I'm asking to consider a case where there is actually a skew in crime rate between races (which could be a very hypothetical situation) - why shouldn't we take the statistics into account to make the environment safer?

This is the first fucking time you've said anything of the god damned kind. In fact you said exactly the opposite in several instances including this very thread. To qoute:

See, that's the point - in some cases race is indicative,

So. Are we discussing a hypothetical situation in which there is a direct link between race and certain behaviors? Are you asking, if that were the case (which it is not), would racial profiling be acceptable? And just so we're all on the same page, lets clarify exactly what we mean when we say racial profiling:

"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

Please, please, please note this definition does not say "a crime" it says "crime" meaning that the suspicion is not a reaction to a specific individual criminal act, but to the possibility that some type of crime has been committed. In other words "We should search that woman based solely on the fact that she is black" Meaning that each and every black person should always be suspected of committing a non-specific crime of some sort.

Or are you making the case that racial profiling is actually a useful tool here in reality? If you want to discuss the absolute reality of racial profiling, then you're going to have look at the actual reality of real laws, real statistics, and real consequences. Not the least of those consequences being that you are willing to treat certain members of society as de facto criminals regardless of whether they have actually committed a crime. Treatment that you would not be likely to stand for if it where pointed in your direction (your weak kneed protestations not withstanding).