I couldn’t help but feel slightly offended while reading this article. It seemed as if the author thought that by mentioning some of the flaws in his argument, he would invalidate them. Stating the possibility that police officers attempting to “…maintain the racial or ethnic purity of a neighborhood…” is unacceptable, does not mean that it won’t happen and does not boost his credibility. I felt as if he was trying to prove that he was not influenced by his own, personal racial undertones because he was aware of them and acknowledged them – however, this article is obviously dated. On the most basic level, this argument does make sense, but it puts too much weight on the discretion of enforcing officers. He frames the police as the responsible moral enforcers of the neighborhood, and the good guys with good intentions in every case. Mentioning the role that race issues “may” play in how these discretionary laws are to be enforced, does not make his argument any more believable of free from these flaws.
