My column this weekend on the Eli Davis incident made me realize that even well-intentioned people really do not understand what racial profiling is, and why it might be demoralizing to minority populations.
As one poster noted, “It’s difficult to fathom why police should be criticized for stopping a bald white guy if ‘bald white guy’ was the victim’s description.”
That is true, but that is not profiling. That is taking specific characteristics of the alleged perpetrator and investigating.
Another writes, “If someone called the Davis PD and reported that they saw a white kid wearing a t-shirt with greek letters on it breaking in to a home and the cops asked a white kid mowing a law in the area with a greek letter t-shirt a question would this also be a ‘Racial Profiling Incident?’ “
They continue, “If the above example is not a ‘Racial Profiling Incident,’ is stopping a white guy EVER a ‘Racial Profiling Incident’ (and is stopping a ‘person of color’ ever NOT a Racial Profiling Incident)?”
Once again, the introduction of the secondary piece of evidence probably negates a racial profiling definition.
So what is racial profiling?
One author, Keith Rushing, defined racial profiling as “the use of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or national origin by law enforcement agents as a factor in deciding whom to investigate, arrest or detain absent evidence of a specific crime or criminal behavior.”
He writes, “At its core, racial profiling is about racism and stereotypes and assuming the worst of people based on a biased perception of reality that is then projected and multiplied, affecting and endangering everyone of that same race, ethnicity, nationality or religion.”
Nadra Kareem Nittle on About.com defines is as “a form of discrimination by which law enforcement uses a person’s race or cultural background as the primary reason to suspect that the individual has broken the law.”
Finally, the ACLU writes, “Racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Racial profiling disproportionately targets people of color for investigation and enforcement, alienating communities from law enforcement, hindering community policing efforts, and causing law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people they are sworn to protect and serve.”
A better way to understand this is to take the issue of race completely out of the equation. Two young men commit a crime. If the police were to simply pull over every young man in the area without any sort of specific characteristics, then that would be a form of profiling.
On the other hand, let us add in that they were young, white males and let us suppose that the police pulled over every white person, regardless of age – would that be an effective policing technique?
On first glance it seems perfectly reasonable to think, as one poster did, “A group’s over or under-representation in crime would cause an exponential difference in attention from law enforcement as cops would naturally want to be useful and successful in their job to identify and nab real criminals. It isn’t racial profiling, or racism, if it is statistical and logical.”
The problem is that you still end up catching a lot of innocent people in the net. Is that a problem?
Well, the ACLU notes that these tactics can alienate communities from law enforcement. That is a problem because not only does it breed distrust but it also hinders the ability for the police to work with the community to solve crimes.
I had a lot of conversations with a lot of people on this in the past week and a half, and one of the critical points that I think was made is that if I were a black male, I would probably have at least ten times the number of police encounters than I have had in my life – even living the exact same life.
I remember two years ago, standing out on the street late at night – a police car passed me at least three times in a 30-minute period but the police officer never got out to question me. Would I have had the same experience had I been a black man, dressed the same way as I was on that evening?
Then we have the experience of David Breaux. Many in the community would recognize him as the man who preaches compassion and stands on 3rd Street catty-corner to the park and across from Crepeville.
On March 24, Mr. Breaux writes on his blog, “I Fit the Description. This morning marks the third time within four years in this city being questioned by police. The first time was when I first started standing at the corner–two bike officers approached me and asked me what I was doing. I told them I was asking people to write their concept of compassion in a notebook and offered them to write theirs down if they wanted to.”
He said, “The second time I was walking back home from the grocery store one evening and an officer in a car shined a bright light in my face and asked where I was coming from. I held up a green Co-op recycled grocery bag and told him that I was grocery shopping, then walked on.”
This time was a bit different. It was 9 a.m. and he was walking from the Co-op when an officer stopped him to ask a few questions.
Mr. Breaux said, “He asked me how I was doing and I made a hand motion that I usually sign as ‘peaceful.’ He asked if I was being silent and I verbally responded, ‘Peaceful.’ “
He continued, “He asked me my name, I told him David. He said I fit the description of someone they were looking for who was being loud, and threatening themselves and others in the area. It occurred to me that I didn’t seem so because I walk pretty calmly to say the least. So I told him I was fine.”
When the officer asked him questions he said, “I choose to remain silent.”
He replied, “That’s only if you’re under arrest. Right now you can be impeding with an investigation by being silent.”
David Breux replied, “Well, I choose to remain silent anyway.”
He writes, “He asked me for ID as another police car pulled up beside us. Meanwhile, across the street, someone parks their car in the grocery store parking lot and approaches, someone I know who knows me from the corner. He asks the first officer if I did anything wrong while the second officer takes my ID. I can hear the man across the street vouching for who I am.”
“The first officer comes back and is quiet while the second officer finishes taking my information. They then say I can go,” he says. “About an hour later while I’m standing at the corner, someone I know approaches me and said the workers at the grocery store told them what happened to me this morning and he stopped by to see if I was ok. I thanked him for his concern. I realized that from this situation this morning two people who know me from what I do at the corner had my back, which is pretty amazing if you ask me.”
David Breaux concludes, “Wanted to share this story as a snippet of what happens to me because of what I do at the corner and also as an expression of what it means to be someone who ‘fits the decription’ 24 hours a day for any reason an officer can deem worthy–some rich content for Compassion: Davis, CA Volume II.”
I will never forget meeting with a prospective intern. He was an African-American student and a starter on the UC Davis football team. I asked him if he ever gets pulled over by the police. He told me they got pulled over all of the time, whenever they went out.
He said that while some of his friends kind of shrug it off as a quirk of Davis, others just stop going out, they don’t want to be harassed.
The Eli Davis incident is interesting – it is not the typical story that I get. In that case, we have a specific crime but an officer not differentiating between a man who is 68 and describing as slight of stature, glasses, and graying hair, versus a description of a likely suspect of a crime.
In many cases, the police encounters are closer to a fishing expeditions – where people are pulled over for a pretext, just in case. There is no reported crime.
While many are more willing to shrug it off, as one commenter noted, “My objective is to acknowledge the serious nature of the social issue while suggesting that this particular incident should be only a minor contribution to the problem.”
I actually do not disagree that it is a minor contribution to the problem, but only because it is one case among probably hundreds, if not thousands. The reaction of many, however, indicates that it needs to be taken seriously.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The Eli Davis incident is interesting, it is not the typical story that I get. In that case, we have a specific crime but an officer not differentiating between a man who is 68 and describing as slight of stature, glasses, and graying hair, and a likely suspect of a crime.[/quote]
So a 20 year old black man is more like to commit a crime than a 68 year old black man? If so, then would it have been ok for the police to briefly question a 20 year old black man, given the same information?
It is more likely that a 20 year old committed a crime than a 68 year old. That does not mean the police ought to simply pull over all young looking people and ask them about the crime. I think at the very least there needs to be additional reasons to pull people over.
[quote] I think at the very least there needs to be additional reasons to pull people over.[/quote]
You are creating a different scenario.
“(An African-American) slight of stature, glasses, and graying hair, versus a description of (an African-American) likely suspect of a crime.”
What a fascinating bit of stereotyping! Being slight of stature, wearing glasses and having graying hair eliminate one as a possible burglar? What, pray tell, are your descriptive characteristics (other than youthfulness, stockiness and keen-eyed) that make African-Americans legitimate “likely suspects of a crime” and appropriate to question about it?
Your efforts to shoehorn Mr. Davis’ encounter into a “racial profiling” incident classification aren’t enhanced by this latest observation.
As a daily reader of the Davis Enterprise for decades, I am suprised that the police of Davis don’t exercise more racial profiling. How many times have you read about a bank robbery downtown that is not committed by a carload of young black men from out of town (if you don’t read the paper I suppose you don’t know this is a common occurance)? Or how often do you read about a carload of young mexican american men from out of town committing a late-night mugging (these occur several times a month). I read these over and over, week after week. The shooting incident a couple of years ago downtown was committed by a group of young black men from out of town driving an Escalade with spinners (did they have to go full-stereotype?). I would think that the restraint on the part of the Davis PD of not stopping every carload of hispanic or black young men driving through Davis is commendable (though not neccesarily wise)…
More specifically- what handle would you use to describe a person who committed a crime? A young black man who just mugged someone could only be described as a “carbon-based life-form wearing saggy jeans and a white t-shirt?”
Is it racially profiling? Nah- its just common sense.
David wrote:
> I will never forget meeting with a prospective intern.
> He was an African-American student and a starter on
> the UC Davis football team. I asked him if he ever
> gets pulled over by the police. He told me they got
> pulled over all of the time, whenever they went out.
> He said that while some of his friends kind of shrug
> it off as a quirk of Davis, others just stop going
> out, they don’t want to be harassed.
Do you really think that the cops in Davis are so racist that large numbers of African-Americans “just stop going out” in town due to so much harassment?
As I’ve said in the past I know there are racists out there (I’ve spent time in Mississippi) but fortunately I am certain that the cops in Davis (while not perfect) don’t just pull over and question every African-American they see (if they did I would personally donate money to an ACLU investigation in the hope every one of them would be fired).
My main point on this topic is that we should all work hard to stop real racial profiling and fire anyone that does it (and make sure we don’t call it “racial profiling” when a cop gets a report that an Irish guy red hair just stole an iPod and he asks a guy with red hair a question).
P.S. I’ve been involved with a group over that years that brings (mostly) white guys that typically don’t get to know a lot of black & latino kids together with a bunch of (mostly) black & latino kids who in most cases have never spent a lot of time with a white guy. One of them just made the video below. Hopefully kids like this will grow up and help people understand that every time a white cop asks you a question it is not “racial profiling” and “just because you are black”…
http://www.thefirstteesanfrancisco.org/club/scripts/view/view_insert.asp?pg=PUBLIC&GRP=19251&IID=187536&NS=PUBLIC&APP=106
“What a fascinating bit of stereotyping! Being slight of stature, wearing glasses and having graying hair eliminate one as a possible burglar?”
Good point – but then again, is the only piece of information relayed to the police that the suspect was black?
“Do you really think that the cops in Davis are so racist that large numbers of African-Americans “just stop going out” in town due to so much harassment? “
No I don’t think it’s racism.
[quote] “— n. the practice of categorizing people and [u]predicting their behaviour[/u] according to particular characteristics such as race or age: racial profiling.” (World English Dictionary)[/quote][quote]”What a fascinating bit of stereotyping! Being slight of stature, wearing glasses and having graying hair eliminate one as a possible burglar?” (JS)
“Good point – but then again, is the only piece of information relayed to the police that the suspect was black?” (DG)[/quote]The old “answer a question with a question” gambit….
You’ve written at least six times about this case in a week or so. You’ve never claimed that “the description” on which the officer was acting included anything that would have excluded Mr. Davis (until today, when you’ve hinted that the perp must have been described as fat or otherwise obviously not Mr. Davis).
The point I’ve tried to make beginning with the initial “Mowing While Black” reference is that everything we know about this case goes against calling it “racial profiling.”
It’s a bit frustrating to find oneself labeled (and dismissed) along others as well-intentioned though ignorant–folks who “really do not understand what racial profiling is, and why it might be demoralizing to minority populations.”
Still, I’ll give it one more shot.
At first you seem to agree that this type of case shouldn’t be considered “racial profiling”: [quote]”That is true, but that is not profiling. That is taking specific characteristics of the alleged perpetrator and investigating.”[/quote]This is in accord with the ALCU definition: [quote]”Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as ‘driving while black or brown’), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband. Another example of racial profiling is the targeting, ongoing since the September 11th attacks, of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians for detention on minor immigrant violations in the absence of any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon….[b]Racial profiling [u]does not refer[/u] to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.[/b]”[/quote]Your own extensive coverage of this matter clearly reveals that, by definition, it is not an example of “racial profiling.” What it is is what you’ve reported–maybe poorly handled by the officer and whoever Mr. Davis called to find out whether there was a hunt underway and a long-time citizen who understandably is troubled that he’d been encountered at all.
Why would I still be so well-intentioned about a seemingly minor point about this incident? It’s not because I don’t understand the meeting of “racial profiling” or because I don’t appreciate the seriousness of it or because I’m not concerned about its impact on minorities.
Au contrair, mon ami. I just thought it important to suggest that inaccurately identifying Mr. Davis’ experience (or a similar encounter) degrades the significance of true racial profiling and keeps others from appreciating its impact on minorities.
I wrote (asking David):
> Do you really think that the cops in Davis are so
> racist that large numbers of African-Americans “just
> stop going out” in town due to so much harassment?
Then David wrote:
> No I don’t think it’s racism
Does that mean that you think that large numbers of African-Americans in Davis “just stop going out” in town due to so much harassment but that the harassment is due to something else other than racism?
I’m not doubting that your prospective intern was pulled over “all the time”, but I’m betting it had more to do with him either having an expired registration, not following traffic laws or having (illegal) tinted windows.
I have white friends that complain about the cops pulling them over when they do a roll through stop in a car that does not have current tags due to a smog issue and has illegal tint on the front windows (and more often than not no front license plate)…
Just Saying: but the key point in the ACLU’s definition is “in combination with other identifying factors.” What other identifying factors were involved in Mr. Davis’ incident?
SOD:
“Does that mean that you think that large numbers of African-Americans in Davis “just stop going out” in town due to so much harassment but that the harassment is due to something else other than racism? “
This is actually a very difficult question and one I have thought about a lot. It comes down to your definition of racism. And in this matter, I don’t think there is a conscious effort by the police to disproportionately pull over people of color.
That said… “t I’m betting it had more to do with him either having an expired registration, not following traffic laws or having (illegal) tinted windows.”
One of the things that we actually did was look at his car. It was an older model, but not terribly so. It was in decent condition. In short, it looked like every other college student’s car I have ever seen.
So why is he getting pulled over so often? It’s not immediately evident to me. And it wasn’t immediately evident to him either.
“I have white friends that complain about the cops pulling them over when they do a roll through stop in a car that does not have current tags due to a smog issue and has illegal tint on the front windows (and more often than not no front license plate)… “
That’s not what we’re talking about here.
[quote]”What other identifying factors were involved in Mr. Davis’ incident?”[/quote]As you’ve said: “Good point – but then again, is the only piece of information relayed to the police that the suspect was black?” I don’t know and you don’t know (or you would have reported it).
However, I’d suspect that whoever was able to provide “the description” told police more than just race. On the other hand, you seem to have assumed otherwise and have picked out a part of the ALCU citation that appears to work with your assumption.
Even if no clothing or other identifying factors were included, that doesn’t automatically make stopping an African-American in the vicinity leap to the level of inappropriate profiling. I suggest that the ACLU’s “key point” is a broader reading of what the organization notes that “racial profiling” is not, combined with examples of what it is.
Rushing’s description of jumping to conclusions “absent evidence of a specific crime or criminal behavior” and the ALCU’s examples of stopping only minorities for minor infractions, assigning terrorist motives to those of certain races or using race as a basis for deciding who to search–these are examples of “racial profiling” in my mind.
I’m not saying that trying to make this minor episode into one of “racial profiling” does a serious disservice. But, it seems a little misdirected in spite of your own good intentions to encourage better racial understanding.
I’d guess we’re about as aligned as we’re going to get on this one.
JustSaying–good clarifications in your posts above.
I like the redhead example: If police get a report of a redhead burglarizing the neighborhood; and they come around to investigate; what’s the problem with questioning a few redheads they find in the area? Since redheads constitute such a small proportion of the neighborhood population (say less than 2%); then a might be prudent to question a redhead that is spotted. Seems like good police work; and does not fit the definition of profiling.
It’s good to see the examples of white people (including me) who have often been pulled over for minor infarctions; it is not only non-whites who are stopped for this. I wonder how much we are educating the minority community to perceive slights to their dignity as something that happens only to minorities and is due to racism or bias; whereas in reality people of all races have to put up with a certain amount of indignity and just plain crap in day-to-day life (the “school of hard knocks” my dad used to call it); I would argue the less money you have the more such indignities you generally have to put up with (as naturally people try to please and gain favor by kowtowing with those with more money; and tend to divert their pent-up negative energy to lay onto the ‘underlings’; those who do more menial work and are poor).
” I don’t know and you don’t know (or you would have reported it). “
Unless I were told it off the record.
“However, I’d suspect that whoever was able to provide “the description” told police more than just race. “
Let’s say that’s the case, does that help or hurt the case for or against racial profiling here? In a way, I can see a more vague description actually helping the police’s case here. A more specific description puts the onus on the police to show that the suspect matched it.
The truth is that I have been told conflicting pieces of information here and I don’t know which is accurate. The piece I don’t know is what Mr. Davis was wearing and what he was actually doing the moment the police saw him – was he actively mowing, or was he walking around and his back to them. Then again, why did the officer not stop the questioning when he turned around. All of these are critical to this encounter and we do not know.
“Then again, why did the officer not stop the questioning when he turned around.”
Why would he have? Are we back to your contention that Mr. Davis looks like an African-American but looks too old to be a burglar (accepting your possibility that the officer approached him from behind)?
“Unless I were told it off the record.”
Are you saying that you’ve held back what you consider critical information about whether this is racial profiling because someone has revealed it to you under agreement that you don’t report it at all (in addition to not disclosing the source)? This kind of “deep background” sourcing doesn’t seem to make sense.
This incident is “racial profiling” because, maybe, the officer had been given only the possible perpetrator’s race to begin with. No, it’s “racial profiling” because, maybe, he was given other descriptive information and questioned him even though Mr. Davis was wearing a blue hat rather that the green one that was described. No, it’s “racial profiling” because, obviously, “age profiling” proves Mr. Davis is too old to be a burglar regardless of whether he otherwise fits the description provided to a “T.”
Now, we keeping adding more hypotheticals to keep this in the realm of a racial profiling incident. Now, somehow, it should make a difference about whether he was “actively mowing” a lawn (or pretending to be) or trimming bushes (with a mower some distance away), etc.
Now, we find that you’ve been given “conflicting pieces of information” about how the suspect was described to the officer and what kind of scene he faced when he came upon Mr. Davis (information “critical to this encounter). Yet, you’ve been forthcoming only with the versions that might support a “racial profiling” conclusion.
I thought we were hashing out whether the encounter as you reported it rose to the level of “racial profiling”–it doesn’t, in my opinion, as I’ve pointed out for too long.
I thought we were discussing the definition of “racial profiling,” not realizing that the facts of the case were so unclear. Still, even with your hypotheticals and missing and conflicting, I’d say this incident never amounts to what real “racial profiling” is all about.
It’ll be interesting to have this as yet under-defined case “highlight” the upcoming session. Will either of the participants be there to answer such questions for you and the rest of us? Will there be any witnesses to the encounter where Mr. Davis was asked to show identification? Will someone from the Davis Police Dept. attend to give an account of what led to the investigation, why Mr. Davis apparently was misinformed about whether there was any investigation going on at all and to describe the department’s policy on how it separates legitimate investigation from inappropriate profiling?
Just Saying:
I actually appreciate this give and take.
“Why would he have? Are we back to your contention that Mr. Davis looks like an African-American but looks too old to be a burglar (accepting your possibility that the officer approached him from behind)?”
No, I’m to the contention that the actual person in question was considerably younger than Mr. Davis.
“Are you saying that you’ve held back what you consider critical information about whether this is racial profiling because someone has revealed it to you under agreement that you don’t report it at all (in addition to not disclosing the source)? This kind of “deep background” sourcing doesn’t seem to make sense. “
All I can tell you is that I have some information from some sources that was given off the record.
“Now, somehow, it should make a difference about whether he was “actively mowing” a lawn (or pretending to be) or trimming bushes (with a mower some distance away), etc. “
When I talked to some of the police investigators who are experts in this kind of investigation, the first question they asked was what was he actually doing when the police saw him. Because that makes a lot of difference in the reasonableness of the search. Was he walking in and out of his garage when the officer saw him? Was he facing the officer? Was he mowing the lawn? Your suggesting I’m adding more hypotheticals, but the point the investigators made to me is that we need to know what the officer observed at the moment when he decided to flip the car around and to make the consensual stop.
“Now, we find that you’ve been given “conflicting pieces of information” about how the suspect was described to the officer and what kind of scene he faced when he came upon Mr. Davis (information “critical to this encounter). “
You do understand that this case is evolving and I’m getting more information each day?
” Yet, you’ve been forthcoming only with the versions that might support a “racial profiling” conclusion. “
The first piece of information I got was from the police chief – the call identified a possible suspect that matched the description of Mr. Davis. Then I got information from another source that indicated the description of that individual was vague in terms of clothing. The third piece of information, from Glasgow was closer to Chief Black’s account. But Glasgow never elaborated on it. So that’s what I have.
“I thought we were hashing out whether the encounter as you reported it rose to the level of “racial profiling”–it doesn’t, in my opinion, as I’ve pointed out for too long. “
I still think that’s the open question.
“I thought we were discussing the definition of “racial profiling,” not realizing that the facts of the case were so unclear. Still, even with your hypotheticals and missing and conflicting, I’d say this incident never amounts to what real “racial profiling” is all about. “
You could be right. The police to my knowledge have not been able to even speak to Mr. Davis, and I don’t know that they’ve interviewed the officer involved. So at this point, we know two things for sure – Mr. Davis’ letter and the police account of the context of the police encounter.
The determination of racial profiling here would likely occur IF Mr. Davis were confronted only because of his race despite evidence that he was likely the owner of the home and therefore not a likely suspect. on the other hand, if the initial spotting of Mr. Davis were determined to be more ambiguous, you may be correct – that this was not racial profiling, and that the only real problem was the failure of the police and dispatch to properly debrief Mr. Davis and explain why this had occurred.
David, do/did your expert source(s) address, witness identification and the related credibility issues?
What would a reasonable peace officer do when they know witness descriptions can be inaccurate and/or quite different?
I presume you are familiar with the legal construct re: the totality of the circumstances?
In the same way YOU have received conflicting information, in this matter, (under no pressure) officers consistently find themselves in the same boat,so to speak (while actively searching for subjects/suspects).
I appreciate your concluding description that this still-unexplained incident might not be “racial profiling” in the normally accepted sense.
Given your generous compilation of additional information, I don’t want to be picky about a single point. But, whether Mr. Davis was a “likely owner” of a home in the neighborhood (easy to say afterwards!) or likely lived in another town wouldn’t make ID-ing him to confirm the likelihood “racial profiling.”
Anyway, you point out so many legitimate, open questions in this situation that should get answered. Even if it’s only comes down to the communication failure you point out when Mr. Davis called police to determine whether the officer was on an investigation, that finding will allow and encourage changes in DPD operations.
This kind of confusion is the thing that tends to make me appreciate reporting that gets to solid answers before publishing. This might be an outmoded view of journalism with the minute-by-minute internet writings. So, the initial charge is instantly reported before the follow up reporting work gets started. (Some people are up half the night preparing instant reports!)
Maybe some of these things will get nailed down at your Sunday council meeting.