Bc just served up a dose of reality
No, he didn't. Like usual, he and others on your side have no idea what you are talking about and bullshit your way with false comments. Here, let me help . . .
That, or maybe the fact that non-whites commit a far higher percentage of crimes than white people, and is the reason why white people draw less suspicion than non-whites.
That is entirely false. According to the FBI published statistics, there were 8.2 million arrests in the U.S. in 2015 where race was documented. Of those 8.2, 5.7 million were arrests of whites. So, no, non-whites do not commit a higher percentage of crimes than whites (at least based on arrests).
Now, the FBI doesn't classify Hispanics or Latinos as non-whites. That skews the numbers. But the 2015 FBI report has only about 1.3 million Hispanic arrests. Even with those deducted from the white total, whites still commit more crimes.
If by "non-whites" you intended to say blacks, you would still be wrong. If you are aiming to say that blacks have a higher crime rate, you'd be correct. In 2015, the black population was about 14% in the U.S. while they committed about 26% of crimes. But that isn't what you said.
You didn't just get it wrong, you also drastically got it wrong by using "far higher" in your alternative fact.
Now that we have your incorrect bullshit out of the way, lets look at it more.
You say that blacks draw more suspicion simply for being black, since blacks have a higher crime rate (which as I have explained, is entirely different than committing more crimes in total). Lets dumb this down some, shall we?
Assume 100 cars with white occupants pass a police officer. Assume 10 are in violation of a law (misdemeanor and/or felony). Assume only 1 car is pulled over out of the 100. How likely are any of the 10 criminals likely to be caught?
Assume 100 cars with black occupants pass a police officer. Assume 20 are in violation of a law (misdemeanor and/or felony). Assume only 20 of the cars are pulled over out of the 100.
I am sure you can see that profiling also results in blacks being arrested more than whites; not just because they have a higher crime rate, but also because they are stopped more. Check out the NYC stop-and-frisk policy which went on for many years. If you're a white criminal, you have a far less likely chance of getting stopped than a black criminal. As a result, arrest rates will reflect an even higher disproportionate percentage for blacks than who the actual criminals are.
The most important part of all of this is that our criminal justice system is not supposed to be based on race. Yet, based on your own statement, that is exactly what is happening. Blacks are being looked at suspiciously more than whites, hence, resulting in a disproportionate number of stops/arrests. If whites were stopped at a similar rate, the numbers would be closer. Due non-white commit more crimes than whites? No. Do blacks commit more crimes than whites? No. Do blacks commit more crimes per capita? Yes. Are blacks stopped at a much higher rate per capita? Yes. As a result, the already higher crime rate is exposed and manipulated even more.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why inner-city Chicago has the crime rate it does, while a place like Putnam County in West Virginia is a fantastic place to raise a family.
This shows ignorance and lack of world experience.
The crime you hear/read about in Chicago isn't paralyzing the city. It is within certain neighborhoods in the city. I would much rather raise a family in Chicago than Putnam County, West Virginia . . . and it isn't even close.
But how about looking at what you were implying:
Chicago has a black population of about 33%.
Putnam County has a black population of about 1%.
Chicago has a white population of about 31%.
Putnam County has a white population of about 97%.
There isn't set crime data just for Putnam County that I can find. But in looking at cities like Hurricane, Winfield, etc., you'll see that their crime rates for property aren't much different than Chicago. You'll see violent crime 2-3 times higher in Chicago, but as I mentioned, much of that is limited to small areas in the city where your cracker-ass wouldn't be wandering.
For the huge disparity of whites and non-whites between two areas, your theory isn't holding up at all.