If the subject is at large, it is ESSENTIAL. We do want to apprehend the suspect, do we not?

The posting proves that the Post Dispatch is not even remotely ready to have a discussion on race. This answer to this question is obvious to anyone not drowning in a sea of political correctness.

The race of the suspect is clearly relevant and narrows the pool of potential suspects immensely and is invaluable for use as “a sorting tool”. In all but a few extreme cases, race is an easily recognizable characteristic for virtually the entire population. What is next – not identifying the sex of the suspect? How about age? Height? Weight? Disability status?

Keith Woods and the Poytner Institute are part of the reason for the extreme left wing bias in journalism today. He clearly has an agenda with has nothing to do with objective reporting. The institute is more interest in “diversity”) which is actually the racist belief that a person’s skin color determines their views) than in objective reporting. That the Poytner Institute is merely identified as “a training ground for journalist” rather than an extreme left wing organization is very telling.

I think the writers and editors for the Post needs to examine extreme political correctness within their own ranks before presuming to start and honest dialogue on race.

In my opinion the race of the suspect and the victim should be a standard in every news report on crime. People have a right to know. The mass media never has an issue printing their little racial disparity stories when it infers white oppression/black victimization. Of course, when it comes to whites as the victims that is another question. I have never seen one mass media news article on the racial(black on white, white on black) disparities that exist in crime victim statistics. If the statistics were reversed would that be the case? What I take from this posting is crime suspects should be hidden because a majority of them are black or hispanic. This way white people won’t know.

I am rather confident that when describing the height of a perpetrator, any professional reporter would not write, “he was somewhere between five and six feet tall.” A description of time of day reading, “Sometime after noon and before midnight,” would certainly not be printed in even the worst of newspapers. Similarly, there is a reason why crime reports rarely mention what the victim or suspect had for lunch that day. Above all else, news reporting must be held to a standard that demands precision and relevance. To simply say the suspect was “white,” fails to tell me if he had more of an olive complexion or was slightly pale. Telling me that the victim was “black” only tells me that his or her skin tone was somewhere between light caramel and and a chocolate brown; nothing more. And in reality whether it was a caucasian man that murdered an Italian born woman or vice versa should have bearing on how we feel about the crime. If even for a moment, race or ethnicity in a report threatens to be non-essential or lack precision, it should be omitted in lieu of pertinent, necessary reporting.

The road to race neutrality is impossible. This attempt to do so has lasted for 20+ years, it needs to stop. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

Basically all media has taken this position. But what most people in the fourth estate don’t realize is when “We” the people don’t have information related to our safety; the media places all of us at risk. The best example would be Police ask neighborhood kids who shot the Plexico on the porch? Their answer, “we don’t know anything” The media are the kids they know who shot Plexico, we are the police. Get It?

The attempt to camouflage race, while possibly noble-minded, is one more hamstringing of law enforcement officials. Stating race is no more inflammatory than saying the suspect stuttered, was left-handed, or was of such a height. All these descriptives, including race, define or limit the pool of possible suspects for crimes, which helps the public know more about the individual involved.

While the questions raised by prior comments do illustrate certain gaps in the lack of universality in race-based descriptions, they by no means negate the helpfulness of such descriptions. Race-based categorizations may also help identify likely life habits, neighborhoods frequented, dress styles, or other characteristics of great help to law enforcement in trying to locate persons sought in connection with crimes. It cannot be denied that members of given race, any race or any group, do tend to exhibit certain common traits, which may not be display a perfect correlation with one’s race but certainly exceed the level of randomness.

Making more information available to the public enhances the utility of all the pieces of information in the overall picture.

I have lived in Florissant for 42 years. I am appalled at the rise in crime and degeneration of my city. I tried to get some data about the rise in crime and the corresponding rise in the black population in the area. The statistics, while they are supposed to be available, are closely guarded and often made very difficult to obtain. The data and figures I have attained to date need to be confirmed. If a crime is committed in my city of Florissant, I want to know the complete demographics so that I can be involved in some kind of positive way to elliminate it.

I’m one of the people who think suspect descriptions without a race is stupid. The real argument is that most violent crime is committed by blacks. Rather than admit that, the MSM attempts to hid true facts.

I agree that “black” is not a descriptive term, nor is white. So why don’t we revert to what was common usage-Negro and Caucasion? Rather than trying to keep up with the latest trend in descriptions, use what has been accepted parlance for years and years.

When I was trained in the military as a federal law enforcement officer, we were trained on identifying suspects, both throuogh our own witnessing and descriptions as well as gathering evidence through questioning of eye witnesses. One of the very first questions was “race”. This is a legitimate way of starting to build a conclusive idnetity of a person. To withhold vital information that may help lead to capture of a suspect could and should be construed as contribulatory negligence, if not abetting a fugitive.

Americans need to stand up for right and against wrong everytime. For far too long we have turned our heads and looked away from what is right in order to not offend or to try and appease. It is just this sort of behavior that has lead us to such a huge decline in our society both economically and sociologicly. We are in trouble and continuting down the path that has gotten us here, can only lead us further into the abyss.

Say what color the suspect/fugitive is. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law everytime, no matter what their color is. I could care a less if the perp is black white or green just so long as they are behind bars quickly where they belong and not leading to the disruption of our civil society.

The biased media is going to stick to its own style of reporting where if the suspect is white the report is:
“Caucasion (pronounce kow-kay-zhun to turn it in to a slur) male, brown eyes, approx 5′10″, light sandy hair, wearing…., no one likes him, he’s probably a Nazi or a member of the KKK, lives in a trailer down by the river, probably has concensual sex with his mother…”

or

when it’s a black male the report does not mention race at all and just says
“the suspect is wearing a blue sweat shirt, jeans and a cap”

I was assigned to the Major Case squad before retirement, and it sure helps to put a good description of a suspect if you are going to have any assistance from the public, and it sure means age, sex, and race.
It would be of little help to put out any description of a suspect without the race of same.

Crime exists among all races. But here in St. Louis you would think the only people committing heinous crimes are black people. White St. Louisans are bombarded with black crime, robberies, stealings and murderers on the news everyday. But under reporting crimes that are committed by other races. Men killing their wives, children being molested, priests molesting chldren, drug addicts and meth users and so on. There has been a long history in St. Louis for focusing on issues in the black community, perhaps this is to degrade them as a whole. If a white person commits a crime, does that reflect on the whole race of white people. But this is what certain black people feel, because of the condition of a few they tend to degrade the whole race. Should I not travel through frontenac because a man shot his wife to death there. Because this is what White people are conditioned to believe if they travel through north st. louis, they are going to get robbed, or killed. I have heard these statements made by white people, I am not going to drive south of Delmar Blvd. This is the conditioning by under reporting the news of other races. Some how people that is living next door to a child molestor and rapist have less fear among their own race but more fear when it is people of color, that is taught and conditioned by the news media for them to believe this nonsense. Should I believe that all white people are crooks because one white man stole my purse. What makes white people unsusceptible to crimes, are do they have some holiness more than anyone else. In conclusion, white people commit crimes just like everyone else. Murder is murder regardless to your race.

Wow, all i have to say is I’m glad I no longer live in st. Louis, and that most of my black and white friends are also glad we’ve fled this close-minded-downtown is 6 blocks of blight-city.

The comments on race here are ironic, especially since lots of folks in St. Louis- white or black - could nary tell apart a hispanic man from a middle eastern man or a very fair skinned african american.

I suggest folks in st. louis travel beyond their borders a little more often.

White people here in St. Louis MO, have always been conditioned to believe that black people are criminally inclined and blame the whole race in one form or another. Should I not travel through frontenac if a serial rapists was living there, should I blame the whole race for a murderer who killed his wife and children. Murder is Murder, no matter who does the crime. But the television and print media gets off on reporting on black crime as though everybody black is a criminal. You mean to tell me that only black people commit crimes. What about the bank robberies, embezzlements, child abduction, husbands killing their wives, priest molestations, meth drug users, stealings. These are reported as though they are glamorous crimes and glamorous crimes are committed by white people according to the news. Should I be in fear of every white person I see, because of a crime in the news. This is the type of conditioning the news has when it comes to reporting black crime. It is like white people get a high from this. They are not going to drive north of Delmar. This is the conditioning that comes from the media as though White people do not commit any crimes. When you speak of crime it is always a black thing.

Pat Mitchell,

Yes, all races commit crimes but it’s the racial disparities in crime stats that are causing this type of fear among other races towards blacks. For example, according to U.S. Justice Department figures there are actually more whites that are robbed with injury by blacks than by whites! This statistic really strikes me considering how segregated black and white communities are. Now, I’m a hard facts type of guy so knowing this would I want to live anywhere near or even walk through a majority black community? Is that racist or common sense? If it racist then so be it. I’d rather be a racist than put myself or my family in harm’s way.

Trust the bigots of the greater St. Louis area to defend the stereotyping and completely miss Woods’ point: “black” doesn’t tell you SQUAT when it can mean something different to each reader. Instead of “race,” try for an accurate DESCRIPTION - or better yet, a photo if you can get one.

As a white minority in a predominantly hispanic community, I’ve noticed local media do NOT use meaningless classifications like “white” “black” or “hispanic” around here - they give as good a description as possible and leave it at that.

After years of traveling the world for the taxpayers, I was appalled at the blatant racism of the St. Louis area when I moved there two decades ago. (My first impression was a front-page story of a cross burning in a Belleville yard.) I see it hasn’t changed much - and the automatic assumption STILL is that if a crime was committed, it probably was a black person doing it.

Absolutely do not favor using race as description. White is not a description, as I’ve met “white men” with “olive” skin that are darker than my buddies who are defined as “black”. For that matter I’ve met “blacks” who are whiter than rice (most are albino), so to me it says nothing. Unless…..

As the Post says it has some relative meaning. In other words, if all the other characteristics are described (i.e. hair, nose, eye color, tattoos, etc.) and then skin color is mentioned - as in ‘olive complexion’ or, carmel colored, pale, freckled, etc. then it’s much more helpful in finding someone. As opposed to saying the suspect is black or white.

Sorry to let you guys in on a secret but there are actual characteristics common to ethnic groups. Whites included. But, you probably don’t care to hear that. You would like to believe the whole merry world is as politically correct as you are and that we all drink green tea and recycle. Why don’t you ask a cop if people look different? Oh, wait. I forgot. You don’t leave your cubicles anymore.
No, you’d better get back to thinking about an anecdotal lead for that lame zoning board meeting or well, try to come up with, well, a new way of well, trying to make a politically correct story more, well, interesting by grabbing the reader like your journalism instructor taught you. No wonder newspapers are failing. You guys are, well, idiots.

Every time I see one of these “Let’s talk about race” forums, I know it is actually going to be “Let’s not really talk about race; let’s talk about how white people should talk about race.” As in, let’s pretend that describing someone we all would say is “black” is not meaningful information. How come we have no problem identifying people as African American when the issue is discrimination against them? It’s a wonder there is discrimination, since apparently we don’t really know who is “black” and who isn’t.

Why do white people feel comfortable in areas where white people have committed horrendous crimes, but won’t go “south of Delmar”? I believe it has more to do with culture than reliance on crime statistics (actual or perceived). Most white people lead lives that are largely segregated from blacks, whether on purpose or not. Blacks are “others.” White people believe (usually falsely) that they can identify white criminals among them. When a white person from “quiet suburbia” commits a horrible crime, you often see their neighbors quoted as being shocked that this “could happen here” or “he was such a nice young man, no one saw it coming.” On the other hand, since blacks are “others” and, for the most part, have a different culture, whites don’t believe they can identify the potential criminals. They feel uncomfortable surrounded by those outside of their culture and, in fear, identify all of them as potential criminals.

White women, especially, are conditioned to believe that criminals out there are after them. I’m a white woman myself and it drives me nuts to watch grown women nurse this level of fear. Urban legends about women who were victimized pass around by email along with ever-more stringent recommendations to ensure one’s safety.

When people believe that their safety is at risk, they believe that trumps any duty to be tolerant and open-minded.

I have been living in KC for a couple of years and I have noticed that the local news stations only mention race if the suspect is white or latino. This tendency has been proven over and over, as I follow news stories, where there was no mention of race in the initial story, only to later show the captured suspect as black.

Omitting the race of a suspect does not aid in capturing them, but if they only mention race if the suspect is not black, and do it consistently, it is the same as if they told their viewers that the suspect was black.

All while remaining true to the PC standards.