And nowhere have I said a word about only giving race when non-white.  Nor did I see anything about that other than in your fevered imagination.  You are beating a dead horse here.  Check out the rioting at the Wisconsin State Fair or the wilding in Greenwich Village.  At the Wisconsin State Fair the race was mentioned but only because it was the obvious reason for the rioting in the first place.  In the case of the wilding in Greenwich Village race was not mentioned in the majority of the reports so what should people be wary of if they go to the Village for the evening.  I think race should be mentioned in all cases where descriptions of criminals are put out there.  What good is giving height and weight when you have no idea as to what the race of the individual is when you are looking for people to call the cops.  Yet your point appears to be that if all the cases are from blacks and you report that all cases involve blacks then this is by definition bias and race should not be mentioned.  Ludicrous.

Where have I defended criminals? The point is that including an imperfect description of race ONLY when the alleged criminal is not White is de facto bias – and reinforces the beliefs some have that only “those people” commit crimes.

All while you continue to ignore the other underlying problem, the victim descriptions of “race” are often less than accurate.

And what does that have to do with the crimes committed.  Do your statistics supposedly excuse the criminals?  Not in my book they don’t.  I can learn all about the problems with the criminals but that does not solve the problem of the crimes they commit.  Should I forget the crimes is the people are minorities or have problems?  I don’t think so.  I think you need to analyze a wee bit more and consider that the public is supposed to be protected from criminals, the criminals are not supposed to be protected from the responsibility for their crimes.  The race does not have anything to do with it at all.  If you commit the crime, then you should serve the time.  Very simple, that is.

Now check this one out from Althouse about the “wilding” at the state fair.  The local papers did not print the race at all.  Drudge did and the television channels showed the pictures which is how the general public found out who was committing the “wilding.”  Do you think that the race of these young hoodlums should remain hidden from the general public?  Judging from what you have been commenting you do.  Tell me how that makes any sense at all.  Let’s assume that you are a white person coming from the fair and a gang of black youths is coming toward you.  Should you be concerned about this.  After all they are just youths.  Now if you did not know that there was a lot of these attacks by black youths on only white people leaving the fair.  Would than change your response to what you see coming toward you?  I submit that the media not reporting the race is totally irresponsible in cases like this just for the protection of the general public.  Should the racism of the public override the safety of the public?  I submit it should not.

Should this not have been reported the way it was – and this was not from Arkansas.

Easy to see? Want to guess how many NBA fans think Phil Jackson is Black?

Read the Ark Times story – it makes clear that White perps are less likely to be ID’d by race.

But your “number of crimes” comment makes clear your real basis. Don’t bother to look for the actual statistics – or to break down by economic status.

Except, of course, it’s what you did in your own example – and what the report indicates is common practice at the Ark. D-G.

IF you are going to use racial descriptions, however faulty they may be, the only honest thing is to use them consistently, all the time, regardless of race – and carefully note that police reports “described” the perp as X.

Physical characteristics, especially as reported by a traumatized crime victim, are often at odds with someone’s actual racial identity.

IF the arkansas paper identified everyone charged with a crime by race — including whites – that would be one thing. but it appears it identifies ONLY african-american’s by race. race, though, IS an identifying characteristic in trying to track down a suspected law breaker, as is how one’s dressed, the color of their hair and eyes etc.

I would be very interested in seeing how you reach that conclusion.  Would you prefer that the potential victims of these criminals not be informed of who might be threatening them.  Are you more concerned with the criminals than with the potential victims.  Sure sounds like it.  And nobody  says that these racial profiles should only be printed if the criminal is non-white.  That is strictly in your mind, which is a terrible thing to waste when you could potentially save these victims from even becoming victims by telling them what they need to know.

I fail to see why this would be controversial at all.  If you have a rapist out there and he is Chinese or Hispanic or African American, then say so.  Otherwise all the women would be scared to talk to anyone at all.  It just seems stupid to say that a man around 6 feet tall and weighing 180 lb raped 5 women in a neighborhood and then not say that he was African American could not be more stupid IMNSHO.  You need to give people the information they need to deal with what is out there on the street.