Students fight suspensions targeting young people of color

Thumbs up
Photo by Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez
13 year old Iheem Antone gives a thumbs up before marching to the Board of Education on Tuesday, Oct. 22.

Sagging pants, hats worn indoors, or having a really bad day -- the list of infractions that can get a student suspended from a San Francisco Unified School District school sounds like the daily life of a teenager. The technical term for it is “willful defiance,” and there are so many suspensions made in its name that a student movement has risen up against it. 

The punishment is the first step to derailing a child’s education, opponents said. 

Student activists recognize the familiar path from suspensions to the streets to prisons, and they took to the streets yesterday to push the SFUSD to change its ways. Around 20 or so students and their mentors marched up to City Hall and into the Board of Education to demand a stop of suspensions over willful defiance.

A quarter of all suspensions in SFUSD for the 2011-12 school year were made for “disruption or defiance,” according to the California Department of Education. Half of all suspensions in the state were for defiance. 

When a student is willfully defiant and suspended, it’s seen as a downward spiral as students are pushed out of school and onto the streets, edging that much closer to a life of crime.

“What do we want? COLLEGE! What are we gonna do? WORK HARD!” the students shouted as they marched to the Board of Education’s meeting room, on Franklin Street. 

They were dressed in graduation gowns of many colors, signs raised high. They smiled and danced and the mood was infectious. One driver drove by, honked and said “Yes, alright!” Assorted passersby of all ethnicities cheered on the group.

The students were from 100% College Prep Institute, a Bayview tutoring and mentoring group founded in 1999 aiming to educate students of color in San Francisco. Their battle is a tough one. Though African American students make up only 10 percent of SFUSD students, they accounted for 46 percent of suspensions in 2012, according to SFUSD data. Latinos made up the next largest group, at 30 percent. 

SFUSD suspension data

The SFUSD aims to reduce suspensions of students of color. This chart has been altered for clarity. See it in full here. 

“They suspend you for little things, like not taking off your hat. That happens every day at my school,” said Iheem Antone, a 13-year-old seventh grader at the KIPP Bayview Academy, a charter school in the SFUSD system. 

Antone isn’t all that tall yet, but had a calmness and bearing that made him seem adult.  He argued for the SFUSD to change its policies. 

Notably, KIPP as a charter has its own set of disciplinary rules, but many students there represented many different SFUSD schools.

Kevin Williams, a recent SFSU grad and the organizer of the march, said their grievance wasn’t about whether or not to punish bad behavior, but how that punishment should be carried out. 

“We’re not saying there shouldn’t be repercussions for their actions,” he said. “But [students] shouldn’t miss a day of education for it.”

SFUSD has been listening, said Sandra Lee Fewer, the board of education’s vice president. As the marching students filed into the meeting, Fewer told the Guardian that SFUSD instituted its Restorative Practices program last year to put a halt to suspensions over willful defiance.

Restorative practices substitute punishments with understanding, and suspensions with group discussion. 

“We’re making progress, but we need to do better,” she said, noting that suspensions for students of color are still alarmingly high. Kevin Truitt, associate superintendent of SFUSD, said that the practices would take time to implement, and part of the impasse may be a cultural one. 

“People have to implement it because they want to and understand it will work, not just because they’re told to,” he said, and although he’s confident that will happen, it will also take time. 

Truitt also said that the burden can’t be on the schools alone, and the students will have to modify their behavior. That challenge may also be cultural.

Many students of 100% College Prep Institute have been touched by violence in their communities, said co-founder Jackie Cohen. A school bus driver, she started the institute after she noticed a student stopped riding her bus. When she asked around, she found he fell into what she calls “that life.” So she went looking for him to help change his mind and get him back into school.

“Three days later, I found he was shot and killed,” Cohen said. And her students to this day live in that environment. Truitt said that was one of SFUSD’s biggest challenges. Many of these students are known to have post-traumatic stress disorder, he said, and a normal confrontation can easily escalate into a violent one. The links between neighborhood trauma and childhood PTSD were identified by a Bayview health center.

Truitt told the Guardian that children who have lived in fear, trauma and poverty have a harder time calming down. “It can’t just all be on the schools, we need support,” he said. 

Cohen agreed that it was difficult for everyone involved. “I think they have the right intentions, I’m not going to down them for trying,” she said. But  when you have such a high proportion of students of color suspended, she said, something is clearly not working. 

In a document titled “Vision: College and Career Ready with 21st Century Skills,” SFUSD laid out a plan to have suspensions of African American students down to 40 percent of all suspensions by 2015, down from 46 percent. 

Lofty goals indeed. 

To give credit where credit is due, there are a lot of considerations when implementing restorative justice, and resistance. A state bill that would bar suspensions over willful defiance stalled last month before reaching Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. AB420, was authored by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D- Sacramento), and one of his aides told the Guardian that Dickinson needed more time to reach out to the education community about alternatives to suspension. 

Local education activist group Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth pushed hard for the measure, and though they had a representative present and provided statistics to 100% College Prep, their group's small presence at the march was peculiar. 

The college prep students marched into the Board of Education and made themselves heard, decrying the disproportionate number of suspensions of students of color as unjust. 

Despite all the challenges facing him, Antone, the seventh grader, was optimistic.

“I’m a math kind of guy,” he said. But someday, he told the Guardian, he’ll be the new San Francisco District Attorney. 

Why the DA? “I don’t know, it just seems like an interesting job,” he said, and smiled. 

Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth has a community meeting on SFUSD suspensions planned for Oct. 29, from 5-7pm. For more information go to


Of course, they could instead focus on their school work and leave their styling for the week-ends.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 4:19 pm

If they're being disruptive, that's one thing. But even that... I have a feeling that the same behaviors that would get a preppy white kid sent to the principal's office for a couple hours, might get a Black or Latino kid suspended or arrested. There's no denying that double standards do exist.

As for the fashion, that's a separate issue. If they're wearing baggy pants but not hurting anyone, just leave them the hell alone! It's not the job of the school to be the fashion police.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

Agreed. Yes. Muchas Gracias.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 10:10 pm
Posted by glkhj on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 9:01 am
Posted by racer x on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:34 am

I have an anecdote to share the helps illustrate a simple point: If students are treated as if people expect something from them, then these students generally meet these expectations. If instead students are treated as if they cannot be expected to follow the rules and perform well in class, then they won't. If the adults who are supposed to be the students mentors and role models act as if they don't care, then the students won't care either.

My father retired a couple of years ago. Prior to retiring, he taught for almost 45 years at an inner-city public high school where the majority of students were African-American, and the next largest group were Hispanic (non-white). My dad simply treated his students as if they were competent individuals who should be held to high expectations and face the consequences if they didn't meet these expectations.

My father once told a story of a student who during the first day of class stood up and walked off to stare out the window and then started talking loudly while my dad was trying to teach. Prior to the start of school that year, the school administration had told my dad, and I am not making this up, that because of this particular student's social and cultural upbringing, he needed to be allowed to roam around freely and express himself. My dad simply responded that the student would not be "expressing" himself in a disruptive manner in his classroom. When the student stood up and started being disruptive, my dad told him to sit down, and when the young man gave my dad the spiel that he had been fed by the school administration about how he had to be allowed to stand up and roam around freely, my dad told him to get over it and pay attention. It was probably the first time in the student's life that someone had set a boundary. Quite unsurprisingly, the student resisted a bit, but then happily complied with my father's direction. He never stood up to roam around the class again. He understood my dad cared enough to expect something more from him then excuses for bad behavior, and he was glad to show that he could actually be a good student.

Enough with the excuses about fictional "preppy white kids" (for one thing, you have never been to a school recently if you think there are still "preppy" kids running around). Instead, students need to be taught about what is acceptable and what is not. And, yes, it is most certainly the job of teachers to be fashion police if students are dressing in a disrespectful or sloppy manner--if it wouldn't fly on the job (and it won't at most jobs), then it shouldn't be allowed in the classroom. You only set young adults up for a rude awakening and failure when they discover they are unemployable because you have allowed them to get away with bad habits and behavior that simply is not tolerated in the work place.

Nonetheless, you are correct that there is often a double standard for black and Latino kids, though it isn't applied in the way you think. The double standard applied is that black and Latino kids are often expected to perform below white kids, and children of all ethnicities from lower income households are often expected to perform below children from wealthier households. These lower expectations are outside of any legitimate reasons for poorer performance, such as poorer nutrition, etc. There is simply the idea that "these sort of kids" cannot be expected to do well, period. What a terrible disservice this message is to these children! Even worse, this message is often taught by people who think they are helping these children. The message that needs to be sent instead is that every child is worthy of high expectations.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 12:05 am

that entire authoritarian concept of "schooling" in the first place, is actually the best way to help children learn

try reading The Underground History Of American Education at:

and then tell us all how beneficial it really is for teachers to "school" children on the profoundly important dilemma of what clothes they should wear (or anything else for that matter)

Posted by racer x on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 12:22 am


Posted by glk on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 9:05 am


Posted by tkhjfkdhj on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:35 am

Racer, you and I apparently have some common ground and some philosphical differencers. You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't see either one of us persuading the other that we are correct on the issues that we disagree on. So, I guess we can agree to disagree and move on.

And, yes, my true story is a nice one, and the young man discussed in it remains in contact with my father to this day. He greatly appreciated having someone care enough about him to treat him like a competent individual who was capable of success instead of a person only destined for failure.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:45 am

who so misunderstands and actually corrects another for purposely using the word "schooling" as way to refocus the debate around the concept

drop your misplaced, mistaken, and presumptive ivory tower academic arrogance

and maybe we can find some common ground

Posted by racer さ on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:56 am

Racer, you have an agenda and a particular ideology you want to advocate. Good for you, but I don't buy in to it, or at least I disagree with a substantial portion of your views. I don't think we disagree about everything, which is why I said we probably share some common ground. But, we do seem to disagree about many things.

I don't care if you think I am "misplaced," "mistaken," or "arrogant." I don't visit the SFBG to look for friends or seek approval---I don't have that agenda when I visit any news site. I visit this site to keep up with local news and current events and to share my opinion on various subjects. You can agree with me or not, just as I can agree with you, or as in the case, not agree with you.

I believe I am correct in my opinion, as I am sure you believe you are correct in your own. I understand that you were purposefully using the word "schooling" to make a point, but I disagree with your point, which is why I correct you and said it is called "educating." I don't agree with what you were trying to imply with your use of the word "schooling," nor do I agree with you about the agenda you allege has historically existed in public education.

I am not sure why you are whining about "ivory towers," as I am not an academic, nor am I trying to pretend to be one. You sound much like a far-right crank who gets angry with a critic and rather than responding to the substance of what the other person said instead accuses that person of being an "academic elite," or some other such nonsense. In short, I think you are being silly, but so be it.

With that, I think we can leave it with agreeing to disagree and move on.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:20 am

and what i'm talking about is breaking out of an ideology - read the book....

Posted by vklihol on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 3:00 am

please STFU, take this hippie bullshit and go back to the flyover state you were kicked out of for smelling bad and smoking too much pot. Seriously, if you really believe this, you need to be neutered so you don't reproduce you idiot. time to thin the herd, loser.

Posted by Joseph Stalin's Grandson on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 2:12 pm

would care to elaborate with an actual argument?

that is, if you are capable of doing so....

which i doubt

Posted by gdlk on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 2:27 pm

predictable ;)

Posted by pjhdfjh on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

"Enough with the excuses about fictional "preppy white kids" (for one thing, you have never been to a school recently if you think there are still "preppy" kids running around)."

You must not get out much---spend too much time on message forums trolling?---as there are plenty of "preppy kids" especially at private schools (Roman Catholic, for example as well as Anglican: Cathedral School for Boys). You really shouldn't speak with such authority about something you know nothing about.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 1:54 am

when black and brown folks get tazed for how they dress

Posted by gl on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 9:06 am
Posted by fkjhdf on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:48 am

I was referring to inner-city public schools, which is what this article is about. You are really veering off topic by bringing up private and parochial schools. There are few, if any, "preppy" students of any color in public schools. And, yes, I do speak with authority on that subject because I am familiar with SF and other Bay Area public schools.

Also, I am not trolling "Guest." I am Chris, and I live on Mission Street here in SF, and I stand by my opinions. It's rather funny to have someone who hides under the handle "Guest" and spouts off a lot of crap accuse other people of trolling. In case you don't have an urban dictionary handy, trolling is when someone goes on to an online discussion forum just for the purpose of being disruptive and engaging in flame wars, and trolling is usually done by an anonymous party. Just because you don't happen to like or agree with what I write doesn't mean I am trying to be disruptive to the purpose of this discussion forum or incite a flame war. People are not obligated to write what you agree with, and just because they write things you disagree with does not mean they are trolling. However, what is lost on you (or perhaps you are aware of it and just a hypocrite) is that you are trolling because you aren't interested in having a debate so much as you are interested in engaging in straw man arguments and making silly accusations.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:31 am


Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 4:19 am


Posted by ulkhdfg on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 9:09 am



Posted by fkjh on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:50 am
Posted by fkjhd on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:49 am

The kids these days! Spare the rod, spoil the child, I say. And another thing... get off my lawn!

Ok... back to today's reality. Chris, what does fashion have to do with academics?

Posted by Greg on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 8:17 am


and etiquette training

not true learning

that happens in spite of the


Posted by ulkhdfg on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 9:12 am

as fashion statement

Posted by fkj on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 10:51 am

Schools do not, and have never, simply taught academics. They teach young people values and standards. How you dress affects how other people view you, and it also impacts your ability to get and keep a job. Also, certain manners of dressing, if too revealing, can under both state and federal anti-harrassment law contribute to a hostile learning environment for which a school district can be held legally liable (just as an employer can be held legally liable for creating or tolerating a hostile work environment).

Neither I nor anyone else is arguing that Heidi Klum come to the local public school and critique the kids's attire. Rather, I am simply saying that it is appropriate for a school to expect students to maintain minimum standards of dress, and to discipline students who refuse to comply with these standards. And, no, neither I nor anyone else is arguing for someone to be jailed for sloppy dress. Rather, it should be just this simple, "Hi Jack, you need to pull your pants up so your underwear isn't showing." "Okay, Ms. Smith, sorry, it won't happen again." That is how things should work, and when they don't work that way, then progressively stronger disciplinary measures need to be taken.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:39 am

"Schools...teach young people values and standards."


Parents/guardians teach values and standards, not schools which is why people in the same school have different values and standards because of their parents/guardians. In your fantasy world, if the school taught values and standards then you would have lockstep among the students having all been taught the same values and standards, but that's not the case. Where do you come up with this shit?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 1:49 am

Hi Anonymous Troll,

How is life in your mom's basement in Modesto working out? It's probably a little stuffy down there, you should come up for air from time to time.

To answer your question, I come up with this "shit" from my own understanding of how life works, I was taught some of my values and standards by my own teachers, and this supplemented the values and standars I instilled in me by my parents, other family members, and other adults in my community.

I am not advocating that everyone think or act in "lockstep," and I think you are not so dumb to believe that is my position. Rather, I believe you just want to be a contrary troll. (Or, who knows? Maybe, you ARE that dumb).

So, honey, troll away, troll. I get you don't agree with me, or rather, you just like arguing and spouting off crap. But, I am going to keep stating my opinion on my own terms, and you can keep trolling. The fact that I have a troll who wants to waste part of his or her day trolling me must mean I am doing something right.

Now, back to the real issue: Again, I think it is both appropriate and important for school teachers and administrators to teach values and standards, and I am glad they do it, and I will continue to support them in doing so.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 9:51 am

I do think the focus in the comments on just the issue of attire is purposefully oversimplifying the issue of school discipline. Students are being discipline for their attitudes, not simply because they happen to dress in a certain way.

That said, just to pick on one dress style that seems to be mentioned a lot in the comments, the sagging pants look, I want to make the point that "today's" students are no different from "yesterday's" students. Nearly 30 years ago, when I was in school the hip hop sagging pants look was in style. (Maybe that's the solution, just show students pictures of all the "old" folks wearing the same clothes, and then the students will immediately stop wearing them.) It's not something foreign or new to me, but I think that just as we got corrected back then for dressing that way, it is appropriate to ask contemporary students to maintain minimum standards in their attire. It is a far cry from simply having minimum dress standards to requiring that everyone wear a school uniform.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 1:04 am

a lot like "corrections") back in the day, but who refused to change their clothes styles, are now all a bunch of jobless losers


of course not

wearing clothes that adults complain about is in kids' DNA

its part of their assertion of self determination

and it passes.

Posted by vklihol on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 3:42 am

Are you saying that you beat your wife on Tuesdays? In other words, are we going to play rhetorical tricks, or are we going to actually have an intellectual discussion/debate?

I think you are smart enough to know what I wrote. Nowhere did I imply that a student who simply misbehaves at some point in his or her life automatically grows up to become a "jobless loser." My point was that students who misbehave need discipline. (As for The Corrections, it is a great novel by Jonathan Franzen. If you haven't read it, check it out).

And, yes, I do think discipline helps students who are going down the wrong path, or who could potentially go down the wrong path, to right things and avoid growing up to be a "jobless loser," or some other sort of dysfunctional adult.

Yes, kids do a lot of things that adults don't like. And, no, you cannot, nor should you try, to control everything. However, adults do need to set certain boundaries, including with respect to how a kid dresses in certain situations, which includes how they dress at school. Kids, including myself at one time, act out because they WANT boundaries to define themselves against. Part of the rebellion process involves pushing boundaries and learning what lines one should and should not cross, and growing into ones' self. If there are no lines, then the process of self-determination is short-circuited and kids grow up into unhappy adults who don't have a clear sense of self and who don't know how to function well in society.

In any event, you and some other posters seem to have made this all about attire. Again, students are being discplined for being disruptive in class and/or disrespectful toward their teachers, not because they simply forgot to tuck in their shirt.

In any event, I have stated my position, and it is not changing. I believe I am correct, and I am sure you believe you are correct in your position. So, I think we are at an impasse. Nice discussing things with you, but I've said my piece, and I am sticking to it.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 10:07 am

That's the bottom line. No one but no one is making the argument that students who are disruptive should be disciplined. I would just add "equally" to that, because we need to face the reality that there is a double standard for whites, for children of high SES background, and yes my fellow progressives, for girls vs. boys (I know, heresy, but when I say "equal" I mean "equal").

That aside, the real sticking point is fashion. You can get suspended for MERELY wearing the wrong clothes, even if you're not disruptive, and that is wrong.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 10:34 am

So schools should prepare their kids for the real world.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:24 pm

In the real world there are many different kinds of jobs. Some with dress codes, some without. Students can figure out what to wear later. In the meantime, the school should be fostering individuality, not blind conformity. It's not the school's job to adopt one particular dress code and enforce it on everybody, under penalty of suspension no less!

Not wearing the right kind of clothes? You're Suspended! No school for you then. That'll teach ya!

Incidentally... part of my education was at an institution that imposed a dress code. Precisely for the reason that the institution felt that it fostered professionalism. For me, the dress code had the opposite effect. I might have dressed the way many in my profession dress at work had it not been for the dress code, but the dress code left such a bad taste in my mouth that I stopped wearing those clothes the moment I graduated, and to this day I refuse to dress that way. And you know what? It hasn't stopped me from being successful in the slightest way.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

Greg, at least as far as I understand, no one is being suspended for simply wearing the "wrong" clothes once, or even twice. And, I would be quite surprised if SF teachers really have that much leisure time to go around taking people to the principal's office over just one or two minor infractions (my dad certainly didn't have time for that when he taught). In fact, I went to college with and have remained friends with the principal of Burton High School, who is African-American, and he certainly is not running around suspending anyone willy-nilly.

Rather, my understanding is that certain individuals know there are rules about dress and being respectful toward others, and they willfully choose to violate these rules again and again until they face suspension. If you choose to keep violating standards that apply to everyone, then you are sending the message that you are above everyone else, which is neither fair nor appropriate. People who keep breaking the rules need to face consequences. Yes, all rules, and all laws for that matter, should be applied fairly (And, is anyone arguing that rules should be applied unfairly? No, they are not). Also, yes, the response for rule breaking should be measured. However, at some point if an individual is going to willfully continue to break the rules, then suspension is quite appropriate.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

That's two fat paragraphs of mushy-mouthed gobbledygook to distract from the bottom line fact that you do, in fact, get suspended for wearing clothes that don't conform to arbitrarily contrived standards.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 4:21 pm

Greg, there is nothing "mushy-mouthed" about what I wrote. If you need help with word usage, then invest in a dictionary. Each time I respond to your wild accusations and silly arguments with a substantive response, your fall back seems to be to resort to silly criticisms and attempts at distraction. Generally, when someone takes the tact you do, it simply means they cannot make an argument on its merits.

Yes, students are disciplined for breaking rules about attire, but no one is simply suspended for once or twice coming to school in violation of the rules. What they are suspended for is willfully and repeatedly violating the dress code, and most likely other sorts of violations on top of that. I don't care if the rule is "don't chew gum in class," if you repeatedly violate a rule, then you need to be held accountable for it. And, as I wrote in my last comment, if you repeatedly violate a rule and get suspended, then ultimately, you are being suspense for your attitude of disrespect and sense of entitlement to be held to a different standard than everyone else. There is nothing arbitrary about enforcing standards that apply to all students.

I don't support suspending any student simply over one, two, or necessarily even three minor rule violations. But, I whole-heartedly support suspension when a student demonstrates a continuing pattern of flagrant disregard for a rule that applies to every other student. I don't care if you disagree. I am stating my opinion, and it will not change. I am not trying to get you to change your opinion, and you aren't interested in having an intellectual discussion in any event. I am doing what everyone else is doing on this message board, which is offering my own point of view. And, I believe I am correct, just as I am sure you believe you are right.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 7:45 am

Student do regularly get sent home for wearing gang colors and associated wear - does anyone think this provokes violence when other gang members see it? Stop picking on people who dress in gang outfits. It's just clothes, right?

Posted by Richmondman on Nov. 01, 2013 @ 11:01 am
Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2013 @ 11:22 am

Your argument is akin to the argument made by other conservatives who say women provoke rape by wearing suggestive clothes. I don't agree with that line of reasoning. I say punish the violence, not the clothes that allegedly "provoke" it. If part of the job of schools is to teach kids to be responsible adults, then a good place to start is to teach them not to start fights because they don't like what someone else is wearing. Prohibiting the fashion itself just kicks the can down the road.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 01, 2013 @ 11:22 am

between various appearances and behaviors, which have led to an entire specialty wining law enforcement called "profiling" i.e. the idea that some seemingly unrelated factors can help prevent and solve crimes.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2013 @ 11:46 am

"misbehaving" which requires "discipline"

unfortunately shows that you have already drunk the coolade of authoritarian, thought-police style thinking, and are, at this point unreachable with reason

probably because as you were raised in school you became captive to it yourself

hopefully one day you'll wake to the reality that restriction of basic freedom does not bring security

do you also think that a muslim child child should be allowed to wear to school a shirt with words in arabic printed on it?

finally, you didn't actually answer the question which was:

how many of your fellow students who wore baggy pants to school back in the day, are failures?

Posted by blkihjokihy on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 11:30 am

Anyone in law enforcement can tell you that those who commit crimes exhibit certain tendencies and behaviors and characteristics which, while not necessarily having any direct bearing to committing a crime, nonetheless bear a non-zero correlation.

These indicators can therefore be good indicators of criminals. LE officers develop this instinct through experience but it can be derived simply thru observing correlations.

The entire science of profiling is based on this.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 11:46 am

in hoodies commit crimes so they should be profiled. Their economic status is meaningless. If a cop or vigilante kills them, so what? They might be innocent today, but they would definitely commit a crime tomorrow or the next day.

That's what you mean, right?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 11:57 am

correlations that enable LE officers to be more efficient in apprehending criminals.

Stopping white grandmothers wearing twin-sets and pearls in Marin isn't going to catch a lot of felons.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

Or at least their thieving banker sons and daughters.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:29 pm

crime rate is the same for, say, young black males as it is for old white women?

I can see why you're not in LE.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:35 pm

trivial details like presumption of innocence and actual evidence to establish reasonable suspicion.

You are more of the kill 'em first and let god sort them out type. If it's brown, shoot em down.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.