, does not negate the possibility that he is a racist.

Discrimination and Complexity
Racism, like all other "isms," operates with a level of complexity that the Boston Herald article fails to appreciate. During Jim Crow, whites in the South flocked to watch black artists perform -- even though local laws would not permit them to dine at the same restaurants, stay in the hotels or to marry. During slavery, many white male slave owners did more than place their lips on black women, and they fathered many children, whom they subsequently enslaved. Similarly, one of the officers who was involved in the violent act of ramming a plunger in the anus of Abner Louima denied that he was a racist because he was in a relationship with a black woman. And one of the oldest expressions, "I don't think of you as black" reveals the psychology of a white person who normally "thinks of blacks as blacks" but who creates exceptions to this rule.

The same complicated behavior exists with respect to other forms of discrimination. Virulently sexist men claim to "love" their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters. Also, some of the most homophobic people learn to embrace and defend their gay or lesbian children. This behavior undermines the central theme of the Boston Herald article. Regardless of whether the officer's actions were motivated by race, this article does nothing to resolve the question.

Note: Even the conservatives on the Supreme Court have not obliterated a longstanding doctrine in civil rights cases which establishes that an employer cannot disprove an allegation of discrimination by arguing that it treated other persons in the same class fairly.


Malnurtured Snay said...

Isn't it possible that the officer just doesn't do well when his authority (real and percieved) is questioned?

Anonymous said...

Isn't it just possible that blacks who rushed to judgment in defending Gates are also guilty of such, ah, black and white thinking?

This post's point swings both ways.

Anonymous said...

If the police were called because the neighbors thought that Professor Gates home was being robbed, the any profiling was on their part. Maybe Professor Gates needs to meet his neighbors so that they can recognize him.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Malnurtured Snay: Yes - which is why I was tentative on the issue of race. I do believe that race was a factor, however.

Anonymous: I encourage you to re-read my post. I SAID: "I assume for the sake of argument that Gates's arrest was unrelated to racism. The fact that Crowley tried to save one black man's life, however, does not negate the possibility that he is a racist."

I am not concerned in this post with the officer's alleged racism. Rather, I am disturbed by the fact that a law enforcement officer offering life saving support to a black person ends all questioning about racism.

Anonymous No. 2: After Gates established his identity, the police should have left him alone (as they would have done anyone else). So many black men have stories like these. I was actually stunned that this was the first encounter Gates had with cops. I was first stopped at age 11 -- I supposedly wanted to steal a car. That would have been an interesting "drive."

Decidere said...

Yes, that was a silly part of the article. Hey, Frank Sinatra couldn't be racist, he was friends with Sammy. I gave a black kid a piece of candy - I can't be racist. The lawyer that regularly defended people against Crowley but had nothing but good to say about him is more relevant - i.e. consistent decent treatment.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hutchinson: OK, let's go with your point that Crowley's mouth to mouth effort does NOT prove that Crowley is free of racism.

What evidence does prove Crowley---or anyone else---isn't a racist?

I'll grant you, proving a negative is a tough way to earn your pay. But using the historical example of what happened to many people in the 1940s and 50s who were accused of being Communists and had to prove otherwise is instructive. The Gates arrest report is instructive. Gates was not shy about hollering racism in this incident. Accusing any white person of racism is a damaging charge. It may be deserved, but if not, it's an easy way to smear, and smear indeliably. To be sure, Crowley may be lying in his report. But so might Gates. This sort of standoff is unsatisfactory if you hope to make race relations better. Not everyone does.

I would like you to provide me a list of your published articles. I can order them via my library's ArticleFirst service using OCLC, but I need citations. Not having access to Westlaw or Lexis, the citations are harder for me to dredge up. Further, an author is always more likely to have a complete list. Why not put this list on DJ's home page somewhere? The point of publishing is to have people read what you've written.

You do want people to read what you've written?

Don't you?

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

liberal dissent said...

Besides which, there are plenty of reasons the officer could have given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation other than human goodness; for example, IT'S HIS JOB.

Decidere said...

You know, this is probably difficult based on common experience, but just because a guy wears blue perhaps he shouldn't be profiled and discriminated and assumed to be a bastard. I realize wearing blue isn't the same as being black, but there's certainly a stereotypical assumption that the cop must have just been a prick from the get-go, that he must be lying on the report, that he must be racist. No, mouth-to-mouth doesn't prove him tolerant, but wearing a police uniform doesn't make him Bad Lieutenant automatically either.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Decidere: I have not assumed he was a prick. People can act out of racial influences and be perfectly nice folk. The problem with racial discourse in the US is that people assume that racial bias = dark sinister vile human being. If that's the case, then the balance of US history has been a vile operation. Racial biases are so naturalized that people often do not realize they are operating under their influence. Two questions remain important: How many whites are suspected of being burglars in their own homes - even after they document their identities; and how many whites are arrested after protesting an embarrassing moment at the hands of cops? Add to this the weight of data on unconscious and conscious bias among many officers, and this story seems pretty simple. Saying this cop may have been impacted by race does not mean he is a monster. Instead, it means that we still have some education to do. As an educator, this is not a frightening proposition to me.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Greg: Your ability to ignore text is remarkable.

Decidere said...

Well I'm certainly not trying to dismiss overt and subliminal racist programming, and I don't think there's much of anyone who hasn't been impacted by race, even though that means very different things in different people. The "prick" part was more over at TPM and elsewhere than here. (Daily Howler today also touches on the class aspect - how people in general give the benefit of the doubt to the rich dude and not the blue collar dude - whether that thesis is as accurate as some of his other perceptions, don't know). We did have lots of examples of cops being rude, violent, vindictive, unreasonable to both whites and blacks, to make Gates appear a bit naïve in how he thinks behavior towards him was out of character. I didn't get the impression that the cop didn't believe him once he showed his ID. Contrast this with the experience of lots of blacks driving nice cars and probably blacks living away from more mixed college towns.

How many whites are arrested protesting embarrassing situations? Tons. I know in most every encounter I've had with the police their reaction to me has been no nonsense tough to rude to threatening, and there was no doubt that they would escalate with the slightest resistance, which would mean a trip downtown at best. Customs? Driving? In my own home (fake call from neighbors even though I was living in a warehouse district)? On the street? Not having a lawyer, that would bring a number of undesirable unknowns in each case. Call me a chickenshit, but I did my best sheepish head down yes-sir-no-sir I could. Had a cop run into my car, bust a light. If I wanted to challenge it, he was going to have to write me a ticket for destruction of city property. Had a friend, cop ran a red light and totalled his car - you can imagine how the official report read. Cops show up, they say "clear out", and they expect people to clear out, whatever they think their Constitutional rights. Now, that said, the amount of nose on the ground, banged into the car shit I'm sure is less than blacks experience, and less driving while long-haired than driving while black. But there's a lot of crap that goes on.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Sorry, Decidere. I should have been more specific with my second quesion. Here goes: How many whites are arrested because they become angry after cops finally realize that they live in a home and are not burglary suspects? I guess one could add other relevant factors -- how many of these people are professors, upper-class, etc. One of the unspoken issues here is class. For poor individuals, especially blacks and Latinos, there really isn't any mercy. I suspect that had Gates been arrested for doing this in a poor neighborhood (assuming a cop would respond), there is a chance he would still be in jail.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Decidere: I forgot to add -- and you can simply read my other thread on this issue -- that cops should not arrest people who simply complain. Whether you call this racism or not, it is wrong. The constitution gives us the right to protest mistreatment. When cops arrest people who do so, they violate the speech rights of these individuals.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: I encourage you to re-read my post. I SAID: "I assume for the sake of argument that Gates's arrest was unrelated to racism. The fact that Crowley tried to save one black man's life, however, does not negate the possibility that he is a racist."

Point taken, but how can he ever prove he's not, except by reference to his past actions and opinions of those he has worked with in the past? If he is not allowed to reference his past, he cannot possibly defend himself. It's already too late for Crowley: the framing is set and the meme is in place. He's a racist, and will be treated as such forever.

It's so easy to taint someone as a racist, but virtually impossible to be seen as non-racist afterward.

Anonymous said...

Oops, too quick on the post button...

I totally agree that police should not be arresting people simply for complaining, and I think the racial angle here is actually obscuring this point, besides not being convincing to me.

If it were rare for police to arrest people for complaining, then this Gates arrest would certainly look to be racially motivated, but this is not the case.

Thanks for a great and thoughtful blog! This conservative-leaning reader appreciates the balance and respect for other views!

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I haven't seen any evidence that the cops involved (there were three) were racist, but I do think they over-reacted.

According to this article, it wasn't necessarily a neighbor, just somebody passing by who saw two men trying to force a door open in an expensive, upscale community. They called the police, who came. So far, as the President said, this is all quite reasonable.

If you look at the picture at that link, it's of Gates being arrested and escorted out of his home. There are three cops there- they all look calm, peaceful- one has his hand out in 'stay calm' sort of gesture.
Gates looks furious (as I believe he has every right to) and it does look like he's yelling. I think he had every right to do that, too.

But racism? No evidence. One of the cops is black, and I've read one was hispanic.

I don't think racism was in play here. But I DO think the cops did have chips on their shoulders and over-reacted- I can imagine a tired professor in his own home after traveling, frustrated with the jammed door, frustrated at having to break into his own home getting a bit testy with the police, especially if they acted at all suspicious (which they would under the same circumstances no matter what the color of the man in the home). But I don't really care what Professor Gates supposedly said to them or how he said it- once he showed them his I.D. they should have gotten out of his house, even if he was yelling at them. I completely agree with you, DLH, that it is wrong to arrest somebody for complaining- and I think it's wrong even if they complain loudly and rudely (especially in their own homes and on their own property).

IT does happen, and it's not just a race issue. Cops expect to be treated deferentially, and I think they have no right to arrest people who fail to live down to such an expectation.

My husband is white for all practical purposes (the great-grandmother who helped raise him was Indian, but he was raised as white and that's how he identifies)- but he is from a lower class background, broken home, raised by grandma with 8th grade education.

His own personal experience and that of his (nearly all white) friends taught him to be absolutely deferential to cops, subservient, even. He heard me being snipping with a cop once when we were young, and was very upset with me and told me I was lucky I hadn't been arrested.

I think that's a serious problem, and it's wrong.

But I don't see racism here, although I am a bit troubled by Professor Gates' refusal to show his ID when asked (it is not unreasonable to ask a man who has just been seen breaking into a house to prove it is his house) initially and by his initial accusation that the only reason the police officer was asking to see his ID was because he was black. That was racist, if that is an accurate account. The Professor should have shown ID quickly.

According to this account, he was arrested for 'loud and tumultuous behaviour in a public place,' and his own lawyer seems to tacitly admit his behavior could be so described when he defends him by saying he never touched or pointed at the officer.

But still- if the worst accusations of the officer are true, I still don't think arrest was the proper action- the cop needed to leave as soon as he saw the ID, no matter what Gates was saying to him.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Hmmm: The white police sergeant criticized by President Barack Obama for arresting black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his Massachusetts home is a police academy expert on understanding racial profiling.

Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class about racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming.


Fleming says he's a good guy, a good cop, a good role model.

Gates says he's a rogue cop and a racist. He doesn't seem to be backing down on that.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hutchinson: Many thanks for the compliment. I think. What text have I ignored?

I've looked through the FBI series Crime in the United States but could not find any numbers to answer your "how many white?" question. Not surprising. Such incidents would be mighty hard to judge. Still, I would think some work has been done on this. You, a professor with (I presume) research assistance at a sizable university, would be in a much better position to give us, who aren't in the same position, such an answer. I'd very much like to see your facts & figures, if for no other reason than to ignore them...

Meanwhile, I stick to my position that Gates is a posturing fraud. Crowley's report sez Gates was yelling "racist!" at him, which to a white person, is a wee bit more than "complaining." I agree with William Buckley on the capacity of Harvard faculty. The more so when such cases as Cory Maye's show the feebleness of Gates's complaint. Let The One talk about the Maye case if he wants to squawk about racial relations in this nation. Better still, let him stop the insane militarization of local police departments by stopping the supply of military weaponry to them. Doing so would take action, not wind.

Finally: you say, quite rightly, that it is the subtle forms of racism that must be combated these days. It's hard not to agree with that, until we remember the nomination of SS. The "wise Latina" speech should have sunk her nomination, just as it would have sunk Scalia's or Thomas's or Roberts's or Alito's. If subtle racism does great damage, (and I think it does) it does damage across the board. I do not subscribe to the notion that "people of color" cannot be racists, only victims of racists. Such thinking seems to me a mere fancy rationalization for good old fashioned payback.
Let Gates ponder the case of Cory Maye and the folly Gates committed. As Maye could tell him, it could have been far worse.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Decidere said...

I agree cops shouldn't arrest people who just complain. They do, and they shouldn't, don't know how to change that. And I know cops also use the "I'm investigating a call" line when they're not investigating a call.

I'm curious whether Crowley gave his name at first. Gates claims he never did, Crowley said he gave it several times. I think I have been able to get a name & badge # out once, but it's a tense move. (Frankly I think cops should have business cards to hand out for this purpose and it should be standard procedure, though there can be some security concerns to balance).

Anonymous said...

Great post! I've never understood the "I don't see you as black" attitude. IMO, that's the same as saying "I don't see you." It denies being able to see the whole person. Are these folks saying that they have to delete skin color in order to "see" a black person?

Now that we know that Crowley teaches classes in sensitivity training and is an "expert" in racial profiling, it seems to me that Officer Crowley probably has much of his identity invested in that of a nonracist white man. And when Gates confronted him, it struck a nerve and Crowley overreacted. The arrest was wrong. Crowley should apologize to Prof. Gates but I doubt he ever will. His ego, especially concerning his perceived freedom from bias, won't allow it.

gxm17 (posting as anonymous because I can't get my wordpress account to show up)

Nell said...

I can't decide whether the question about Gates by Lynn Sweet at the press conference was purposely orchestrated by the Obama media machine to distract from the rapidly failing health care initiative OR if Obama was blind-sided by the question and gave his incredibly stupid "police acted stupidly" response off-the-cuff.

Either way, Obama's injecting himself into this fray is going to backfire, IMO.

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of the scene in the movie "Crash" where the "racist" cop nonethelss tries to save Thandi Newton from the fire in her car. It proved that nothwithstanding his learned racism, he had a decent human instinct. Could be the same with Crowley when he gave the Black guy mouth to mouth. I'm not implying Crowley is a racist; can't do that unless you know the guy personally.

But it's also annoying the way many people are harping the fact that there was a Black and a Hispanic cop present. So what? How does that change anything if Crowley was motivated by racism?

One good thing, we are having that racial discussion that Obama was supposed to have started with his speech last March. Unfortunately the sides that people are lining up on are all too predictable.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I understand why he won't apologize- because Gates continues to make the same accusations which apparently hit a nerve in the first place (and will continue to hit those nerves.

I find Gates behavior increasingly unsympathetic.
Compare the joint press release- which Gates signed off on with the City of Cambridge, Cambridge PD, Middlesex County D.A.:
"The City of Cambridge, the Cambridge Police Department, and Professor Gates acknowledge that the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate. This incident should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department. All parties agree that this is a just resolution to an unfortunate set of circumstances."

He says there that ALL parties agree that this was a just resolution, and that it was an unfortunate set of circumstances and it doesn't demean the character of the police department- yet how long was it before he was giving interviews trying to destroy Crowley's reputation, calling him a rogue cop, a racist, and a liar?

As for lying- Gates insists he wasn't yelling, but the photograph plainly shows him as the one doing what sure looks like some passionate complaining.

Still, I think Crowely was wrong to arrest him- and I think he should apologize for that. He can do so without giving ground on what appear to be false claims that he was racist, something like, "I am not a racist, and I am proud of that and it made me see red when I was just doing my job and making sure the men who broke into that house had the right to be there and I got called names and my mother was brought into it. I should have been strong enough to ignore the personal slurs and slanders and been more compassionate about the bad day the Professor was clearly having and left."

And Gates should apologize for calling the man a racist for simply asking for his ID. But he won't.

I do think that being arrested, or at least threatened with arrest for the crime of being less than deferential happens to poor white people more often than you realize- they just don't generally complain about it, feeling there's no point and they'll be blamed for it anyway.

liberal dissent said...

Headmistress, zookeeper: I think it's interesting that you imply the fact that one of the police officers may have been hispanic as at least slight proof that there might not have been racism (if I am reading you right). While the idea of minority solidarity is a nice ideal, in reality non-whites are just as likely to be racist towards black people as whites. In some ethnicities anti-black racism is actually probably more pronounced than in the general white population, and far more accepted.

Unapologetic Feminist said...

Great post. The Boston Herald article sounds like fodder for a typical LSAT question. What is the flaw in the following argument? "James, a white cop, once gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a black man. Therefore, James cannot be racist." Answer: The conclusion asserts that just because something was once the case, it is always the case.

Unapologetic Feminist said...

The scariest thing about this incident is that the cop thinks that it is legal to arrest someone for yelling at him. Professor Gates had no legal duty to behave himself or to present his identification. The supreme court has ruled that it is legal to give the cop the finger. We are allowed to yell at cops. However, in practice, many of them would resort to violence if you dared to question their authority.

Annie said...

The story was meant to humanize him and show him to not be the racist that many people are going to want to make him out to be.

Kansas City said...

Isn't it obvious that Gates is the one who brought race into the situation? He sounds like a jerk.

By Gates' own account, he concluded the police officer, who had come to his home to protect him and his property upon a report that two black men had broken in, was acting racial by asking Gates to step outside to talk to him. I think there are cops who would have justifiably drawn a gun when they say a black man inside a house with a broken in front door after a report that two blacks had broken into the house. I suppose Gates' ignorance of the neighbor's report might be an excuse for his initial misreading of the situation, but it is no excuse for his conduct after it was clear what had happened and certainly not now when so much more information has been disclosed. I can't wait for the recording that apparently has some of the exchange between the cop and Gates - my guess is that is will reflect a polite police officer and a pompous and belligerant Gates.

Kansas City said...

I realize it may not be a crime, but doesn't everyone know you are asking for trouble if you yell at cops?

FLRN said...

hmmmm I'm thinking there are two sides to this story....oh yeah mouth-to-mouth regardless of race when someone is no longer black or white but rather purple from lack of oxygen is not recommended without a barrier....So actions to do this intervention outside of a medical center are heroic... and as for other posts in this string at least one blogger sounds a bit angry and that may not be good for his blood pressure...

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Liberal dissent, I think you are reading me wrong, and ignoring just about every other point made here in order to do so. That puzzles me.

There were a lot of people there- the cops, who represented at least three different ethnicities- that mainly matters because the fact that they all disagree with Gates is not some sort of 'white solidarity' thing going on.
And there were at least half a dozen bystanders.
One of them took that very unflattering picture of Gates and shared it with the press- they don't seem to have been impressed by his behavior. He was clearly yelling, something he claims he did not do.
The people who insist it was likely racially motivated are people who weren't there.

So far, the ONLY person who was there is insists that the cop was motivated by racism is Gates. Nobody else there seems to have seen it that way. He started with the 'You want my ID because I am a black man?' That was unreasonable. I do not think he should have been arrested for being unreasonable. But I KNOW white people who have spent the night in jail for nothing worse than being mouthy to a cop. Cops don't like mouthy. It's a power trip, sure, an authoritarian thing- but not always racist, and in this case, I am still waiting for evidence that anybody other than Gates was reacting to the other person in a way motivated by the other guy's race. Gates was doing the racial profiling here.

Nobody who knows Crowley (to my knowledge) has come forward to point out other racist behavior. He didn't like being yelled at, he probably hated being called a racist ( I would, too), and he probably didn't like being told "DOn't you know who I am" and "I'll come out and talk to your mama," and he over-reacted by using the power of the badge instead of just walking out and leaving.

I think Crowley was wrong to arrest him, very wrong. But I have yet to see any evidence that it was racism that motivated him.

I also agree that performing mouth to mouth on a dying black man doesn't really prove one thing or another about whether the would be rescuer is racist- although as I read the article, that wasn't really the point- it was to provide more details about the man Crowley- who is he, like the bits about coaching ball teams.

I am curious, genuinely so, as to how you would answer Greg Koster's question: How is Crowley, or anybody so accused, to go about proving he is not a racist? What would prove that to your satisfaction? I am puzzled that question hasn't gotten a response. I think it's a good question.

The Gaucho Politico said...

I also think its interesting that people automatically assume there is no racial component when a black officer or hispanic officer are involved.

Cops of any color may develop prejudice against black people they suspect of crimes.

Kansas City said...

It is such a shame that Obama is blowing his opportunity to help us put race behind us. Gates obviously was not a victim of racial profiling. He was a victim of his own racial mindset, pomposity and temper. Obama should say his friend, however sincere, was wrong in his impression and we need to get past so easily thinking in racial terms.

As to "racial profiling" in general, any one of us would be more leery of a young black man than a non-black man in suspicious circumstances. Jesse Jackson said the same thing in a moment of honesty. I don't remember the precise statistics, but blacks commit something like 45% of violent crime And young blacks dressed in street garb are viewed more suspiciously than whites? DUH?

Kansas City said...

This thread may be done, but I came across some statistics that show, among other things, that in New York blacks commit 68% of all violent crimes (including 85% of shootings and 72% of robberies) when they make up only 24% of population, while whites who make up 35% of population commit 35% of the city's population, commit about 5% of all violent crimes, 1% of shootings, and about 4% of robberies.

Nationally, black males between the ages of 18 and 24 commit homicide at ten times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined.

It is clear that historically blacks have been subjected to police abuse, and of course some may still occur today, but the reality of today is that blacks are just much more likely to have committed crimes and, therefore, are questioned and arrested more often.

The quote below is from this site:

"The ACLU and other anti-police activists have alleged for years that blacks are the victims of disproportionate and unjustified traffic stops, a charge that has become received wisdom among large swathes of the population. It happens to be contradicted by drivers themselves. The Bureau of Justice Statistics regularly polls tens of thousands of civilians about their contacts with the police. Virtually identical proportions of white, black, and Hispanic drivers — 9 percent — report being stopped by the police, though in 2005, the self-reported black stop rate — 8.1 percent — was nearly a percentage point lower than the self-reported white stop rate (8.9 percent). The stop rate for blacks is lower during the day, when officers can more readily see a driver’s race.

As for urban policing — where the police have victim identifications and contextual and behavioral cues to work with — blacks are stopped more, but only in comparison with their proportion of the entire population. Measured against their crime rate, they are understopped. New York City is perfectly typical of the black police-stop and crime rates. In the first three months of 2009, 52 percent of all people stopped for questioning by the police in New York City were black, though blacks are just 24 percent of the population. But according to the victims of and witnesses to crime, blacks commit about 68 percent of all violent crime in the city. Blacks commit 82 percent of all shootings and 72 percent of all robberies, whereas whites, who make up 35 percent of the city's population, commit about 5 percent of all violent crimes, 1 percent of shootings, and about 4 percent of robberies.

These figures are not police-generated; they come from the overwhelmingly minority victims of crime in their reports to the police. Such crime reports mean that when the police respond to community demands for protection against crime, information-based police deployment will send officers to minority neighborhoods where crime is highest. When the police respond to a call about a shooting, they will almost never be told that the shooter was white, and thus will not be searching for a white suspect.

National crime patterns are the same. Black males between the ages of 18 and 24 commit homicide at ten times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. Such vastly disproportionate crime rates must lead, if the police are going after crime in a color-blind fashion, to disproportionate stop and arrest rates. To criticize the police for crime-determined enforcement activity is to blame the messenger."

Real Time Analytics