Wrong.
By the way, I did
not make a presumption that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people. The data
suggested that law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest, especially about the stopping of
innocent people. I said what I said; and I did not say that which you claim I said as evidence of "bias".
Where did you read the unwritten and arrive at the idea that I think that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? Did I write that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? No. I suggest being careful about putting words in the mouths of others or imagining what they presumed/assumed when one hasn't even correctly read what they wrote.
The truth is that the sets of data we went through indicated that law enforcement/security types were not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
I do have a bias -- and a strong one at that -- for data-based analysis, especially when it comes to matters of security and government relations.
Where in this thread did I talk about profiling examples, related to "prohibition", which you claim were/are anomalies? Please do share and/or address the right persons.
Am I to presume that those "profiling examples" which you claim are "anomalies" are fully to your satisfaction?
[I wouldn't presume such. However, if you care to share how the "profiling examples" were/are "anomalies" and whether those "anomalies" are to your satisfaction it could be amusing.]
That which people claim are anomalies are often not anomalies; it just requires drilling down into the data and classifying and qualifying items more fully. But careful reading and analysis of data is not everyone's cup of tea.
Did I say: "LE/security "types" are more often than not dishonest when stopping people"? No, no, no.
