> A Las Vegas police spokesperson told me they stopped “dividing squads by a suspect’s race” a year before Kinch retired.
and later:
> In 2016, he turned in his badge, a year after the saga broke in the local press.
If all those facts are consistent, they had a 'Black squad' until 2015.
Edit: An aside in an article and piecing together facts that were not necessarily intended to be consistent can result in bad misunderstandings. We need more information to understand it.
But at the same time, let's be careful about proceeding like scientists and making the null hypothesis 'it wasn't racist' or even 'there isn't racism', requiring 99.9% certainty. That's one way members of the status quo perpetuate bad things, even without meaning to. It's a rationalization ('I'm thinking about this scientifically!') for plain old self-serving bias - I'm innocent of anything until there are scientific levels of proof, and then I'll still keep questioning it and probably just refuse to believe it. It's an impossible mountain to climb; in those discussions, the status quo will never agree.
There are other approaches, such as a preponderance of evidence, to borrow the legal term.
> A Las Vegas police spokesperson told me they stopped “dividing squads by a suspect’s race” a year before Kinch retired.
and later:
> In 2016, he turned in his badge, a year after the saga broke in the local press.
If all those facts are consistent, they had a 'Black squad' until 2015.
Edit: An aside in an article and piecing together facts that were not necessarily intended to be consistent can result in bad misunderstandings. We need more information to understand it.
But at the same time, let's be careful about proceeding like scientists and making the null hypothesis 'it wasn't racist' or even 'there isn't racism', requiring 99.9% certainty. That's one way members of the status quo perpetuate bad things, even without meaning to. It's a rationalization ('I'm thinking about this scientifically!') for plain old self-serving bias - I'm innocent of anything until there are scientific levels of proof, and then I'll still keep questioning it and probably just refuse to believe it. It's an impossible mountain to climb; in those discussions, the status quo will never agree.
There are other approaches, such as a preponderance of evidence, to borrow the legal term.