JOURNAL: ERRORS OF VALIDITY.

 

           In March 2010, a traffic stop by a white police officer became a lawsuit in which racial profiling is alleged. According to Henry Lee, a journalist for the San Francisco Chronicle, the version presented by the alleged injured party, Kwixuan Maloof, a managing attorney for San Francisco public defender’s felony unit, claims that the stop was due purely to his race.

            After reading the San Francisco Chronicle’s account, one is struck by the one sided account. We only have the version of the complainant to make a validity assessment, there are no handles for us to verify the account presented to us. Oftentimes, we see only what we expect to see, as such, a black driver stopped by a white police officer will expect the stop to be about his/her race and all actions taken from that point on will only serve to validate the initial premise.

            One wonders why, the black police officer that responded to the same area, saw fit to place the complainant in handcuffs, was the black police officer perpetrating a racial profiling as well? We do not know. Were they performing in accordance with the rules set forth by their department? We do not know that either. We only have the premise that this person was stopped because and only because he was black, which is a classic example of the “either /or” thinking process, as well as an oversimplification of the case. Nothing is so starkly black and white (pun intended). In order to present a clearer picture, we need to hear the other version of the case. Why the police officer  stopped Mr. Maloof? Why did the other police officer responding believed necessary to place him in handcuffs? We are not told this and that makes rendering a judgment moot.