>"But the problem creep comes in the many, many cases when police don't have a threshold for how long and wide that demographic descriptor should be used. Within 1000 feet of the reported attack? A mile? Why not 2 miles? And why not 2 days or even 2 weeks after the incident, just to be safe?"
The big difference being the cumulative nature of peoples' experiences. If the same police are repeatedly exposed to a disproportionate amount of crimes being performed-by(or accused) by a specific group, then it would only be logical for them to naturally stop/search that specific group more often. It's a game of numbers, and I see no reason for it to be demonized as much as it has been as some "systemic oppression". As long as the police don't falsify reports that exaggerate those numbers, and behave in a civil manner towards complying citizens, then it should be "okay".
Personally, I would say that profiling by race and gender alone is way to wide of a search-criterion. For all we know, the police are actually using other side-properties of the individuals in order to profile them more specifically, yet on the surface to others it appears crass and simply based off crude properties such as race/gender. I.e. it may even be a layered approach where they "back-off" when they hit a dead-end in their search through the "good indicators for being a criminal or have just committed a crime".
E.g.: Broken tail-light -> hiding face behind hoodie -> oh, well spoken individual that just lost a family-member, must be fine.
Or: Broken tail-light -> hiding face behind hoodie -> hmm's and haw's when asked to leave vehicle for DUI test -> acting aggressive -> etc.
The big difference being the cumulative nature of peoples' experiences.
Your post focused on the cumulative nature of the police experience, but completely neglected the cumulative nature of the minority's experience. Therefore I downvoted you.
I'm part of a different targeted-minority. The only times I felt it weighing on me more than as a nuisance, was when I actually had something to hide. Which shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not the police should target me or not, as long as they behave and I as a citizen don't escalate.
>> If the same police are repeatedly exposed to a disproportionate amount of crimes being performed-by(or accused) by a specific group, then it would only be logical for them to naturally stop/search that specific group more often.
The "accused" part is the whole point. If police accuse a particular group disproportionally on the basis that they accused them disproportionally in the past, then we have a problem.
And that seems to be the case with racial profiling- that it builds upon the misconceptions of the past and therefore perpetuates them into the future.
It's really a case of GIGO, "garbage" in this case being historically prejudiced, and therefore bad, data on who should be suspected.
Of course, as others said, if you suspect and so search a particular group disproportionally often you may reasonably expect to also charge that group disproportionally often, even if that group has the same amount of perps as every othe group (which you leave well enough alone).
>> As long as the police don't falsify reports that exaggerate those numbers, and behave in a civil manner towards complying citizens, then it should be "okay".
Another objection: there's no good reasons for police to be un-civil, even if someone is not complying. If the citizen is being a bit difficult and the police office responds in kind you can bet the situation is going to get out of hand - and who knows where it will stop? And because it's the officer that has the clear upper hand in an aggression situation (they can call backups, and their backups can call backups -with armored cars) it's the officer that has to remember to put their personal feelings aside and be professional.
Also, cops aren't the only ones who have to deal with rude and unprofessional behaviour at work. Everyone learns to deal with that sort of thing and the best way is always to set your ego aside and avoid escalation.
>> Or: Broken tail-light -> hiding face behind hoodie -> hmm's and haw's when asked to leave vehicle for DUI test -> acting aggressive -> etc.
And a last objection: that's a crap (sorry) way to profile people. A kid with a hoodie talking trash to a cop is most probably a teenager trying to grow up -and failing, currently. Give them the time to succeed and go bust someone actually doing some harm. Everyone 'll be the better off in a world with more adults than juvenile idiots.
How often do you guess real perps go looking for trouble with the police? I'd guess, not very.
The big difference being the cumulative nature of peoples' experiences. If the same police are repeatedly exposed to a disproportionate amount of crimes being performed-by(or accused) by a specific group, then it would only be logical for them to naturally stop/search that specific group more often. It's a game of numbers, and I see no reason for it to be demonized as much as it has been as some "systemic oppression". As long as the police don't falsify reports that exaggerate those numbers, and behave in a civil manner towards complying citizens, then it should be "okay".
Personally, I would say that profiling by race and gender alone is way to wide of a search-criterion. For all we know, the police are actually using other side-properties of the individuals in order to profile them more specifically, yet on the surface to others it appears crass and simply based off crude properties such as race/gender. I.e. it may even be a layered approach where they "back-off" when they hit a dead-end in their search through the "good indicators for being a criminal or have just committed a crime".
E.g.: Broken tail-light -> hiding face behind hoodie -> oh, well spoken individual that just lost a family-member, must be fine.
Or: Broken tail-light -> hiding face behind hoodie -> hmm's and haw's when asked to leave vehicle for DUI test -> acting aggressive -> etc.