Sure he is,he starts by assuming implicitly in his imaginary scenario the proposition to be proved.
He assumed nothing because he comes to no conclusion, he
asked a question. He merely asked whether it was reasonable for a cop to assume the race of a perpetrator based on past experience. Or in other words frequency theory vs classical probability. In the latter with pure ignorance of all discrete incidents the cop would be presumptuous to do anything but look at demographics and assume the chances of the shooters being of any particular race matched up with those numbers, with perhaps a nudge this way or that for some other factor(s) which might affect the outcome in the aggregate.
In reality, that thing which is missing from your analysis, the cop knows the neighborhood, has answered calls there in the past, has dealt with shootings before as well as other incidents, has a general feel for the population, likely knows or will eventually know who the victim is, etc., etc., etc. Or in other words he
is not ignorant about this and other discrete incidents he's been involved with. Therefore it is
not unreasonable for him based on experience to make a judgement of the race of perpetrator. And that applies equally to whites and blacks.
If you have a neighborhood were the population is almost homogenous and white, while it's a possiblity that a black or latino committed a certain crime and they are statistically a higher likelihood, that's likely drowned out by sheer numbers and the cop should be looking for a white male. Case in point, the Washington sniper shootings a while back where those two black guys turned out to be the guilty ones. Before they were caught the police rightly assumed it was one or more white males, because that was far more likely than one or more black males. They turned out to be wrong, but as far as playing the odds goes they didn't misstep. They biased the investigation towards white males, and while that didn't pay off that time it's more likely to in the end if applied consistently to such incidents. Using past experience to focus your investigation, based on any criteria only becomes foolish when you push that assumption
over where evidence leads.
My definition is broader than that but is far from begging the question.I am aware that mental categorizing (or labelling) is necessary and inescapable.
Your definition is: "Stereotypes develop when we are
unable or unwilling to obtain all of the information needed to make fair judgments about people or situations. In the absence of the "total picture," stereotypes in many cases allow us to "fill in the blanks."
Which is incorrect. For one, the italicized portion shows you're trying to slip a normative judgement in. And whether or not someone has access to the "total picture," they still may make a judgement against the behavior in question. For example I am aware of the fact that certain religions require their followers to cover their heads out of respect to God for this or that reason. I find it stupid. I'm more or less aware of the reasons, and I don't give a **** about them, I still find it to be a moronic practice. There is nothing unifnormed about my decision, I just think most hats and other head dresses make people look like ****ing idiots.
"The effects of stereotyping can fluctuate, but for the most part they are negative, and not always apparent until long periods of time have passed. Over time, some victims of negative stereotypes display self-fulfilling prophecy behavior, in which they assume that the stereotype represents norms to emulate. Negative effects may include forming inaccurate opinions of people, scapegoating, erroneously judgmentalism, preventing emotional identification, distress, and impaired performance. Stereotyping painfully reminds those being judged of how society views them."
Which is a fancy way of avoiding the question. Paraphrased it merely says that there does end up being some truth to stereotypes, but there's complex reasons (excuses) for it. So what? End result is still that there is some truth there. That's like trying to explain to a guy who just had his arm ripped off in a shark attack that sharks don't generally eat people, it likely just thought he was a seal and gave him a test nibble. The shark's intentions and the nuances of him behavior within his ecological niche are nice to know, the reality is the guy is still missing an arm and bleeding to death.
These effects I bolded are what seem to happen as a result of the kind of stereotyping roids1 seems to condone.
And they leave out the opposite but equally true aspects of the issue. In order: stereotypes can be positive, hence I only let women and gay male friends choose my clothes so I look good because of their superior fashion senses; and as for innaccurate opinions, scapegoating and judgementalism, the type of stereotyping based on experience roids is speaking off also results in correct opinions, more effective investigations, and proper judgement and assignment of blame (see comment about Scandanavians).
wned: 
