No it does not. It shows of those searched blacks were 20% less likely. (24%-30%) They committed somewhere in the neighborhood of 260 to 27 more contraband offenses.

Now the three reasons for searching are 1) Search incident to arrest 2) probable cause and 3) consent.

The Data shows that due to arrest warrants officers would have searched blacks 443 to whites 17. In this type of search it is standard practice and mandatory when making an arrest to conduct such searches. It would also not be shocking if the finding of contraband on this type of search is a lot lower then the other 2 searches. After all I would not expect that a person with unpaid traffic tickets would not be that much higher then the average of the community.

Now the other 2 types of searches, the officer believes that there is contraband. No officer is going to ask to search and waste a half hour unless he thinks he is going to find something. The DOJ did not subtract out or give a % with contraband for the incident to arrest searches, so we do not know the % of those searches where the officer believed he had a reason to compare the % finding of contraband differs between black and white drivers. But the number of searches incident to arrest is large enough
(40-50% of all black searches) to account for the 20% difference.

I'm not offended that shorn7 took the short bus.

How did you not know this was going to happen, shorn?

Lol, this thread keeps giving.

Really? It's those Asians who are laggy.

“Whether blacks are found with more or less contraband, we should be sure to search blacks more [if blacks in the area are committing crime at a higher rate and our “goal-orientated” objective is to reduce crime in the area].”

So if we have a problem with tomato theft and most of the culprits we nab stealing tomatoes are redheads, an effective means of reducing tomato theft is targeting redheads. I’m not saying you should agree with that, I don’t, but surely you know that’s the justification the proponents of these over-policing policies rely on. That is, such policing tactics are effective in regard to reducing crime.

I already told you. It is fun to get little dogs all riled up.

There might be some disagreement with whether your father ought to have worn a condom, but I don't know whether or not you are on my side of that argument or not. Probably doesn't matter, given that neither of having access to a time machine makes this completely hypothetical.

That's a very serious charge, and you should clarify that you're joking.

Um, lol?

That isn't the rationale. It is "we've caught more blacks, therefore blacks are committing at a higher rate."

When it is pointed out that all evidence shows that the disparate in searching directly causes the higher capture rate, they fail to understand the simple math.

Did you know that employees of companies who conduct random drug testing have a much higher rate of being fired for drug use than employees of companies who don't conduct random drug testing?

Asians don't live in MO.

Someone's got a clear case of the mad.

That's silly, just like your argument why it's not a personal attack and should be allowed in the main forum. How'd that go? Something like... if someone says something racist, then they are a racist. It should be no problem to call them racist, because all you have to do is show your work.

Try using that flimsy argument for any other insult, like idiot or ahole. The reason personal attacks aren't allowed is obvious, but it's Wookie's favorite word so he allows it, plain and simple.

For like the fourth time, why the **** do you get upset when your viewpoint is characterized as "The Ferguson and Oakland PDs act like they do towards black people because of the criminal nature of black people".

You bitch and moan about that characterization of your viewpoint, then explicitly repeat it. It is incredible.

loooooooooooool perfect. Doesnt top the dude whose wife was on welfare bitching about welfare queens, but just perfect.

Also FoldN, did you sleep through the whole Bruce threatened PVN thing?

We get all kinds and some of us even take kindly to them. Point is, I use race as one of the many factors in profiling poker tendencies, along with age, dress, gender and a bunch of other factors because it's effective in live low stakes and I like free money.

Right. In this case, that's called institutional racism and is the problem we are trying to deal with. Policing and actions that oppress people based on a spurious correlation are unacceptable. Deciding only to deal with the problem in an indirect way by tackling "overpolicing" is unacceptable.

The joke here, foldn, is you. You and your continual carrying of water for a cantankerous old racist who used his position of power to threaten other posters with doxing.

That you refuse to believe that reality exists the way it does says a lot about what a complete piece of **** you are.

FoldN, one of the consequences of you and chez whining about this **** every day for months is that we all remember the details of what happened pretty clearly.

Here's the problems with that theory, though.

1) You seem pretty mad yourself.

2) Are we to assume that means that your posts are intentionally pointless and stupid, so as to "rile up" people who don't like pointless stupidity? If so, I think we can all reach a consensus then. That you concede that Bruce was racist, Jibninjas was racist, we're all obviously right but you intentionally post nonsense for negative feedback is pretty much my side already.

Then you should have no problem showing where Bruce threatened to doxx pvn. If you can't, you're exactly the liars I've been claiming this whole time.

hahahahohwow at FoldN demanding someone produce evidence using a Bruce post.

Remember like 12 hours ago when you were caught just blatantly making up stuff about a Bruce post?

Hey, check out BrianThePuppetmaster over here. Pull the string Brian, PULL THE STRING.

No, it was a mistake and I acknowledged it. Saying Bruce threatened to doxx pvn was a mistake too, and they are not going to admit it. They are going to take a non-specific threat and claim it was a threat to doxx. Even pvn himself didn't take it that way.
Meanwhile, I recall there were at least two posters who knew Bruce personally and insinuated they could out him, and nobody has accused them of threatening to doxx him. Why is that?

Because that didn't happen. I mean, unless you quote those two people threatening to do it you're a liar making things up.

They don’t seem to be disputing your math. If the hit rates (contraband/search) are the same but the search rates (search/stop) are double for the targeted group, then the hit/stop rate will double for the targeted group. So if the goal is to catch more tomato thieves, searching redheads at a higher rate will yield more tomato thieves than searching redheads at a lower rate.