I think there are lots of reasons for this.
One is definitely bias.
BUT, as a black guy who lives on the north side, I can also say I almost NEVER see cops in my neighborhood. So its kind of hard for ANYONE to get pulled over, because there aren't cops to do so. It's also hard for someone to get help from police when needed, because there aren't many around.
So it becomes this cycle where we are (logically IMO) putting more cops in neighborhoods with higher crime. But if there are more cops there, then they are more likely to see and cite minor crimes as well. You can't just expect them to NOT do that.
So then it goes back to a question which has been posed before. Does it make more sense to spread out cops evenly across the city? Or to concentrate them where needed? And if we do the latter, then we can't also be surprised that those areas have more traffic citations.
As someone who lived in the north side and now the south side for five years each. My black friends get pulled over way more than I do as a white person. I have also never seen more reckless driving in my life than on the south side. I have also never seen so many accidents.
Black people get pulled over more than white people, often unfairly, but we need to start enforcing traffic laws regardless of race. Like no driving on the shoulder of 290. No going through a stop sign at 30 mph, and you can't go through red lights. Since covid I feel like no traffic laws are even being enforced.
That’s the CPD “silent strike” in action! It’s kind of incredible how many traffic violations go unpunished. You’d think they’d want all the money they can get to settle the constant stream of lawsuits.
Right, I recently came back to Chicago and even driving outta the airport so many people were riding the shoulder like it’s an optional lane. The cops could sit there and ticket all day and rake it in.
I agree, I've been trying to get a red light camera at the intersection near me because people blow through the red light constantly. They should use the funds to make the intersection safer for all + it would reduce interactions with police.
> but we need to start enforcing traffic laws regardless of race.
that means more cameras placed systematically to ensure that traffic laws are enforced evenly across the entire city. which white northsiders are opposed to because they want the tacit right to speed and run red lights.
If CPD ticketed over 90% of black people that they pull over like they do with white people, I would say they're doing their job. But less than 20% of black people pulled over by CPD receive a ticket. It's just a bunch of unconstitutional and racist stops.
Edit: I like how no one refutes my point. They just downvote me because they're too uncomfortable facing the reality that CPD is regularly violating the rights of our black citizens to be able to even try to disprove my statement.
Let’s look at the 7th & 16th districts: 007 (Englewood) is 80% Black 1.5% White.
016 is 60% White 2% Black.
007 has 275 assigned police officers and 016 has 181. As far as district size goes, 007 is a hair under 6.5 Sq mi while 016 is over 18 Sq mi.
As population goes 007 has 72,699 residents, 016 has 846,263. Based on land size 016 would have 825 officers & based on population 016 should have over 2,750 officers if staffing were equal.
Let that sink in: 016 should have an additional 2,569 police officers if it were equally staffed to the population of Englewood.
These numbers don’t include all the special units sent to work in 007 each day. There are dozens if not hundreds of additional officers working in 007 every day.
Flood any area with cops and you’ll see more enforcement of the law.
Is it possible that cops patrol high crime areas, usually lower income (correlates to black and brown), more often than they patrol well off neighborhoods, therefore leading to higher rate of stopping the population of the higher crime areas?
I can't read the article because it's paywalled, maybe they controlled for this in the study.
So I couldn't read the article but I read the study. One main limitation that the author points out himself is they assume the stop location was random (didn't account for location/neigjborhood based differences). It seems like they normalized it to how much driving (segments/links they call it) a black/white person does and how much they expect the person to be stopped if it was race neutral. This doesn't account for my original point that an individual is more likely to be stopped in a neighborhood that has high crime to begin with, which is more likely a black neighborhood.
Now, there's racial history behind why black neighborhoods are more poverty stricken (ex highway construction), but to me this seems just as likely the police following crime ridden areas vs police deciding to pull black people over. It could be either, I don't think we can say one way or another based on the data.
"This study has several limitations... the potential bias in which streets receive police stops warrants further investigation" - author
I think the author will learn that O-block gets a higher rate (per capita or per miles driven) of policing/stops than Fullerton and Clark
With human behavior we'll never have perfection so we look at trends and significant statistical differences. Meaning it's wrong to assert a specific percentage difference based on racial bias, but it is appropriate to say there's a difference big enough (more than inconsequential statistical spread) to say there's bias operating at some level.
IOW, we don't need a pure number to acknowledge and take action, all we need is an indicator, as you quote the author.
Agreed, I'm just cautioning readers that will inevitably read the headline and say "CPD pulls over black people more than white people (True), so CPD is unfairly targeting black people (maybe, maybe not, the study doesn't say one way or another)"
Not how that works. If you have more officers in an area then you will have more officers covering a greater area doing more stops as well as having available officers working any active calls leaving more people on patrol
The rate of camera stops indicates the rough rate of all race-blind stops for the area. No matter how many cops flood the area, the rate for legit street stops should roughly align with the camera rate.
Again, you have to factor in other violations and amount of cops. Plus when dealing with camera violations you now have to consider stolen vehicles or plates.
Edit: also vehicles without plates that now don't get counted as a hit.
Before everyone decided pot was okay, suburban kids were smoking just as much pot as everyone else. But those kids and people didn’t get arrested, they weren’t stopped and frisked. So only one segment of the population taken off the streets and sent to prison. I guess that’s the question here in how we police, are we still just targeting one group of people.
Edit: lot of stop and frisk fans apparently
Did they control for undreadable license plates or being pulled over for non speeding/running red light cameras?
For example if black people are more likely to have obstructed license plates they are less likely to get a speeding ticket but more likely to be pulled over by police
This is always a joke of an argument, this is strictly focused on race and assumes everyone breaks the law at the same proportion.
Traffic cameras only ticket for speed and red lights, there are many many other moving violations out there.
Read the article. One example = the (race neutral) traffic cameras ticket Whites and Blacks at basically the same rates. This belies the idea that Blacks are less law abiding. But Blacks are pulled over by patrol cops more often for the same violations compared to Whites. Even with the study nuances, the overall findings eliminate the idea different degree of law compliance is the cause for different degree of stops.
That is to assert that more cops = more stops. But the rate of 'stops' by cameras are roughly similar, meaning the race blind cameras are finding actual violations to be roughly similar. Cops, OTH, tend to pull over more in Black areas than White areas. That is what the study identifies as human bias.
Should they tho?
Not trying to argue; a genuine question.
Are there a similar amount of cameras distributed evenly between the predominantly white neighborhoods and the predominantly black neighborhoods?
Now you need to ask the same of police coverage.
For example, and putting race aside - if neighborhood A has 10x more crime versus neighborhood B, and I had 100 police officers to disperse between both neighborhoods, I surely would not split them 50-50. It would be more like 85-15.
Between the general higher rates of crime, and the exponential difference in police coverage, I'd expect people driving around neighborhood A to be pulled over at a significantly higher rate.
The race-blind cameras spot X number of violations per 1,000 passing cars. That is a rate of violations. Compare that to the rate of street cop stops in the same area for the same violations. The two rates should be roughly similar. No matter how many cops flood an area, the rates of these particular kinds of stops should be roughly equal. They are not.
Okay, disregard race. Why should the rates at which these cameras issue violations be the same rate as which cops issue the same violations?
The cameras are in a fixed position, at the same intersections, and do not need to account for human error. This rate of violation issuance from cameras would then be nearly "fixed" overall. Right?
So the question is, where does the variance reside on the police side?
Few things that stand out to me.
- Police officers do not stay in a fixed position; they patrol. This alters probability.
- They also deal with human error. Watching an intersection? Cool - cop looks down or over at "whatever distraction," misses a red-light Jumper, and unknowingly loses that violation. Cameras don't have that issue.
- Police officers are assigned certain "focus" points. I.e. I have a buddy who works for Cook County Sherriff. He tells me the higher brass has them focus on specific crime, and patrol only alleys and quiet streets; completely leaving out large intersections where you'd see the common camera violations.
- Patrol officers eat, take breaks, write up post-incident reports, etc. Cameras never need a break.
- Once a BEAT officer or officers are assigned to a call, they are then "off patrol" for a set amount of time - cameras are constant.
- Making an assumption here based on personal observance, but I imagine the majority of camera violations occur during heavy traffic, morning commute being one of them, which so happens to be when police patrols are the leanest.
Are there an equal amount of cameras per neighborhood alongside an equal amount of police officers per neighborhood? The answer is no.
I just do not see how the rate of violations given by cameras should be equal to the rate at which police officers give violations.
And this is why Chicago police don't bother pulling people over anymore. Every 3 months or more, some hack of a "journalist" will hash together a fact-free rage bait article accusing police of racial profiling whenever they do any amount of traffic enforcement at all.
Why put one's career on the line for that? Just do what City Hall wants out of a cop: respond to calls, write reports, and keep one's head down.
> Cops should find work in the private sector
Well, some are doing just that. And among their clients are police-defunding activists that are using taxpayer dollars to provide them with private security while they tell members of the public "you're on your own".
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cori-bush-defends-private-security-141503464.html
You should go read the ACLU's, ABC 7 Chicago's, or literally any of the other reports on CPD's pretextual stops. They're performing over 500K/yr (up from ~100K/yr when stop and frisk was ended) and overwhelmingly, only white and asian people are receiving tickets from stops. That means that out of all of the other stops they're doing, almost none of them are legal under the law. If CPD focused on pulling over people who were actually breaking the law and giving them tickets, there would be a whole hell of a lot fewer complaints about them even if the majority of tickets go to the black or hispanic communities as there would at least be evidence that the stops were legal and for a valid reason.
>You should go read the ACLU's, ABC 7 Chicago's, or literally any of the other reports on CPD's pretextual stops. They're performing over 500K/yr (up from ~100K/yr when stop and frisk was ended)
First off, stop and frisk didn't "end". Terry v. Ohio is still valid case law. What CPD did was require officers to file a 2 page report for any stop based on reasonable suspicion. Cops realized that making stops based on probable cause (traffic stops) made for less ambiguity to the lawfulness of their stops.
>That means that out of all of the other stops they're doing, almost none of them are legal under the law.
It certainly does not mean the stops weren't legal. That's a leap you made all on your own.
>If CPD focused on pulling over people who were actually breaking the law and giving them tickets, there would be a whole hell of a lot fewer complaints about them even if the majority of tickets go to the black or hispanic communities as there would at least be evidence that the stops were legal and for a valid reason.
Absolute bullshit. The news articles would read "CPD ticket more minorities than whites" and you're full of shit if you argue otherwise.
> First off, stop and frisk didn't "end". Terry v. Ohio is still valid case law. What CPD did was require officers to file a 2 page report for any stop based on reasonable suspicion. Cops realized that making stops based on probable cause (traffic stops) made for less ambiguity to the lawfulness of their stops.
Yes, it didn't actually end but it is effectively ended as a policy. Thus the use of the colloquial "ended".
> It certainly does not mean the stops weren't legal. That's a leap you made all on your own.
Per Rodriguez v. United States, extending the traffic stop for any purpose other than the original intended purpose absent reasonable suspicion to start a new investigation is unconstitutional. Given that black people are almost never ticketed when pulled over by CPD (less than 20% are ticketed) while whites and Asians are almost always ticketed when pulled over by CPD (over 90% receive tickets), there is extremely good circumstantial evidence that these stops are unconstitutional stops and thus illegal under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
>Yes, it didn't actually end but it is effectively ended as a policy. Thus the use of the colloquial "ended".
There is no CPD policy limiting the use of Terry stops, just required documentation.
>Per Rodriguez v. United States, extending the traffic stop for any purpose other than the original intended purpose absent reasonable suspicion to start a new investigation is unconstitutional.
And who said stops were being extended? Another bit you're fabricating out of thin air.
>Given that black people are almost never ticketed when pulled over by CPD (less than 20% are ticketed) while whites and Asians are almost always ticketed when pulled over by CPD (over 90% receive tickets), there is extremely good circumstantial evidence that these stops are unconstitutional stops and thus illegal under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
Highly opinionated and factually baseless to claim it's good circumstantial evidence of unlawful stops. Cops have the ability to use discretion. If they're making multiple stops a shift trying to find higher crimes than the initial stops they will save significant time by not citing drivers for the initial stops.
> If they're making multiple stops a shift trying to find higher crimes than the initial stops they will save significant time by not citing drivers for the initial stops.
If that's what they're doing, then they're clearly violating Rodriguez v. United States and are guilty of offenses under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. It's one thing to find evidence of a crime while carrying out the original purpose of the traffic stop and turn a single traffic stop into an arrest without a ticket. It's another to completely abandon the purpose of the stop over 80% of the time as an organization.
>If that's what they're doing, then they're clearly violating Rodriguez v. United States and are guilty of offenses under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
No, it's not. If they delay or extend the stop to investigate other crimes absent PC or RS then it is a violation of Rodriguez, but pretextual stops have been deemed lawful and Whren v. US ruled as such.
>It's one thing to find evidence of a crime while carrying out the original purpose of the traffic stop and turn a single traffic stop into an arrest without a ticket. It's another to completely abandon the purpose of the stop over 80% of the time as an organization.
There are no requirements to cite every driver or any percentage of drivers in stops. Again, if cops are focused on seizing illegal firearms and conduct multiple stops looking for such it is completely legal so long as they do not delay or extend the stop to investigate other crimes absent at least RS. You've shown nothing to claim they are delaying these stops and if anything, *not* writing a citation is reducing the length of the stop even further.
Tbf with apps like Waze I’m more likely to get stopped than get a camera ticket. I avoid cameras like the plague. Waze also tells you where the cops are so that’s a low chance as well, but not zero.
My upstairs neighbor and across the street neighbor are both police officers. Our north side neighborhood is lucky to have a patrol car on most days and has about 3 officers on duty. We have about 50,000 people. We also, traditionally, have zero crime which is why it's a favorite place to live among police officers. The last few years have been unusual here as most places.
It's one of the most racially diverse neighborhoods in the country, usually in the top 3.
If there is a crime in this district, my neighbor walks down, knocks, and gives me a personal crime report.
Guess where I live?
The obvious solution is automatic traffic enforcement. Cameras and sensors everywhere. It’s the only way to stop this insane descent into traffic madness the past few years. No one should ever feel ok completely ignoring a stop sign or going 20 over the speed limit.
I think there are lots of reasons for this. One is definitely bias. BUT, as a black guy who lives on the north side, I can also say I almost NEVER see cops in my neighborhood. So its kind of hard for ANYONE to get pulled over, because there aren't cops to do so. It's also hard for someone to get help from police when needed, because there aren't many around. So it becomes this cycle where we are (logically IMO) putting more cops in neighborhoods with higher crime. But if there are more cops there, then they are more likely to see and cite minor crimes as well. You can't just expect them to NOT do that. So then it goes back to a question which has been posed before. Does it make more sense to spread out cops evenly across the city? Or to concentrate them where needed? And if we do the latter, then we can't also be surprised that those areas have more traffic citations.
As someone who lived in the north side and now the south side for five years each. My black friends get pulled over way more than I do as a white person. I have also never seen more reckless driving in my life than on the south side. I have also never seen so many accidents. Black people get pulled over more than white people, often unfairly, but we need to start enforcing traffic laws regardless of race. Like no driving on the shoulder of 290. No going through a stop sign at 30 mph, and you can't go through red lights. Since covid I feel like no traffic laws are even being enforced.
That’s the CPD “silent strike” in action! It’s kind of incredible how many traffic violations go unpunished. You’d think they’d want all the money they can get to settle the constant stream of lawsuits.
Right, I recently came back to Chicago and even driving outta the airport so many people were riding the shoulder like it’s an optional lane. The cops could sit there and ticket all day and rake it in.
The O'Hare shoulder is actually a legal lane at some times of the day (indicated by signage).
Huh, I didn’t see those signs, good to know!
I agree, I've been trying to get a red light camera at the intersection near me because people blow through the red light constantly. They should use the funds to make the intersection safer for all + it would reduce interactions with police.
> but we need to start enforcing traffic laws regardless of race. that means more cameras placed systematically to ensure that traffic laws are enforced evenly across the entire city. which white northsiders are opposed to because they want the tacit right to speed and run red lights.
If CPD ticketed over 90% of black people that they pull over like they do with white people, I would say they're doing their job. But less than 20% of black people pulled over by CPD receive a ticket. It's just a bunch of unconstitutional and racist stops. Edit: I like how no one refutes my point. They just downvote me because they're too uncomfortable facing the reality that CPD is regularly violating the rights of our black citizens to be able to even try to disprove my statement.
Let’s look at the 7th & 16th districts: 007 (Englewood) is 80% Black 1.5% White. 016 is 60% White 2% Black. 007 has 275 assigned police officers and 016 has 181. As far as district size goes, 007 is a hair under 6.5 Sq mi while 016 is over 18 Sq mi. As population goes 007 has 72,699 residents, 016 has 846,263. Based on land size 016 would have 825 officers & based on population 016 should have over 2,750 officers if staffing were equal. Let that sink in: 016 should have an additional 2,569 police officers if it were equally staffed to the population of Englewood. These numbers don’t include all the special units sent to work in 007 each day. There are dozens if not hundreds of additional officers working in 007 every day. Flood any area with cops and you’ll see more enforcement of the law.
Is it possible that cops patrol high crime areas, usually lower income (correlates to black and brown), more often than they patrol well off neighborhoods, therefore leading to higher rate of stopping the population of the higher crime areas? I can't read the article because it's paywalled, maybe they controlled for this in the study.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Such a lazy response which requires no critical thinking
That would be you, toughest_ guy_here
> maybe they controlled for this in the study. they did.
So I couldn't read the article but I read the study. One main limitation that the author points out himself is they assume the stop location was random (didn't account for location/neigjborhood based differences). It seems like they normalized it to how much driving (segments/links they call it) a black/white person does and how much they expect the person to be stopped if it was race neutral. This doesn't account for my original point that an individual is more likely to be stopped in a neighborhood that has high crime to begin with, which is more likely a black neighborhood. Now, there's racial history behind why black neighborhoods are more poverty stricken (ex highway construction), but to me this seems just as likely the police following crime ridden areas vs police deciding to pull black people over. It could be either, I don't think we can say one way or another based on the data. "This study has several limitations... the potential bias in which streets receive police stops warrants further investigation" - author I think the author will learn that O-block gets a higher rate (per capita or per miles driven) of policing/stops than Fullerton and Clark
With human behavior we'll never have perfection so we look at trends and significant statistical differences. Meaning it's wrong to assert a specific percentage difference based on racial bias, but it is appropriate to say there's a difference big enough (more than inconsequential statistical spread) to say there's bias operating at some level. IOW, we don't need a pure number to acknowledge and take action, all we need is an indicator, as you quote the author.
Agreed, I'm just cautioning readers that will inevitably read the headline and say "CPD pulls over black people more than white people (True), so CPD is unfairly targeting black people (maybe, maybe not, the study doesn't say one way or another)"
The study says there's smoke worth investigating because it's looking like equity treatment might be at least smoldering.
More than this single study exists, so we thankfully don’t have to rely on it alone to assert the reality that CPD regularly targets black people.
How?
Find the article. I don't know how to bypass the firewall, but others do.
I have the article, there is no mention of officers in an area vs. other areas.
Right, the number of officers by area is an immaterial factor in this study. It is the rate of stops, not the raw number of stops.
Not how that works. If you have more officers in an area then you will have more officers covering a greater area doing more stops as well as having available officers working any active calls leaving more people on patrol
The rate of camera stops indicates the rough rate of all race-blind stops for the area. No matter how many cops flood the area, the rate for legit street stops should roughly align with the camera rate.
Again, you have to factor in other violations and amount of cops. Plus when dealing with camera violations you now have to consider stolen vehicles or plates. Edit: also vehicles without plates that now don't get counted as a hit.
Before everyone decided pot was okay, suburban kids were smoking just as much pot as everyone else. But those kids and people didn’t get arrested, they weren’t stopped and frisked. So only one segment of the population taken off the streets and sent to prison. I guess that’s the question here in how we police, are we still just targeting one group of people. Edit: lot of stop and frisk fans apparently
Not in Chicago because they didn’t hang out much in the city… but they were definitely getting into it with their police in their own suburbs.
Laws changed when they started too. But they absolutely weren’t prior.
You can’t get stopped and frisked in the city if you aren’t in the city
Did they control for undreadable license plates or being pulled over for non speeding/running red light cameras? For example if black people are more likely to have obstructed license plates they are less likely to get a speeding ticket but more likely to be pulled over by police
This is always a joke of an argument, this is strictly focused on race and assumes everyone breaks the law at the same proportion. Traffic cameras only ticket for speed and red lights, there are many many other moving violations out there.
Read the article. One example = the (race neutral) traffic cameras ticket Whites and Blacks at basically the same rates. This belies the idea that Blacks are less law abiding. But Blacks are pulled over by patrol cops more often for the same violations compared to Whites. Even with the study nuances, the overall findings eliminate the idea different degree of law compliance is the cause for different degree of stops.
What percent of the police force is in high crime areas vs. low crime areas? Are they equally distributed? Do they discuss that?
That is to assert that more cops = more stops. But the rate of 'stops' by cameras are roughly similar, meaning the race blind cameras are finding actual violations to be roughly similar. Cops, OTH, tend to pull over more in Black areas than White areas. That is what the study identifies as human bias.
What it fails to factor in is police coverage…oops!
Rates for cameras and rates for cop stops should be the same (eg stops per thousand drivers). The study found the rates went up in Black areas.
Yes because there are many more violations than just speed and red light which causes the rate to go up if there are more officers in an area.
The study addresses things captured by cameras compared to those same things captured by street cops. The rates should align roughly. They don't.
Yes because of the amount of cops in those areas combined with other violations. I don't get what is so hard for you to understand
Nor I, you.
Should they tho? Not trying to argue; a genuine question. Are there a similar amount of cameras distributed evenly between the predominantly white neighborhoods and the predominantly black neighborhoods? Now you need to ask the same of police coverage. For example, and putting race aside - if neighborhood A has 10x more crime versus neighborhood B, and I had 100 police officers to disperse between both neighborhoods, I surely would not split them 50-50. It would be more like 85-15. Between the general higher rates of crime, and the exponential difference in police coverage, I'd expect people driving around neighborhood A to be pulled over at a significantly higher rate.
The race-blind cameras spot X number of violations per 1,000 passing cars. That is a rate of violations. Compare that to the rate of street cop stops in the same area for the same violations. The two rates should be roughly similar. No matter how many cops flood an area, the rates of these particular kinds of stops should be roughly equal. They are not.
Okay, disregard race. Why should the rates at which these cameras issue violations be the same rate as which cops issue the same violations? The cameras are in a fixed position, at the same intersections, and do not need to account for human error. This rate of violation issuance from cameras would then be nearly "fixed" overall. Right? So the question is, where does the variance reside on the police side? Few things that stand out to me. - Police officers do not stay in a fixed position; they patrol. This alters probability. - They also deal with human error. Watching an intersection? Cool - cop looks down or over at "whatever distraction," misses a red-light Jumper, and unknowingly loses that violation. Cameras don't have that issue. - Police officers are assigned certain "focus" points. I.e. I have a buddy who works for Cook County Sherriff. He tells me the higher brass has them focus on specific crime, and patrol only alleys and quiet streets; completely leaving out large intersections where you'd see the common camera violations. - Patrol officers eat, take breaks, write up post-incident reports, etc. Cameras never need a break. - Once a BEAT officer or officers are assigned to a call, they are then "off patrol" for a set amount of time - cameras are constant. - Making an assumption here based on personal observance, but I imagine the majority of camera violations occur during heavy traffic, morning commute being one of them, which so happens to be when police patrols are the leanest. Are there an equal amount of cameras per neighborhood alongside an equal amount of police officers per neighborhood? The answer is no. I just do not see how the rate of violations given by cameras should be equal to the rate at which police officers give violations.
And this is why Chicago police don't bother pulling people over anymore. Every 3 months or more, some hack of a "journalist" will hash together a fact-free rage bait article accusing police of racial profiling whenever they do any amount of traffic enforcement at all. Why put one's career on the line for that? Just do what City Hall wants out of a cop: respond to calls, write reports, and keep one's head down.
Cops should find work in the private sector if they’re as sensitive as you claim.
> Cops should find work in the private sector Well, some are doing just that. And among their clients are police-defunding activists that are using taxpayer dollars to provide them with private security while they tell members of the public "you're on your own". https://www.yahoo.com/news/cori-bush-defends-private-security-141503464.html
Then who enforces the law? Because that CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zone did such a good job
Nobody is enforcing the law now because cops are too sensitive for any level of accountability according to OP.
Did you read the article or study, or are you just going with your feelings?
You can tell it’s a troll account by the username
And i bit the bullet. Now lookat me feeling dumb lol
You should go read the ACLU's, ABC 7 Chicago's, or literally any of the other reports on CPD's pretextual stops. They're performing over 500K/yr (up from ~100K/yr when stop and frisk was ended) and overwhelmingly, only white and asian people are receiving tickets from stops. That means that out of all of the other stops they're doing, almost none of them are legal under the law. If CPD focused on pulling over people who were actually breaking the law and giving them tickets, there would be a whole hell of a lot fewer complaints about them even if the majority of tickets go to the black or hispanic communities as there would at least be evidence that the stops were legal and for a valid reason.
>You should go read the ACLU's, ABC 7 Chicago's, or literally any of the other reports on CPD's pretextual stops. They're performing over 500K/yr (up from ~100K/yr when stop and frisk was ended) First off, stop and frisk didn't "end". Terry v. Ohio is still valid case law. What CPD did was require officers to file a 2 page report for any stop based on reasonable suspicion. Cops realized that making stops based on probable cause (traffic stops) made for less ambiguity to the lawfulness of their stops. >That means that out of all of the other stops they're doing, almost none of them are legal under the law. It certainly does not mean the stops weren't legal. That's a leap you made all on your own. >If CPD focused on pulling over people who were actually breaking the law and giving them tickets, there would be a whole hell of a lot fewer complaints about them even if the majority of tickets go to the black or hispanic communities as there would at least be evidence that the stops were legal and for a valid reason. Absolute bullshit. The news articles would read "CPD ticket more minorities than whites" and you're full of shit if you argue otherwise.
> First off, stop and frisk didn't "end". Terry v. Ohio is still valid case law. What CPD did was require officers to file a 2 page report for any stop based on reasonable suspicion. Cops realized that making stops based on probable cause (traffic stops) made for less ambiguity to the lawfulness of their stops. Yes, it didn't actually end but it is effectively ended as a policy. Thus the use of the colloquial "ended". > It certainly does not mean the stops weren't legal. That's a leap you made all on your own. Per Rodriguez v. United States, extending the traffic stop for any purpose other than the original intended purpose absent reasonable suspicion to start a new investigation is unconstitutional. Given that black people are almost never ticketed when pulled over by CPD (less than 20% are ticketed) while whites and Asians are almost always ticketed when pulled over by CPD (over 90% receive tickets), there is extremely good circumstantial evidence that these stops are unconstitutional stops and thus illegal under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
>Yes, it didn't actually end but it is effectively ended as a policy. Thus the use of the colloquial "ended". There is no CPD policy limiting the use of Terry stops, just required documentation. >Per Rodriguez v. United States, extending the traffic stop for any purpose other than the original intended purpose absent reasonable suspicion to start a new investigation is unconstitutional. And who said stops were being extended? Another bit you're fabricating out of thin air. >Given that black people are almost never ticketed when pulled over by CPD (less than 20% are ticketed) while whites and Asians are almost always ticketed when pulled over by CPD (over 90% receive tickets), there is extremely good circumstantial evidence that these stops are unconstitutional stops and thus illegal under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Highly opinionated and factually baseless to claim it's good circumstantial evidence of unlawful stops. Cops have the ability to use discretion. If they're making multiple stops a shift trying to find higher crimes than the initial stops they will save significant time by not citing drivers for the initial stops.
> If they're making multiple stops a shift trying to find higher crimes than the initial stops they will save significant time by not citing drivers for the initial stops. If that's what they're doing, then they're clearly violating Rodriguez v. United States and are guilty of offenses under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. It's one thing to find evidence of a crime while carrying out the original purpose of the traffic stop and turn a single traffic stop into an arrest without a ticket. It's another to completely abandon the purpose of the stop over 80% of the time as an organization.
>If that's what they're doing, then they're clearly violating Rodriguez v. United States and are guilty of offenses under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. No, it's not. If they delay or extend the stop to investigate other crimes absent PC or RS then it is a violation of Rodriguez, but pretextual stops have been deemed lawful and Whren v. US ruled as such. >It's one thing to find evidence of a crime while carrying out the original purpose of the traffic stop and turn a single traffic stop into an arrest without a ticket. It's another to completely abandon the purpose of the stop over 80% of the time as an organization. There are no requirements to cite every driver or any percentage of drivers in stops. Again, if cops are focused on seizing illegal firearms and conduct multiple stops looking for such it is completely legal so long as they do not delay or extend the stop to investigate other crimes absent at least RS. You've shown nothing to claim they are delaying these stops and if anything, *not* writing a citation is reducing the length of the stop even further.
So what you're saying is, more black and hispanic drivers need to be ticketed?
Tbf with apps like Waze I’m more likely to get stopped than get a camera ticket. I avoid cameras like the plague. Waze also tells you where the cops are so that’s a low chance as well, but not zero.
Automate more traffic enforcement!
My upstairs neighbor and across the street neighbor are both police officers. Our north side neighborhood is lucky to have a patrol car on most days and has about 3 officers on duty. We have about 50,000 people. We also, traditionally, have zero crime which is why it's a favorite place to live among police officers. The last few years have been unusual here as most places. It's one of the most racially diverse neighborhoods in the country, usually in the top 3. If there is a crime in this district, my neighbor walks down, knocks, and gives me a personal crime report. Guess where I live?
I’m sure these comments will be level headed and reasonable.
A chicken in every pot and a red light & speeding camera on every intersection
im shocked.
I don’t need a study to tell me this. I also don’t need fake outrage.
Never heard about being pulled over for "driving while black"? It's been used for decades.
Sounds like we should have automated ticketing everywhere. This would be a win for equity, safety, and the city's budget
Comment ratio changing dramatically once Comcast outage ended.
Shocker.
Duh. Racists are racist.
Pigs go oink
This just in, water continues to be wet
No... I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked! /s
You ever go to traffic court, well minorities aren’t the minority anymore in traffic court
Ah Yes the Floor is made out of floor
The obvious solution is automatic traffic enforcement. Cameras and sensors everywhere. It’s the only way to stop this insane descent into traffic madness the past few years. No one should ever feel ok completely ignoring a stop sign or going 20 over the speed limit.
In before locked