Sen. Tim Scott Shares Personal Stories of Discrimination
“There’s nothing more frustrating, more damaging to your soul than when you know you’re following the rules and being treated like you are not.”
As I mentioned earlier this week, I’ve been greatly encouraged that post-Dallas Shootings, there seems to be a collective denial of the usual gun control nonsense in favor of heartfelt conversations about race.
Communities nation-wide aren’t the only entities engaging with one another. Sen. Tim Scott gave a series of speeches on the Senate floor this week, detailing his personal encounters with institutional discrimination.
His tone was not accusatory, but expository. His hope? To bring a better understanding of the reality many in this country face.
Giving speech 2 of 3 Senate floor at abt 430p. Tune in on https://t.co/pIXPY7JB4i. Pt1 here: https://t.co/vxyGTFSjIx pic.twitter.com/epeAf8tWqb
— Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) July 13, 2016
Even as a U.S. Senator, Hill law enforcement has questioned his credentials more than once.
“I have felt the anger, the frustration, the sadness, and the humiliation that comes with feeling like you’re being targeted for nothing more than being just yourself,” said Scott. “There’s nothing more frustrating, more damaging to your soul than when you know you’re following the rules and being treated like you are not.”
His entire second speech is powerful and well worth your time to watch.
More of this, please.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The exact same thing can be said, with even more justice, by Moslems who are treated with suspicion just because some other Moslems are vicious zealots who are planning to kill us all. After all, the percentage of Moslems who would commit terrorist attacks is lower than the percentage of black men who would commit violent crimes.
But the answer is the same: We appreciate that you follow the rules, but we cannot tell the difference between you and the people who look just like you and don’t. We are not mindreaders, and if we don’t personally know you how can we tell whether you are you or them?
Think of it as having an identical twin who’s on the FBI’s “most wanted” list. It’s not your fault at all, and yet you can’t walk down the street without being stopped and treated with suspicion until you show your ID.
To be sure the people stopping you should be polite about it, because they should be aware that they’re more likely to have the wrong person than the right one, but at the end of the day, so long as so many people who look just like you keep on committing crimes you will be suspected of being them because that suspicion is justified.
I was more disturbed by his pique at a guard demanding ID even though he was wearing a congressional pin. This is exactly what happened to Cynthia McKinney, and I think none of us had any sympathy for her. As the guard said, he recognised the pin but not the wearer, so how could he know whether the wearer was entitled to wear it? You have no grounds for supposing that he would have let an unrecognised white man waltz through the door just because they put on a pin. If you make it a point to get to know the guards, then they will recognise you and let you through.
I would think that if a guard would have stopped a new white senator and asked for his ID, we would have heard about it by now. Somehow, I don’t think it happened.
As far as McKinney, there is a difference between reacting with frustration, and reacting by throwing a hysterical fit.
No, we would not have heard about it, because nobody would think it at all remarkable. He would simply show the guard his ID, and the next time the guard would know him. We only hear about it when someone complains, or throws a tantrum as Cynthia McKinney did, and only someone with a chip on his shoulder would do that.
Answer: Yes, *every* new Senator/Representative gets stopped and ID’d by the guards until they get to know their faces. Every single one of them, black, brown, orange, or pale. The lapel pin that ID’s them as a Senator/Rep. costs a whole $8-25 online, so they had *better* be checking real ID as people go into the most secure space in our country.
Milhouse: We appreciate that you follow the rules, but we cannot tell the difference between you and the people who look just like you and don’t.
Because all black people look alike.
Now, consider that Tim Scott is always immaculately dressed in a suit. On the other hand, Philando Castile was only shot dead about ≈2% of the times he was stopped. So there’s that.
Yes, all black men do look like black men. There is no visible marker to distinguish the law-abiding majority from the large minority who are violent criminals, just as there is no visible marker to distinguish the 80% of Moslems who are not our enemies from the 20% who are. Profiling is simple common sense; every law-enforcement agency uses it, because it would be criminally irresponsible not to. There’s nothing special about racial profiling that should exempt it from that rule.
Wow. Just wow.
“Actually, he looks like a regular bloke. But to a racist, he probably does look like a criminal.”
Actually, he looks like a regular BLACK bloke. Blacks make up some 13% of the population in the US, but, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, commit almost 30% of all crimes and almost HALF of all violent crimes including OVER HALF of the homicides.
No racism required if one is willing to simply take an honest look at the facts.
Sailorcurt: Blacks make up some 13% of the population in the US, but, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, commit almost 30% of all crimes and almost HALF of all violent crimes including OVER HALF of the homicides.
In statistics, it’s called a false positive. Leaving aside the inherent injustice, if you stop blacks just because they are black, the vast majority of stops will be of innocent people.
In the U.S., at least, it requires reasonable suspicion to stop someone. Being black does not meet the standard of reasonable suspicion.
Philando Castile was stopped because he matched the particular description of the robber. He had the same hair, same beard, same coloring, same facial features, same build. He even had the same glasses and shoes. He matched the SPECIFIC look of the robber because he WAS the robber. Now all the SJWs are saying it’s only a coincidence that he looked like the man who robbed a store four days earlier and1.8 miles away on the same road where he was shot.
At first I thought you were being ironic when you said “Because all black people look alike.”.
1. We don’t know that Castile was the robber. There are many people who match that description, only one of whom is the robber; therefore the chance that it’s him is less than 50%. But the resemblance is close enough to justify a stop to check IDs.
2. We’re not talking here about Castile, who matched the description of a specific suspect for a specific crime. We’re talking about people like Senator Scott, who just generally look like a lot of criminals. They’re not being stopped on suspicion of any specific crime, but because they’re doing something that makes them stand out, something that’s unusual in the circumstances, and often is a sign of criminal activity. Police learn by experience that if they stop people like that they get a high rate of solved crimes, whereas if they stop other people they get a much lower rate.
For instance, they may know that in a particular locality black men driving expensive cars are more likely to have stolen them than to have bought them. Or they may know that white men seen in a particular locality are more likely to be there to buy drugs than for any other purpose. In both cases, it’s their job to stop and politely question such people, while bearing in mind that the person may very well be doing nothing wrong.
Milhouse: . We’re talking about people like Senator Scott, who just generally look like a lot of criminals.
Actually, he looks like a regular bloke. But to a racist, he probably does look like a criminal.
Wow, you can rationalize anything! Was there no place for you on the T-rump ticket?
Life is unfair. In so many ways, to so many different people, for a variety of reasons, life is unfair. The sooner one recognizes this and comes to the realization that human nature does not change the more one can approach life and its challenges realistically.
Along life’s journey, there are going to be people who couldn’t treat others any better, those who are generally decent, those who are indifferent, those who are not so good, and those who are evil.
No government is going to change this. And, if history is any indication, Lord help us should they come even close to doing so because it wold visit an even worse evil upon us.
DieJustAsHappy: Life is unfair.
“I know that life isn’t fair. I know that. We all know that. But government should be.” — Ann Richards
It seems we have more regulations and secular law than ever. Are we any better off? Doesn’t appear so. We have the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Do we observe them? Doesn’t seem so. The One who was love and truth became incarnate and lived among us. We crucified Him.
As individuals, we struggle with these life issues. As for a collectivist answer, history doesn’t indicate and the present propositions don’t indicate there is one.
DieJustAsHappy: It seems we have more regulations and secular law than ever. Are we any better off?
He says on a thread about a black Senator from a Deep South state.
Yes, those South Carolinians are so darned racist they elected a black man to be their national Senator. And before you argue that he was elected by black voters, look at the numbers — blacks in SC still voted for the Dem candidate — Scott gets his support from white republicans.
It’s a futile gesture on their part, trying to signal their virtue to a man and a populace who will continue to nurse a racial grievance on the flimsiest of bases.
People of all walks of life deal with petty annoyances from law enforcement from time to time — I certainly have. We move on and go on with our lives because we haven’t got a chip on our shoulders. Tim Scott has a chip on his shoulder because that is what he has built his career on.
Screw Tim Scott. He got elected because bloodless cowards wanted a token to signal their break from a proud and complicated history and the legacy of Strom Thurmond. Tim Scott is nothing more than a token — an attempt to whitewash the past. Black voters in his home state were not fooled and neither should anybody else be.
momememe: Screw Tim Scott.
Nonetheless, it represents a substantial change from, say, the 1930s in South Carolina.
Zachriel:Nonetheless, it represents a substantial change from, say, the 1930s in South Carolina.
That any place in this country is substantially different after eighty years have passed is hardly worth remarking on.
Screw Tim Scott. He got elected because bloodless cowards wanted a token to signal their break from a proud and complicated history and the legacy of Strom Thurmond.
Um, no. He was elected because he has the right policies. And he still does. He is explaining how he feels the consequences of looking like a lot of criminals, and I understand how annoying that can be. I wouldn’t like it either. But he has to understand that his resemblance to many criminals is a fact, and it’s unreasonable for him to expect anyone to pretend it isn’t, just as he would agree that it’s unreasonable for a Moslem to expect us to pretend that so many other Moslems are not dangerous people.
Your understanding of criminal justice is lacking unless you are advocating for the disbanding of police forces for the purposes of upholding criminal laws.
It does not matter than a small percentage of the population commits crimes. They happen, and they are disproportionately committed by minorities. Police can not prevent that or all crimes committed by anyone. You can have a profile-free police force but it will be much less effective. When you couple that with the extreme leniency we have in this country in the criminal justice system, you won’t have much of a deterrent for crime (if they are both ineffective and the punishments are minor).
momememe: That any place in this country is substantially different after eighty years have passed is hardly worth remarking on.
The subthread, to which you replied concerns the past, in particular, “Are we better off?” If it’s hardly worth remarking on, why did you remark?
Milhouse: But he has to understand that his resemblance to many criminals is a fact
Actually, he looks like a regular bloke. But to a racist, he probably does look like a criminal.
healthguyfsu: You can have a profile-free police force but it will be much less effective.
Right. Because constantly stopping innocent people, frequently using official force against them, is the surest way to breed respect for the law.
Government CANNOT be fair.
Fairness is relative and subjective.
What YOU think is fair, I will probably consider unfair. And you could find others that will disagree with both you and I on it.
So, government cannot be fair, and those who use the power of government to create “fairness”, all they are doing is imposing on others their own idea of “fairness”. The only thing they can create is tyranny.
The best a government can do is to let us be, let us decide what’s fair by ourselves.
Exiliado: What YOU think is fair, I will probably consider unfair.What YOU think is fair, I will probably consider unfair.
So much for centuries of progress in the struggle for justice. No sense freeing the slaves, because nothing is fair.
Such a philosopher and you are right – government could make them worse by passing laws to restrict the vote. They could pass TRAP laws designed to make it impossible for poor women to get abortions while claiming the laws are designed to protect their health.
BTW, the government has done things that helped with discrimination. All you need to do is compare today with 1950. The job just isn’t done. No one is asking for a miracle, but throwing up your hands and saying there is nothing that can be done is convenient if you aren’t on the wrong end of the stick.
Had you chosen to ask a question or two, I might have been willing to discuss the matter. That you’ve chosen to respond to a person, one whose life’s journey you know nothing of, in such a snide manner I’ll leave you to your own muck and mire.
I can think of at least 4 times over the past that minorities or women were interviewed for a job or promotion before me, even though I scored higher on the test.
I once put aside my suspicion an stopped when a young black yelled to me, hey mister, wait up.” I got mugged for in return for my courtesy.
Racism is a form of [class] diversity mongering. It’s a denial of individual dignity or judging a group of people based on something other than principles or uniform (e.g. consensus, exclusive) behavior. However, it is only an orientation (e.g. bias) until realized with affirmative action.
Yes indeed, it must be institutional discrimination. What else could it possibly be? It’s well-known that white people never experience “the anger, the frustration, the sadness, and the humiliation” … day-to-day life is a piece of cake, everything arrives on a silver platter, and it never rains on weekends … and all because of White Privilege.
tom swift: Yes indeed, it must be institutional discrimination.
“NYPD cop secretly records supervisor pressuring him to racially profile black men”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/nypd-cop-secretly-records-supervisor-pressuring-him-to-racially-profile-black-men/
Zachriel, do you deny that black men are far more likely than anyone else to be violent criminals? If you don’t deny that, then please explain why you think policemen should pretend not to know it.
Milhouse: do you deny that black men are far more likely than anyone else to be violent criminals?
Blacks are far more likely to be law-abiding than criminals. If you stop someone for existing-while-black, then you are, in the vast majority of cases, stopping a law-abiding person. The false positives are enormously greater than the true positives.
That wasn’t the question. Are black men or are they not, vastly more likely than anyone else to be violent criminals? Does a danger have to be more than 50% before it’s worth taking precautions against it?
Milhouse: Are black men or are they not, vastly more likely than anyone else to be violent criminals?
Men are more likely than women to commit violent crimes. The young are more likely than the old to commit violent crimes. Blacks are more likely than whites to commit violent crimes. Young black men are more likely than old white women to commit violent crimes. So are young white men.
Milhouse: Does a danger have to be more than 50% before it’s worth taking precautions against it?
There is a 99.5% chance that a black person is not a violent criminal. (Even among those, most of the crimes concern intrafamily problems, such as spousal assault.)
So what is the utility in stopping hundreds of innocent people again? Oh yes. “we cannot tell the difference between you and the people who look just like you and don’t.”
Yes, men are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and therefore everyone agrees that it makes sense to be more careful around men than around women, and to stop men more often than women on suspicion of violent crime. You fish where the fish are. Your claim that the violent criminal rate among black men is only 0.5% is ridiculous. It is far far higher. Easily higher than the 20% of Moslems who are our enemies. How high does it need to be for you to agree that it makes sense to treat all black men with suspicion until further information is available to clear them? How high does it need to be for you to admit that it can be one factor in the reasonable suspicion policemen need in order to stop someone?
Milhouse: Yes, men are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and therefore everyone agrees that it makes sense to be more careful around men than around women, and to stop men more often than women on suspicion of violent crime.
Because everyone knows that stopping every man on the street, and frequently subject them to official force, is the surest way to reduce crime, breed respect for the law, and marshal support among the population.
Milhouse: Your claim that the violent criminal rate among black men is only 0.5% is ridiculous.
In the U.S. in 2008, blacks were arrested for 4935 murders, 5428 forcible rapes, 56948 robberies, and 112235 aggravated assaults. The black population was 37775000. Feel free to use long-division.
Zachriel, three major things wrong with your numbers:
1. You are only counting arrests, not crimes committed. Most criminals are never caught
2. You are dividing by the total black population, not the number of black men.
3, and worst of all, you are only counting the arrests in one year.
You must surely agree that stopping men would be more effective than stopping women. In the same way, stopping black men is more effective than stopping white ones. But nobody is stopped merely for being black; black men are watched more closely, and stopped when the combination of their behaviour and appearance amounts to reasonable suspicion. For what it’s worth the courts have ruled repeatedly that while race cannot in itself constitute reasonable suspicion, it can be a factor in reasonable suspicion.
Milhouse: 1. You are only counting arrests, not crimes committed.
A few people cause most of the crimes.
Milhouse: Most criminals are never caught
Sure they are, though not for every crime.
Milhouse: 2. You are dividing by the total black population, not the number of black men.
If you only include blacks men between 15 and 44 in the denominator (while leaving the same number of crimes in the numerator), then that would only change the percentage to 97% innocent.
Milhouse: 3, and worst of all, you are only counting the arrests in one year.
The presumption is that the police are trying to solve a proximate crime.
Milhouse: You must surely agree that stopping men would be more effective than stopping women. In the same way, stopping black men is more effective than stopping white ones.
Stopping everyone and putting them in a box would be the most effective, at least in the most narrow sense.
Are the police in your country no better than “stopping the usual suspects”?
Unfair targeting is very common. I am not justifying harassment, however very often police – for example – have only a general description. Or they look for people or behaviours that are out of place.
I am sure that the TEA party organizations targeted by the IRS felt unfairly treated. So did many landowners targeted by the EPA and businesses by the EPA, IRS and OSHA. And let’s not forget the gun stores who lost their banking services.
There is a lot od Cr@p flaying around, and one way to reduce it is to correct the background data that results in the profiling. The organizations I mentioned in the second paragraph had no profile data suggesting problems. they were targeted due to not being in the regime’s favour. However, the crime statistics clearly show, as has been shown repeatedly, a higher general proportion of crimes committed by certain socio-economic groups – and they are targeted. The way to correct this is by reducing the crime in those groups.
Further to the above: Anyone who believes, as I think Senator Scott does, that the police should be monitoring mosques and Islamic centers for signs of terrorist plots, cannot at the same time complain when stores monitor black shoppers for signs of shoplifting. It’s exactly the same thing — recognising the fact that certain people are more likely than others to offend, and thus need more scrutiny. It’s very simple; stores that don’t pay special attention to black shoppers lose more inventory than stores that do. Some stores find it cheaper to put up with this loss than to endure the bad publicity when they’re caught doing the sensible thing; but we need to be clear that the loss is not imaginary.
If store managers and clerks DON’T monitor black customers, Blacks complain that they’re being ignored and marginalized because it’s assumed that they don’t have enough money to shop there.
My sympathy for Sen. Scott is somewhat tempered by experience. I had a young white relative in the 1970-80’s who drove a perfectly ordinary car in Dallas, Texas, except this car had a racing stripe. Once or twice a month, he would get a speeding ticket, EVEN though he was traveling at the exact speed everybody else was (You had to in Dallas traffic or you were dead). Speed limit: 55 Actual traffic speed: 85 Probability of getting rear-ended if you drove 55: 100%
Eventually, he traded the car for something without a racing stripe. He kept driving at the speed of traffic, but the tickets stopped.
Cops look for things out of the ordinary. Undoubtedly, after the first stop or two, the senator’s plates started showing a ‘history’ of being pulled over, which caused him to be pulled over more often in a self-fulfilling prophecy, possibly added to by the (naturally) suspicious actions of the driver slowing down below traffic speed, signaling far in advance of the turn, watching the officer more than expected, etc…
So yes, racism exists. So do other reasons. Don’t jump to conclusions without adequate evidence.
Lived there…your claims about traffic speeds and getting rear-ended are hyperbolic BS. That’s what they make the right lane for.
Did he get spotted more easily? Yes. Was he breaking the law? Yes. So why does it matter?
Is it that difficult for people to understand how the plight of minorities can be placed directly at the feet of Democrats? The Great Society in the 1960’s has enslaved generations of minorities under the guise of assistance. What dignity is there in receiving a welfare check and food stamps? For over 50 years unemployment of blacks has been exactly doubt that of whites – a trillion or two dollars later. Two parent families have dropped over 30% in that period of time (25% in white families). Poverty levels changed a few percentage points. Where are our conservative leaders delivering the message of hope and self-responsibility? This is why the GOP loses so badly. They cannot articulate their views, in fact, in many instances have forgotten them, or flat out abdicated from them. There is an opportunity here if someone will seize the moment.
So lets see here; he admits his headlight didn’t work when he was stopped as a kid, to speeding some of those times he was stopped since being elected, so those times are already explained. The time where he was stopped because the officer thought the car might be stolen he doesn’t know if the officer had information about a similar car being stolen (a BOLO or ATL). The time he was stopped for not signaling he didn’t say he was certain he signaled. He simply said he thinks he did because he knew the officer was there. The other stories he tells are third party stories and are rarely completely accurate. I get tired of black people saying “you don’t know what it’s like to be black”. Well, the counter to that is “you don’t know what it’s like to be white”. Many black people like to assume that white folks don’t get stopped by the police for being suspicious or other various reasons. They assume whites don’t get treated the same. But they simply don’t know. The area a cop works will determine who gets stopped more than anything else. I have been a police officer for 13 years. I have been accused countless times of being racist because I take enforcement action against a person of color and instead of taking responsibility for their actions they want to deflect the guilt onto me. It’s really fun when they accuse me of stopping them for their race when I can’t even see in the car because it’s dark and their windows are tinted. If you assume I’m racist just because in white, that makes you a racist.