Critique Of Bob Herbert's Arguments Against Jim Crow Policing

560 Words2 Pages

Jim Crow policing is not a problem, the way certain cops are using it is becoming a problem in certain cities. A Witness of Jim Crow Policing and Racial Profiling, Bob Herbert, believes that the New York police department needs to be restrained due to his personal experiences. The author uses many examples to strengthen his argument in order to influence others to be against Jim Crow policing, yet throughout his article he lets his emotion show too much losing his credibility and straying from logic versus his opinion. In his article, Bob first states his stance on the topic in order to show what he is talking about. He decides to give examples of Jim Crow policing that are negative in order to establish a negative predisposition of Jim Crow policing. Herbert uses many unjustified statistics of people in New York that are victimized by Racial Profiling and stop and frisk. In New York, Herbert states that stop and frisk is primarily used on the minorities even though …show more content…

His opinionated appeal to Jim Crow policing is meant to alter your state of mind to be angry about the topic, which would work for someone who is aware of Jim Crow policing and has negative predispositions. For someone who is unaware and interested in credible information, Herbert's article is not a good choice for his evidence is not credible and it is all centered around his personal opinion. Jim Crow policing is not a bad thing because it is not arrested, or even less than 10% result in arrest, it is better there is one less criminal than no one being convicted. Racial profiling is a problem in our society today and the Jim Crow policy is being looked at as racial profiling, but this is not racial profiling because it is not negatively putting someone down for their race, this is simply using statistics in order to lower crime rates in the

Open Document