Racial profiling

[MississippiMud]

I think yall kinda dance around the greater issue here. Profiling can be an effective tool to narrow down the pool of suspects for the "potential" of certain crimes. Question is what does that say about us as a people? Profiling is a form of prejudice and does not promote equal rights.

A society that accepts profiling is not a free and open society. It is something less.

I prefer equal rights over security every day of the year.

[gurutoo]

Originally Posted by Zan de Man

Take it from me Guru, successful terrorists don't repeat themselves.

All of 'em ain't bombers. Don't forget CAIR.

[gurutoo]

Originally Posted by MississippiMud

I think yall kinda dance around the greater issue here. Profiling can be an effective tool to narrow down the pool of suspects for the "potential" of certain crimes. Question is what does that say about us as a people? Profiling is a form of prejudice and does not promote equal rights.

A society that accepts profiling is not a free and open society. It is something less.

I prefer equal rights over security every day of the year.

Nobody is dancing around anything. Profiling is just as necessary as metal detectors in courthouses. Like it or not, This ain't your Grandpa's America where you could leave the screen door unlatched at night.

What racial profiling says about us is that we are fucking paying attention. Or should be.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

Nobody is dancing around anything. Profiling is just as necessary as metal detectors in courthouses.

Does EVERYBODY pass through the metal detectors in courthouses?

[gurutoo]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

Does EVERYBODY pass through the metal detectors in courthouses?

Ok, so that was a weak analogy.

To pretend that certain appearing individuals do NOT fit a particular profile and therefore profiling is wrong, or that even if they do, you'd rather be in danger than have some right violated is laughable.

British Police have created a clear profile of the terrorist: they are more likely to be young, male, Muslim, and non-white; the British have waved their interest in being "politically correct" and are applying this profile as they search tube passengers backpacks in London. NY (and the U.S.) should pass legislation enabling us to follow suit

It simply makes sense and would be more efficient to target the minority groups that have proven to be most likely to commit terrorist crimes

Random searches make no sense: grandmas and girl scouts are unlikely terrorists

Unlike racial discrimination in hiring practices, for example, the payoff for targeting those who resemble the profile of a terrorist is potentially huge (e.g. saving hundreds if not thousands of lives) while the harm done is minimal (e.g. minor inconveniences, delays, hurt feelings)

There are two kinds of mistakes we could potentially make in regards to terrorism: one is failing to identify terrorists because we don't want to offend anyone, and two, investigating someone who resembles the profile of a terrorist and upsetting them as a result if they are not a terrorist. We as a society can learn to live with one of these mistakes, not the other

Yes there are Timothy Mcveighs and Unibombers, but if you look at just about every terrorist who has attacked American targets and interests, these are not the people currently posing the greatest level of threat

Profiling is misunderstood - it should be acceptable for law enforcement to establish a profile where multiple characteristics, including race and ethnicity, are defined.

[Carico]

It simply makes sense and would be more efficient to target the minority groups that have proven to be most likely to commit terrorist crimes

Absolutely. But like I said, today's leaders aren't interested in making sense as they demonstrate very well.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by MississippiMud

I think yall kinda dance around the greater issue here. Profiling can be an effective tool to narrow down the pool of suspects for the "potential" of certain crimes.

Profiling is just applying stats. Stats do not infringe on your rights.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

Nobody is dancing around anything. Profiling is just as necessary as metal detectors in courthouses. Like it or not, This ain't your Grandpa's America where you could leave the screen door unlatched at night.

Would that be, say, the 1930's, during which gangsters virtually ran several cities and had a multitude of police and government personnel on their payrolls?

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

It simply makes sense and would be more efficient to target the minority groups that have proven to be most likely to commit terrorist crimes

No it does not make sense, because it means you are turning a blind eye to European converts, white Chechens, black muslims etcetera.

Racial profiling is lazy and dangerous and no substitute for actual investigation and proper policing. You appeal to the British police for whom, at least in the case of the Met, the term 'institutional racism' was coined.

Random searches make no sense: grandmas and girl scouts are unlikely terrorists

Does that include "Isalmic" scouts and grandmothers?

[gurutoo]

Originally Posted by contracycle

No it does not make sense, because it means you are turning a blind eye to European converts, white Chechens, black muslims etcetera.

It was never suggested to target likely candidates while turning a blind eye to everyone else.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Racial profiling is lazy and dangerous and no substitute for actual investigation and proper policing. snip*

To the exclusion of all other methods, yes it would be. But to disallow it (profiling) out of hand is denying authorities a proven tool.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Does that include "Isalmic" scouts and grandmothers?

Weak.

[potter]

"British Police have created a clear profile of the terrorist: they are more likely to be young, male, Muslim, and non-white; the British have waved their interest in being "politically correct" and are applying this profile as they search tube passengers backpacks in London. NY (and the U.S.) should pass legislation enabling us to follow suit"

And knowing this the terrorist organizations will now recruit "non-profile" members who stand a better chance of being completely ignored.

I personally feel better when everyone is treated with equal suspicion....even if it is insulting.....

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

It was never suggested to target likely candidates while turning a blind eye to everyone else.

But that IS what is suggested - the whole point of profiling is to narrow down the candidates you investigate. If that is not going to happen, then profiling is not useful and might as well be ignored - which is indeed the correct position to take.

To the exclusion of all other methods, yes it would be. But to disallow it (profiling) out of hand is denying authorities a proven tool.

It's not a proven tool except for anything except work-avoidance.

Weak.

Can't answer it, huh? Proof once again that you are just constructing excuses for your racist attitudes and have no actual interest in the prevention of terrorism.

[CookieD18]

Originally Posted by Carico

No. That's why we deed a description of a terrorist then target those who fit that description. But if racial profilists have their way, then no one can target anyone who fits the description of any of the terrorists.

Dont you mean anti-racial profilers?

It has been pointed out that you are spewing lies - I do not see evidence to the contrary that people are being told to not use the proper colour of someone to catch them when identified. Maybe you are just going in what you heard in a bar or at the rally.

[MississippiMud]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Profiling is just applying stats. Stats do not infringe on your rights.

The stats infringe when you use them to detain/interrogate/harass one individual over another just because they fit the criteria. If your deal is safety at all cost then thats your deal. it aint mine. Just call it what it is. It is a form of prejudice and racism/sexism/xyzism

[elalumno]

It's not a proven tool except for anything

Actually it can be quite effective.

[Zan de Man]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

British Police have created a clear profile of the terrorist: they are more likely to be young, male, Muslim, and non-white; the British have waved their interest in being "politically correct" and are applying this profile as they search tube passengers backpacks in London.

Too easy. If they're doing this, they've forgotten the lessons of the IRA campaign. Lazy profiling led to the crime of "being abroad whilst Irish". It caused miscarriages of justice like the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by MississippiMud

The stats infringe when you use them to detain/interrogate/harass one individual over another just because they fit the criteria.

Well, i don't think profiling is very good for catching wannabe terrorists. See Zan's remarks. However, when custom officials are trying to catch drug dealers/illegal aliens or excise evaders at airports (and checking everyone would be impossible), profiling is useful. Race/nationality isn't the only criteria, far from it.

For terrorism, it so obviously wrong that i do not think it is really used. If it is, it will fail. Airport security does put everyone through metal detectors and stuff for that specific reason. Not to not offend but because exhaustivity is the only viable option.

If your deal is safety at all cost then thats your deal. it aint mine.

No, it isn't but i am for "reasonable" measures. The extra security checks at the airports annoy me no end (and i travel by plane quite often) but i think i can live with them.

Just call it what it is. It is a form of prejudice and racism/sexism/xyzism

I don't think we are using the same definition. What is yours?

[mammalicious]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

Even Homocide detectives (not the relatively dull uniformed variety) will tell you, if it looks like a duck...it almost always is.

Too bad many can't tell a duck from a goose...evidenced by the many ''good patriots'' who harassed Sikhs...cause they wore a turban-like head covering. Just make sure you keep an eye on those disaffected white kids (McVeigh, John Walker Lindh)....

I guess the innocent until proven guilty notion went out the window...

[mammalicious]

Originally Posted by Carico

Racial profiling is one of the most backwards, irrational and racist practices in which one can indulge. According to the reasoning of racial profilists, we can't get a description of a suspect because it might offend those who look like the suspect.

So if a black man with black hair praising Allah is witnessed by many people committing a crime, we're supposed to look for a suspect with blond hair, white skin and blue eyes because it might offend others who have black skin and black hair. Not only is that completely irrational, it's racist. It's showing that skin color is what determines guilt or innocence.

Yet this is the kind of backwards "thinking" that is pervading America; irrationality. So why even look for a suspect if we can't get a description of him? The answer is that either we can't look for a suspect or we pin the crime on people who weren't witnessed committing it! This backwards racism is what Obama calls "love"; determining guilt or innocence by the color of one's skin instead of looking for the criminals who were witnessed committing the crime regardless of the color of their skin.

Do you have a link or something to support this?? Or is this just racial hysteria you got in a chain email?

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by elalumno

Actually it can be quite effective.

There is nevertheless a difference between "profiling" and "racial profiling". As you yourself pointed out, it is quite reasonable to include race in a description of a suspect, and it may also be valid for a category of suspects, but to make race the central criteria by which the category is established is not.