State lawmakers must back up their 2005 commitment to track and fight racial profiling by law enforcement by clarifying what counts as racial profiling. The bill proposed by state Sen. Donald Betts, D-Wichita, may go too far in calling it racial profiling whenever an officer uses race, ethnicity or gender as “a factor†in investigation, traffic stops and questioning. But the current language, that it be “the sole factor†in such situations, clearly does not go far enough, discounting many of the instances in which Wichitans and others believe they’ve been profiled. If Kansas’ law against such racial profiling means anything, it must be backed up with meaningful data collection and analysis.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
41 Comments
I have a better idea and that is WHY should we be telling the police how to conduct their jobs? The police develop a thing called “steet smarts” after a few years on the job. They can look at something and know by instinct that “somethin ain’t right” here. We are essentially trying to legislate away the cop’s street smarts. If it is 2AM and you see 3 young black males- the type with twisted and braided hair and sideways ball caps- riding around in a car, the chances are very high that a crime is in progress, has been committed or is about to be committed. Any cop will tell you that. The sad fact is that black males between 14 and 30 probably are about 3% of the population yet they are responsible for half or more of the violent crime in the country. That is why the police keep a closer eye on them. It is no different than when somebody named “Muhammed Allah” shows up at the airport. He is going to get extra scrutiny because young Arab males are about 0.0001% of the US population but they are responsible for over half of the aircraft bombings and hijackings. And what about white males over 40? They are responsible for about 90% of the child molesting yet they are about maybe 20% of the population. So if an old white guy is hanging around a school playground, YES I want the cops to stop him and find out what he is up to.
The current law is what is needed. You need more than race to start an investigation. All the proposed profiling law will do is hamper criminal investigations and cost the state millions in lawsuits.
If the Political Correct maniacs get their way soon it’s going to be illegal to even give a description of your rapist, robber or mugger that includes the perpetrator’s race or skin color.
This objection to sensible, reasonable profiling is absolutely asinine.
What an officer uses to determine stops is his own prejudices, according to the DVD, “How Not to get Busted.” For example, if you have college fraternity insignia on your car, you have more chance of being stopped and searched than if you don’t. Cops don’t like college students. Etc.
The officer who produced the DVD suggested hiding small amounts of dope way up under the dashboard, since few officers are supple enough to search there.
Did he have any suggestions for how to get away with molesting young girls, DK?
O.K., Mary, once and for all, suggesting that sex laws have something to do with the fastest growing segment of the Kansas prison population hardly makes one who suggests such a molester. Nor does providing scientific documentation that sex at an early age does not harm the participant.
“Kev” –
I think I follow your reasoning, but it’s dangerous to simply let police “…develop a thing called ’steet smarts’” instead of the Constitution of the United States of America.
I know several people who’ve been pulled over by the Los Angeles police for “Driving While Black.” A close friend who is a Brit of east Indian heritage traded in his BMW for a VW Jetta because he perceived the Beemer as a target for anyone with dark skin. Drive a 14-year-old car though an upscale neighborhood (and not have a pizza sign on your car) and you’re likely to be pulled over for no other reason than “street smarts.”
You assert:
“If it is 2AM and you see 3 young black males- the type with twisted and braided hair and sideways ball caps- riding around in a car, the chances are very high that a crime is in progress, has been committed or is about to be committed.”
Yeah. That, or the bars just closed.
And what of all those white guys without “twisted and braided hair?” They’re just out driving to get a good pew at early Mass?!
“Any cop will tell you that.”
And that probably leads us to the issue of just why someone decides to become a cop.
Most of them like the authority that comes with a badge; the fact that they’re armed and — even with a genuine desire to mete out justice — can exercise their prejudices under “The Color of Law.”
Speaking of Donald Betts, is he the only democrat candidate for the 4th Congressional District this year? Or will a real candidate challenge him in August?
Heh, my ex, a fifty year old African American attorney and general counsel to a state agency in Texas, got pulled over for “driving while black” in NESS CITY, KANSAS two years ago.
She and I and another economic development professional were driving around looking at what I told them was “cool real estate” in Ness, when some twenty year old deputy dog pulled us over because, he said, something on our car was dragging on the street and causing sparkes.
I mean, fer god’s sake, he couldnt come up with anything beter than THAT? We made him crawl under the car to find the “dragging” thing, which of course, he could not find. Then we asked the real reason we were pulled over.
Gotta admit, he stuck to his “guns” and NEVER admitted the real reason. We all three took him to task, and when we left town (without spending money on dinner as planned) HE was the one shaking.
Little turd. It happens all over. Good for Donald Betts.
Hank -
Donald Betts is the only announced and filed candidate for 4th district Congress – indeed even Tanker Todd hasn’t filed yet. T.Todd is way more concerned about covering his ass over the loss of the Boeing contract (for the second time) than he is about doing his job. TT has been asleep at the wheel. TT has proclaimed that Defense Dept procurement rules are broken, and need to be changed. After 12 or 14 years in Congress, why is he only now figuring this out? Yea, we need a change alright. We need a new congressman.
Betts has just opened a campaign office, hired three staffers, has an experienced campaign manager in Myrne Roe (who put Dan Glickman in office in the 70s), and he is raising money. So what would you expect a “real” candidate to be doing?
Mary, is THIS what you were speaking about? ‘Cause this is shameful. Good comments here on profiling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2978589
They ought to NOT be able to pull someone over for something like turn signals. Too easy to do, too hard to prove it never happened. An all purpose excuse.
Donald Betts is one of the FEW voices of sanity in the Kansas legislature. I want him to beat todd like a rented mule, but I dont want to lose him from the Kansas legislature.
When he goes to Washington, will you all PROMISE to put another sane person in his seat?
“After 12 or 14 years in Congress, why is he only now figuring this out?”
Simple Kelly: He and his former employer had been able to ‘play’ the broken system to their benefit all these years. Now that their corruption has backfired on them …
KFG -
So far there are 2 Democrats announced to run for his vacated seat – Rep. Oletha Faust-Goueau and KC Ohaebosim – but there are 3months remaining for other candidates to take the stage.
Ben -
I agree with you. Unfortunately, the sarcasm I tried to include in the previous statement didn’t come through very well in the posting.
The other observation about T.Todd and the Boeing deal is that this monolithic failure serves to aptly rebut T.Todd’s arguments that his position on the House Appropriation Committee being SOOO VALUABLE to the 4th district. Yea, we’ve seen good proof of that statement. We need more a member of the majority party representing the 4th district.
Perhaps Rhonda Holman does not understand. Sen. Betts’ proposed change brings the Profiling Statute into conformity with virtually all other antidiscrimination laws where the prohibited conduct must be “a” factor, not the “sole” factor. The amendment is crafted to allow stops when the officer is looking for a particular suspect based on a specific description which may include race, etc. The sole factor requirement means that an officer wearing a KKK hood who hates blacks can stop them all day for “dirty liscense plate,” “obstructed windshield,” or any other pretext without fear of sanction since the windshield or plate was “a” factor; even though the real reason for the stop was his obvious prejucice against blacks. A change is badly needed.
Of course
I meant “laws against racial profiling are a politically correct disaster” —
Kelly – you should correct you referring to him as “Tanker Todd.” That was Bush’s nick-name for him; the CORRECT verion is TankerLESS Todd.
Excuse me
Todd Tiahrt’s position on the appropriations committee is VERY important.
No matter what the Air Force says, nothing happens until Congress agrees to spend the money.
What, exactly, was Tiahrt supposed to do, up to this point?
If Tiahrt had been calling and brow-beating the Air Force, prior to the announcement, what would you say? If Tiahrt had gone on record, threatening other projects if he did not get his way on this one, what would you say?
Tiahrt has made an honest, straight forward argument that the Air Force made a mistate, and should have picked Boeing. Tiahrt has pointed out that Airbus is NOT dependable, and has broken many other promises.
And, Ben, YOU, yourself, said that you were OK with EAD’s Northrup getting this deal, even before the Air Force announced their decision.
You liberals are happy that Boeing lost. Bad news is good news, for you Democrats, huh?
Actually, there is an excellent chance that this EAD’s deal will hit some serious snags.
The Congressman representing the Washington State Boeing workers is a Democrat.
Tiahrt, of course, is a Republican.
There is bi-partisan opposition to this deal.
The Mobile Alabama political pull in this issue is not nearly so strong because, well, Alabama will probably vote Republican, no matter what, in the Presidential election.
However, John McCain can be hurt, somewhat, by the Demcrats in Congress attacking the Airbus/French deal.
I can not imagine that the Democrats in Congress, outside of Alabama, want to vote to fund this Airbus deal.
As Senator Roberts has said: We are taking Airbus to task, for unfair subsidies on their commercial operations. How in the world can we award a contract based on prices that another arm of our government claims are illegal, due to these same government subsidies?
Econ -
Tankerless Todd (thanks for the correction, Ben) has been quoted this week saying that the rules are broken, and need to be fixed. What was he supposed to do, Econ? FIX THE RULES HE must have known about earlier as being broken, BEFORE this contract was sent somewhere else. By the way, has T.Todd ever taken a position before 2008 AGAINST giving federal contracts to off-shore or foreign contractors?
“Largely as a result of the controversy over the black berets, the Berry
Amendment was enacted into law in the FY2002 DOD Authorization Act (P.L. 107-
107) and is now codified at Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) § 2533a.”
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL31236.pdf
Todd Tiarht voted for final passage of the 2002 DOD Authorization Act.
A “Buy American” provision, which had been in the law, previously, was made stronger in this Act.
So, did T.Todd vote for the Berry Amendment? Voting for the entire 2002 DOD Authorization bill was a no-brainer.
Tiahrt has the entire Kansas delegation on his side on this, Democrats and Republicans:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ks04_tiahrt/2007/030408KSLetter.html
Ya’ll the other day I was watching one of those cops shows about a car theft sting. I don’t know if anyone else caught it, but there was one instance when the dropped the sting car…and it was on video where the thiefs got in and went through the car, and one of the guys hollered “hey I found a crack pipe in here”
Now I found that disturbing, yeah, we know if they steal the car they’re likely involved in drugs too, but you can’t tell me that the police didn’t put that crack pipe in there on purpose to get more to charge them with.
Another thing I found disturbing…in the report on prison populations in America, 1 in 9 black men between 20-35 are in prison right now.
That is a scary statistic, and we really need to get to the bottom of why this is so. Yeah I believe profiling and wrongful convictions has something to do with it but certainly not all. Not an excuse to be bias, but this must stop now. That is far too high of the black population.
“”"Another thing I found disturbing…in the report on prison populations in America, 1 in 9 black men between 20-35 are in prison right now.
That is a scary statistic, and we really need to get to the bottom of why this is so. Yeah I believe profiling and wrongful convictions has something to do with it but certainly not all. Not an excuse to be bias, but this must stop now. That is far too high of the black population.”"”
PM- MOST (not all) of the people in prison are there because they ought to be there. There are very few people there that either have not been convicted of MULTIPLE felonies or VIOLENT felonies. Most 1st and 2nd time non violent offenders get diversion or probation- and in a few cases- short stints in the county jail. I would agree that whites often get “kid glove” treatment for crimes that would send many blacks to jail but to me that means we send to be sending MORE whites to jail. If you do the same offense and have the same background should serve the same punishment. But even if everything is even, black males are going to be a far higher portion of the population because they commit a far higher number of crimes. And if you ask me who is mainly at fault for that, it is the culture where having children out of wedlock is the NORM (soemthing like 73% of black kids live only with a single parent vs about 27% for white kids) therefore black boys rarely see a decent example of a REAL black man in their lives and many of them never grow up into men. It is a little hard when all the black men you see everyday are either in jail, unemployed, drunk or on dope. Or they are rapping about how great it is to be in a gang. Another reason is the public schools which really do not care about them. Some teachers care but most of them are new teachers that drive in from the suburbs and count the days until they have enough senority to transfer to another school. And then there is the parents who really don’t care until the kid is in trouble and then they cry about “my baby didn’t do that”. I would LOVE to say I could solve the problems
“I would agree that whites often get “kid glove” treatment for crimes that would send many blacks to jail but to me that means we send to be sending MORE whites to jail.”
I agree with you here, but it doesn’t account for all of the increase. The less likely they are to go to prison means the more opportunity they’ll get later on. We’ve got to stop this. Yes, they should be treated equally under the law.
Kids are easily influenced, but what I find interesting is that whites will laugh about violence in like video games, but then turn around and point the finger at rap music. Both are equally harmful. Some are more susceptible to it…but studies show that ALL Kids are more violent in their play after watching a violent show.
As far as the fathers I don’t think it has a lot to do with it as most of these guys who are gone are gone for a good reason, they’d be worse for the kids. What I think is a far BIGGER issue is that black WOMEN are the lowest wage earners. They work more hours for less money, work multiple jobs and are still in poverty. If kids watch how hard mom works and gets nowhere, what kind of message does that send to them as they age?
We have to start fessing up that we are PART OF THIS PROBLEM. Let mom earn enough at her day job so she can be home at night with the kids.
P-Mom,
I lived near 13th and Hillside for 14 years, and I got to see a lot more racial profiling (and much worse) from our esteemed police department than I wanted to. It isn’t pretty, and it has absolutely nothing to do with “street smarts” or any other kind of smart. I had to make hospital runs on about half a dozen occasions to take kids of color (12-15 yr-olds) to the ER who’d had the crap beat out of them and were dumped in the cemetery by Wichita’s finest. I had a neighbor who took more.
Jed
If what you say is true, you should have filed an internal affairs complaint, talked to Federal and County authorities, and urged the “victims” to go to internal affairs and other authorities.
You could also have gone to the media, at the time.
I do not deny that there are bad cops out there. However, whenever I have found one, I have complained.
You OWE it to the good Cops to help them get rid of the bad Cops.
“O.K., Mary, once and for all, suggesting that sex laws have something to do with the fastest growing segment of the Kansas prison population hardly makes one who suggests such a molester. Nor does providing scientific documentation that sex at an early age does not harm the participant.”
If a 14 yr old has sex and gets pregnant..it does plenty of harm. When a 13 yr old has an abortion, it does harm. I’ve seen a 12 yr old give birth..that did harm. I knew a 15 yr old who had a sexually transmitted disease..that did harm.
When any young person engages in an activity and they don’t have the maturity to handle responsibly..it does plenty of harm.
Your facts are twisted and so are you.
Right Mary; the pregnancy causes the harm. Not the sex. You see, in this century, pregnancy can be avoided.
And they are not my facts Mary. I gave you the citations.
Pall,
Complain to the police about the police? I moved into town to get away from bullets coming through my living room! I got anonymous phone calls threatening my kids after I was subpoened to testify in one police brutality case; luckily the city settled out of court for a huge sum of taxpayer money before it came to trial. I wonder how many times they had to do that- I saw enough police racism and brutality when I lived there to bankrupt the city a couple times over.
DK,
Not true! Two of my relatives were molested by the same guy as young girls- no pregnancy or STD’s involved. It did both of them a lot of damage. The guy did 5yrs for it but he’s out now, and that messes up them both even more.
I’m talking about biological adults in consensual arrangements, Jed, not little kids. That’s what the studies I cited say. I agree. Forced molestation is harmful, of course. Duh!
An example might be a 14 year old girl and a 21 year old man. Or vice versa. I realize you have to make hard and fast rules governing potentially harmful behavior because there is no other way to do it, however, each case, especially when sexual relations are involved, is different and should be judged wisely and compassionately. Remember, what we used to call the 14-year-old having sexual relations with an older man was mom.
twisted,
The only place 14yr-old girls fall in love with old coots is in your sick fantasies. As much as they might think differently, 14yr-olds don’t fall in love with anybody; they aren’t emotionally mature enough for love. Some of them will never be-that’s why there are dirty old molesters like you in the world.
That’s where you always go, isn’t it? Telling me I have sick fantasies or that I’m a molester. Well, the whole world has had such fantasies for a long long time, in literature and reality. Remember Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was 12; Romeo was 14. Human maturity, like almost everything else in life, follows the bell curve. A certain percentage of girls and boys will have had sex at a certain age, more at a certain age; the average for both sexes being around 17, which is below the age of consent in many states. What has been done is to make a crime out of simple biology. I have no such fantasies. I like to talk about science and philosphy with my lover. But given you reaction I suspect that you do have such fantasies, and don’t know how to handle them. Your reaction is proof of your denial.
Here is an example of one law recently passed in this country in response to the sort of sexual hysteria you just demonstrated.
http://wtopnews.com/?nid=600&sid=1360621
twisted,
Hysteria? No, I’ve just spent the last 6 yrs trying to put my granddaughter back together after her father tried to undress her and make her perform oral sex on him. Just be glad you haven’t tried anything with her- she’d Bobbitt you in two seconds!
You can’t see the difference between child sex/incest and biological adult consensual sex. Anyway, I think you’re probably untruthful about the incident you describe.
twisted,
14yr-olds are not equipped to give consent; for that matter, niether are a lot of 20+yr-olds! The issue of sexual consent with children is mostly about coercion.
Maybe the police should just stop going to calls, stopping cars or taking anyone to jail for a week and see what happens? I’m a cop and have been for 15 years in the Wichita area. I have never personally heard an officer say “I stopped someone because they were…” whatever race. Had that happened I would have been the first to bring that to a supervisors attention. I will not tolerate that kind of behaviour, it gives us all a black eye. I know profiliing happens, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near the extent poeple make it out to be. When I started 15 years ago I never heard this complaint from anyone I stopped. Since it has become the new catch phrase, about 40-50% of the minorities I contact spit out the infamous “You stopped me ’cause I’m…” whatever race before I even get up to the window to explain why I stopped them. I know officers that will only stop white people now because of the grief that these select few minorities cause. As hard as it may seem, there are some simple rules to lessen your chance of being stopped; obey all traffic laws, don’t be seen leaving a drug house, don’t draw attention to yourself with loud exhaust, radios or passengers. Don’t be “creeping” around the neighborhood at 3 am with 5 people in the car looking like trouble, white, black, green or whatever. I’ve stopped white kids for the same reason after I’ve seen them in the same block circling for 15 minutes at 1 in the morning for nothing more than to find out what they are doing, it’s reasonable suspicion. Stay out of neighborhoods at 3 am when you don’t really fit in and you don’t really have a valid reason. I know it’s a free country, but some things just draw our attention because they don’t look right, and that family sleeping in the house your driving by expects me to do my job and check you out, not wait until you break in. I would look at a white male driving a newer pickup in the “hood” at 2 am with the same suspicion that I would a black male driving a $200 car in a $300,000 home area at 2 am. It has nothing to do with race it has everything to do with Sesame Street and “Which one doesn’t belong”. Regardless of what we do their will always be complaints, that’s just life.
So you do profile. I’ve been stopped for “driving old car” twice. Pisses me off.
I would look at a white male driving a newer pickup in the “hood” at 2 am with the same suspicion that I would a black male driving a $200 car in a $300,000 home area at 2 am.
Sarah, It’s kinda funny how you read that whole thing and picked out a single sentence that fit your purpose. You have taken the entire comment out of context. I generally work the same area all of the time. Which means after spending 8 hours there a night you get to know what looks normal and what doesn’t. You learn what cars are normally coming and going into neighborhoods at certain times and ones don’t look familiar. The same way you hopefully do when your sitting on your front porch or out in the yard. Fortunately the law allows us to use training, experience, familiarity with the area and a bunch of other stuff to all factor in when we make decisions to stop someone to check them out. Yeah, I guess you can say I profile. The same way you profile when you go to the grocery store and are ready to check out. You avoid the little old lady digging out her checkbook, you avoid the family with two jam packed shopping carts, you avoid that person that “just looks weird”, so don’t stand on your soap box and point your finger. Profiling is perfectly normal, until you add the race card in.