Some people are unable to meet basic standards of behavior

 What should be done about this:

some people are unable to meet the most basic standards of behavior, and they want police officers to stop pulling drivers over for minor issues because it affects too many black and brown people.

We shouldn’t tell police to ignore lawful reasons to stop a car. Equal justice means the rules apply to everyone, and traffic laws—big and small—exist to keep roads safe and deter more serious crime. But we should also make sure enforcement is fair, transparent, and focused on safety rather than revenue.

How I’d approach it, consistent with conservative principles:

• Rule of law and equal treatment: Don’t carve out exceptions by group, and don’t instruct officers to look the other way. Apply clear, race‑neutral standards to everyone.
• Public safety first: “Minor” violations (broken lights, expired tags, failure to signal) can signal unsafe vehicles or impaired driving and often lead to catching serious offenses. Taking that tool away hurts deterrence.
• Be fair and measured: Use officer discretion—warnings and “fix‑it” notices for equipment issues—so the goal is compliance, not punishment.
• End perverse incentives: Eliminate ticket quotas and keep fines reasonable so enforcement isn’t a backdoor tax.
• Transparency and accountability: Body cams, stop data, and regular audits help identify outlier behavior without tying the hands of good officers.
• Clear policy guardrails: Prioritize stops with a clear safety nexus; require documented reasons for any search; emphasize respectful, professional conduct in training.
• Practical help to boost compliance: Partner with community groups or shops for low‑cost repairs (e.g., brake light clinics) and streamline DMV processes so people can more easily stay current on tags and insurance.

If disparities show up in the data, fix the processes—not by abandoning enforcement, but by tightening standards, improving training, and focusing on safety-based priorities that protect everyone. That’s how you uphold the rule of law and keep trust with the public.

In addition:

Standards of behavior must be objective and universal or they are not standards. The proper purpose of traffic law is to protect rights by preventing objectively dangerous conduct (e.g., reckless speeding, nonfunctioning brake lights at night), not to serve as a revenue tool or a pretext for arbitrary searches.

On that base:

• If a rule is objectively tied to safety and rights, it should be enforced equally for every individual, with no exemptions by race or any other collective label. Justice demands judgment by actions, not by group identity.
• If a rule is not objectively tied to safety (purely administrative or cosmetic infractions), it should be repealed or changed for everyone—not selectively ignored because of statistical “disparate impact.”

Disparate impact is not proof of injustice; unequal application of valid laws is. There is empirical evidence that bias can occur in discretionary stops (e.g., the “veil of darkness” findings in large-scale traffic-stop data), and the correct remedy is to make enforcement more objective—not to discard standards. Practical, rights-respecting reforms include:

• Narrow traffic codes to safety-critical requirements; remove or mail-only “fix-it” handling for de minimis equipment issues that do not create immediate risk.
• Prohibit pretextual stops unrelated to the stated safety concern; require explicit, objective probable cause.
• Eliminate ticket quotas and revenue incentives; adopt body cameras and publish stop data with per-officer audits for equal application of the law.
• Apply one law to all, with clear, knowable rules; when a rule is unjust, repeal it—for everyone.

Lowering or selectively suspending standards because of group statistics is collectivism and a betrayal of justice. Keep the standards objective, tie them strictly to the protection of rights, and enforce them equally, individual by individual.