need i remind you about what constitutes what is legal in the US? LOL Syne actually, in this case it is a misconception about the law, IMHO Bells makes a clear argument as to why it isn't prosecuted, but forgets that not being prosecuted doesn't mean it's legal. this is shown in the example of speeders i made pages ago (more than once). just because someone gets a warning doesn't mean what they did was legal. it only means it was not prosecuted. and i will have to add a qualifier here to that: it also doesn't clearly define all crimes, shootings, racial calls etc, nor does it record the requisite data needed to make a serious, accurate or valid study for the situation being argued above. as such, it can't really be called objective as it doesn't have the requisite data to be objective. it is simply not clear. it points to the possibility of something, but you can't actually make a statement about it being objectively stating [x] as there is no ability to show correlation and causation to validate said claim of [x] which was another point i made a while back... so you really can't justify the argument using statistics alone as they're freely available from the DOJ, BJS, FBI and other sources, and anyone using them (like i do) will soon realise that there is a lot of information that is not present in the cases or logged and recorded in the data sets.