The place is Sanford, Florida and the time is Now! Police Chief Bill Lee just like Trayvon Martin was in the wrong place at the wrong time! Chief Bill Lee became chief only 10 months ago to turn around a police department which had a terrible reputation when it came to treatment of Blacks and it's double standard criminal justice system. Maybe, just possibly he was making head way and was sincerely doing something to make changes within the Sanford Police Department. The only problem was that he would find himself smack dab in the wrong place at the wrong time. What it is that is WRONG is the utter denial when it comes to race relations!
There are those who believe that just because so called African-Americans/Blacks do not make their complaints about racism, prejudice, and ill treatment heard out loud and outside of their own kind that there is no real problem when it comes to race relations. I'll assume that they figure that they should simply put up with it and live their lives as last class citizens. It is only when we make a fuss about it that they notice us. As long as we remain quiet they will continue to treat us with no respect.
For some illogical reason Blacks are perceived to be more than likely involved in criminal activity and/or in possession of contraband. This causes Blacks to be stopped and searched at a much higher rate than other groups. To many, even some blacks because they do not have the proper data, it seems to be the right thing to do. Actually this is wrong!!
In Minnesota there was a study conducted. Look at what they determined: "Law enforcement officers stopped Black, Latino, and American Indian drivers at greater rates than White drivers, searched Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at greater rates than White drivers, and found contraband as a result of searches of Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at lower rates than in searches of White drivers. Conversely, law enforcement officers stopped and searched White drivers at lower rates than drivers of color and found contraband in searches of White drivers at a greater rate than in searches of drivers of color."
SANFORD, Fla. — Several hours after the city manager publicly announced that he had reached an agreement with Chief Bill R. Lee Jr. to resign over the Sanford Police Department’s handling of theTrayvon Martin shooting case, the City Commission voted late Monday afternoon to reject Chief Lee’s resignation.
Mayor Jeff Triplett was among a 3-to-2 majority of commissioners to vote “no confidence” in Chief Lee last month, prompting him to temporarily step aside. But during a special meeting Monday to consider Chief Lee’s future, Mr. Triplett was clearly torn amid a spirited debate punctuated with applause and standing ovations from backers of the chief in the audience.
In the end, Mr. Triplett voted in favor of Chief Lee’s remaining in the department, once again as part of a 3-to-2 majority. He said he wanted to review the reports of an independent investigation about the Police Department’s handling of the case before making a decision.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Chief Lee announced his decision to step down temporarily in March, with the city manager, Norton N. Bonaparte Jr., looking on.
“I am not ready to have him come back and run the Police Department,” Mr. Triplett said. “But I am not ready for this, either.”
According to a copy of the agreement, Chief Lee acknowledged no wrongdoing. In the three-page document, he explained that he was resigning at the suggestion of the city manager, Norton N. Bonaparte Jr., “solely to allow the city to move beyond recent events.”
The agreement said Chief Lee would receive several lump-sum payments on May 4, including one equal to 98 and one-quarter days of pay and one for 217 hours of accrued leave. Mr. Bonaparte said in a brief interview Monday night that the agreement would have been worth $54,000 to Chief Lee.
Chief Lee stepped aside on March 22, after just 10 months in the job, amid local protests and a national uproar that raised questions about why the Sanford police did not immediately arrest George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, for shooting and killing Mr. Martin on Feb. 26. Mr. Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old, had been walking through a gated development where Mr. Zimmerman, 28 and Hispanic, lived and where Mr. Martin was staying as a guest.
Early Monday, Mr. Zimmerman, who was charged with murder by a special prosecutor, was released from jail on a $150,000 bond. His whereabouts remained a secret — he may be outside Florida — because of death threats, his lawyer said.
Before the commission voted, Mr. Bonaparte said that “the city has experienced great turmoil in the past two months” and that “we are hoping to stabilize the department and continue with this time of healing.”
With the Sanford City Commission rejecting the separation agreement, Mr. Bonaparte, who has been on the job only since September, said Chief Lee would remain on administrative leave, and on the payroll, while the city conducted a national search for an interim police chief and pursued an independent investigation. In the meantime, Capt. Darren Scott will remain the acting chief.
Patty Mahany, a city commissioner who voted against the resignation agreement, praised Chief Lee during the debate, saying he was one of the finest law enforcement officials in Florida. “At least the city has taken a step back and a deep breath,” she said, insisting that the storm around the case was driven by outsiders.
Velma H. Williams, the only black member of the City Commission, voted in favor of the resignation. She said her lack of confidence in the chief was largely based on the department’s handling of the investigation, saying it “brought national shame to this city.”
Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for the Martin family, said, “If Chief Bill Lee had recognized that his resignation would help start the healing process in Sanford, city leadership should have accepted it in an effort to move the city forward.”
Serge F. Kovaleski reported from Sanford, and Jennifer Preston from New York.
Minnesota Statewide Racial Profiling Report- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A basic pattern emerges from our analysis of traffic stop data collected by the sixty-five law
enforcement jurisdictions that voluntarily participated in this racial profiling study:
Law enforcement officers stopped Black, Latino, and American Indian drivers at greater rates
than White drivers, searched Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at greater rates than White
drivers, and found contraband as a result of searches of Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at
lower rates than in searches of White drivers. Conversely, law enforcement officers stopped and
searched White drivers at lower rates than drivers of color and found contraband in searches of
White drivers at a greater rate than in searches of drivers of color.
These disparities are particularly large for Blacks and Latinos. If officers in the participating
jurisdiction had stopped drivers of all racial/ethnic groups at the same rate, approximately 18,800
fewer Blacks, 5,800 fewer Latinos and approximately 22,500 more Whites would have been
stopped in the sixty-five jurisdictions in 2002. If officers in the participating had subjected
stopped drivers of all racial/ethnic groups to discretionary searches at the same rate, 2,114 fewer
Blacks, 428 fewer Latinos and 2,645 more Whites would have been searched.
The pattern for Blacks and Latinos existed in nearly every participating jurisdiction. Whites
were stopped at a greater than expected rate in only 8 of the 60 jurisdictions having enough stops
to determine statistical significance. On the other hand, Blacks were over-stopped in every
jurisdiction but one and Latinos were over-stopped in all but 5 of the 43 jurisdictions in which
statistical significance could be determined. Similarly, in all but 2 of the 37 jurisdictions in
which there were discretionary searches of Blacks and Whites, Blacks were subjected to searches
at a higher rate than Whites. Latinos were subjected to these searches at a higher rate than
Whites in all of the jurisdictions in which there were discretionary searches of Latinos.
These disparities in discretionary search rates are particularly troubling given the rates at which
contraband was found as a result of these searches, i.e. the hit rates. Overall, 24% of
discretionary searches of Whites produced contraband compared to only 11% of searched of
Blacks and 9% of searches of Latinos. In the 37 jurisdictions where discretionary searches of
both Blacks and Whites occurred, the hit rate was higher for Whites in 30 of the jurisdictions. In
31 of the 44 jurisdictions where there were discretionary searches of both Whites and Latinos the
hit rate was higher for Whites.
The greatest relative differences between actual and expected stops and searches for Blacks are
found in suburban cities and central cities other than Minneapolis. In the suburban cities of
Fridley, New Hope, Plymouth, Sauk Rapids, and Savage combined, Blacks were stopped about
310% more often than expected. Once stopped, officers subjected Blacks to discretionary
searches at a rate 108% greater than expected even though only 11% of Blacks were found in
possession of contraband compared to 18% of Whites searched. In absolute terms,
approximately 1,800 fewer Blacks would have been stopped in these suburban cities if Blacks
had been stopped at the same rate as other drivers. If Blacks stopped in these cities had been
subjected to discretionary searches at the same rate as other drivers, 108 fewer Blacks would
have been searched.2
In the central cities of Moorhead, Saint Cloud, and Rochester combined, Blacks were stopped
239% more often than expected and searched 68% more often than expected. 21% of searches
of Blacks in these jurisdictions produced contraband compared to 30% of searches of Whites. In
absolute terms this equates to about 1,600 more stops than expected and 29 more searches than
expected.
The greatest stop and search disparities for Latinos are also found in the suburban cities. The
combined stop rate for Latinos in these jurisdictions was 170% greater than expected and the
combined search rate was 190% greater than expected. Only 9% of searches of Latinos
produced contraband compared to 18% of searches of Whites. In absolute terms, officers in
these jurisdictions stopped 640 more Latinos than they would have if Latinos had been stopped
at the same rate as all drivers. If Latinos stopped in these cities had been subjected to
discretionary searches at the same rate as other drivers, 80 fewer Latinos would have been
searched.
The largest absolute differences between actual and expected stops and searches for Blacks and
Latinos were found in Minneapolis, the largest jurisdiction participating in this study with the
highest number of traffic stops. In Minneapolis, Blacks were stopped 152% more often than
expected and once stopped, subjected to discretionary searches 52% more often than expected.
11% of searches of Blacks produced contraband compared to 13% of searches of Whites. If
Minneapolis officers had stopped Blacks at the same rate as other drivers approximately 12,804
fewer Blacks would have been stopped in Minneapolis in 2002. If Blacks stopped in
Minneapolis had been subjected to discretionary searches at the same rate as all stopped drivers,
1,053 fewer Blacks would have been searched.
Minneapolis officers stopped Latinos 63% more often than expected and once stopped, subjected
Latinos to discretionary searches 15% more often than expected. If Minneapolis officers had
stopped Latinos at the same rate as all drivers approximately 2,200 fewer Latinos would have
been stopped in Minneapolis in 2002. Only 5% of searches of Latinos produced contraband. If
Latinos stopped in Minneapolis had been subjected to discretionary searches at the same rate as
other drivers, 82 fewer Latinos would have been searched.
These patterns suggest a strong likelihood that racial/ethnic bias plays a role in traffic stop
policies and practices in Minnesota. The same is true for the searches that result from these
stops. Taken together, these patterns warrant serious examination. It is fair to conclude that the
problems that they suggest are not isolated to a handful of jurisdictions or present only in those
jurisdictions that chose to participate in this study.
Although there is more variation in results for American Indian drivers across jurisdictions, data
for this group also raise concerns of bias. Across all jurisdictions, American Indians were
stopped at a slightly greater rate than Whites (9.2% compared to 8.3%). Once stopped,
American Indians were subjected to discretionary searches over three times as often as Whites
(9.6% compared to 3.1%) even though contraband was found at a lower rate in discretionary
searches of American Indians (19.7%) than of Whites (23.5%).3
As is more fully discussed in the full report, there are limitations to our estimates of the driving
population, used to calculate the number of “expected” stops for each racial/ethnic group, that
should be considered when interpreting these results. The estimate of the driving population
used here was the driving age population of the jurisdiction. Thus, it includes people who are
old enough to drive but do not do so. Nor does it account for differences in driving habits or
vehicle condition across households. The estimate includes only residents of the jurisdiction
whereas the actual driving population in a jurisdiction includes non-residents, and as a result, so
does the stopped population. Because search and hit rates are determined using only the data
recorded by law enforcement officers, they are not subject to the same limitations.
View entire study click http://www.irpumn.org/uls/resources/projects/aggregate%20report%2092303.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment