Hacker News Reader

Comment by PraetorianGourd | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if there has been any research into what motivates an officer to approach a traffic stop in a specific way. I don’t want to jump straight to racism because not every encounter with a Black motorist included the more aggressive posturing.

When I’ve been pulled over, the officer spends some time in their car, I assume running my plates and the such. Perhaps past convictions or warrants influence the tone of subsequent interactions? Even so, it seems a good standard would be to always immediately mention the reason for the stop.

View on HN

When we're talking about 1% of white motorists experiencing an escalation vs 15% of black motorists it's hard to not see a racial element. Whether or not it's intentional is frankly besides the point.

I agree a good standard would be to require mentioning the reason for the stop, but more importantly ending things like qualified immunity. There's zero accountability. Who polices the police?

I would want to see the data by income or other socioeconomic factors, in addition to race.

And it can still be racism in that racism explains economic disparity to a degree. My intent isn’t to absolve racism from being primarily responsible.

Black motorists are also much likely to be pulled over, even in situations where police do not see the race of the person they are pulling over. Or when the officer is black.

I don't think anyone is denying the racial element, but it's easier for me to see it as a symptom of intergenerational poverty and disenfranchisement rather than systemic malpractice from individual officers.

In this case, I wouldn't want to downplay the progress we have made on policing the police. The only reason this study exists at all is because of the proliferation and availability of police body camera footage. That's a big win for everybody.

> I don’t want to jump straight to racism because not every encounter

That's a pretty high bar. Instead of "every encounter" being the bar, shouldn't the bar be "more often than the general population" or "more often than members not of this race"?

What if members of a particular race are more likely, on average, to drive in a way that would merit a more aggressive response from police? Disparity does not necessarily imply discrimination.

They probably get shot more on average for doing so.

Yeah what if a little racism is good actually!

Do you hear yourself.

What if members of a particular race are more likely...

I would advise caution with that phrase. Having grown up in a, shall we say, less enlightened area of the U. S., that phrase was the prefix to many a racist statement that I heard in my younger years. I'll assume, of course, that your intent is to just have a pleasant online conversation on the topic at hand.

I grew up in possibly the single most "enlightened" area of the US. I won't deny that there were many advantages, but there was strong cognitive dissonance too. People say they are accepting and tolerant, and they genuinely believe it, and act on it. But they also spend a lot of money to live, and send their kids to school, far away from, shall we say, certain populations. Out of sight, out of mind…

I can think of plenty of reasons, like driving behavior vs expired plates or headlight out vs stolen car or bolo or plates matching person with warrant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com