POLL: Should racial profiling be used at airport security?

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I dont have a problem with racial profiling in ANY situation, provided they only use it to question people.

So stopping blacks just to "question" them is ok for no reason? Having police detaining citizens based on nothing but skin color is a violation of just about every civil right I can think of. What, blacks don't have to be on time for meetings, school? They should be subject to being stopped or detained at any time for any reason as you suggest? Think that through a little more.

Your ignorance is silly and a little offensive. Cops are already doing what I said. They constantly racial profile in their minds and have been doing it for years. They know the statistics on crime and who is more or less likely to be engaged in criminal activities in their city.

What cops do in their mind is irrelevant. It's how they act. And when they act on racial profiling, it's illegal, and is remedied. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06....html?pagewanted=print

As for being detained, I never suggested that and said it was not acceptable.

You said racial profiling is ok in any situation so long as it is only used to question people. Perhaps we're disagreeing on terminology, but when you stop someone for questioning, that's detaining them. It takes time out of their day, and prevents them from going about their business which the police had no right to stop them from doing.

You referred to me as worked up. Tell the 30 million+ blacks in this country that you think it's acceptable for them to be questioned in any situation solely because of their race, and see if they get worked up. Only someone who hasn't experienced unwarranted police scrutiny could make such an ignorant statement. DWB is treated like a crime all over the country, and it's thanks to support from people like you that it continues.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Skoorb

LOL @ All "essentially all terrorists look like the stereotypical terrorist ". Such a silly comment - terrorists look like stereotypical terrorists?

Why are you laughing at patent fact?

I'll bite =Okay how does a stereotypical terrorist look.

It would merely be one facet to explore.

911 hijackers

So again you are going back to the point that it is simply about race. Glad to see you how intelligent savvy you are, especially when it comes to building profiles.
I would love to see you in charge of profiling. so many people would actually get through, and you would continually harass people who have done nothing wrong.

Note that I never said it isn't a piece of useful information - I think it CAN be...and that a profile should probably include some kind of race as a "secondary factor"...but never as the defining factor if one is or isn't a terrorist. Again it would be stupid, and I offered some simple pieces of information that goes a great deal further than harping on race all day.

You on the other hand simply state "it is one facet to explore", yet (maybe you do?) quietly imply that we need to be stopping all Middle Eastern people because you haven't stated on when you take race to be the limiting factor.

Oh and by the way http://www.tamilnet.com/img/pu..._viththy_61897_435.jpg here are the people who basically refined the art of suicide bombing long before it became synonymous with the Middle East. You want to be stupid enough to stop all Tamils now?

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, guys? Racial profiling is a violation of the 14th amendment. Specifically targeting certain ethnic groups for increased searches, etc. is clearly unconstitutional. Yes I know that law enforcement frequently gets away with this because specific racist intent is hard to prove in court, but what you are arguing for is a specifically articulated policy targeting certain minorities. This blatantly violates other Americans' civil rights.

I'd like you to be more specific on the "etc." because all I suggested is whats going on right now, which is talking to or questioning, and despite how you may interpret the constitution (which so far doesnt seem wrong, just uncertain) many states have already upheld a policemans intuition.
Yes, it makes black people feel uncomfortable, and I am sorry for that, but life, liberty and pursuit of happiness dont include our government making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, guys? Racial profiling is a violation of the 14th amendment. Specifically targeting certain ethnic groups for increased searches, etc. is clearly unconstitutional. Yes I know that law enforcement frequently gets away with this because specific racist intent is hard to prove in court, but what you are arguing for is a specifically articulated policy targeting certain minorities. This blatantly violates other Americans' civil rights.

So should that be changed?

No, certainly not. That would be destroying the foundations of America out of fear. Not only that, but a largely unjustified fear. Considering the amount of Americans killed by terrorist attacks in America from 2002-2008 (zero), it would be exceedingly foolish if not downright hysterical to abridge vital civil liberties for some sort of nebulous percieved increase in safety.

Also you realize that Timothy McVeigh wasn't arab, Richard Reid wasn't arab, the london bombers consisted of someone of Jamacian descent and a bunch of people from Pakistan (who aren't arab either) right?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, guys? Racial profiling is a violation of the 14th amendment. Specifically targeting certain ethnic groups for increased searches, etc. is clearly unconstitutional. Yes I know that law enforcement frequently gets away with this because specific racist intent is hard to prove in court, but what you are arguing for is a specifically articulated policy targeting certain minorities. This blatantly violates other Americans' civil rights.

I'd like you to be more specific on the "etc." because all I suggested is whats going on right now, which is talking to or questioning, and despite how you may interpret the constitution (which so far doesnt seem wrong, just uncertain) many states have already upheld a policemans intuition.
Yes, it makes black people feel uncomfortable, and I am sorry for that, but life, liberty and pursuit of happiness dont include our government making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Well first of all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn't actually in the constitution, unlike the 14th amendment... haha. What the courts have generally upheld is the discretion of a policeman to stop who he wants to stop, yes, but most of this relies upon there being a reason outside of the person's race to stop them. I'm not sure if I agree with this but the courts have mostly put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove discrimination, otherwise they defer to the officer. Anyways I don't like that idea very much but it seems to be how the chips have fallen.

What's being talked about here though is a clearly articulated policy of extra scrutiny to certain ethnic minorities. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the US that has such a policy, and if they did have one if it wasn't removed for such a violation of the 14th amendment. In addition, when people complain of 14th amendment violations for 'driving while black' or whatever, the cop has a lot of things he could use as justification for the extra attention he's paying the person as it's really easy to find an excuse to pull someone over. Such justification would be far harder for people just walking through an airport checkpoint.

So I guess my point would be that any articulated policy would be obviously unconstitutional, and any policy relying on intuition would face far greater hurdles in explaining away the increased scrutiny due to the nature of the interaction. Oh, and morally I think its disgusting.

 

[jimmyj68]

heaven help us if we are targeted by blonde, blue eyed female terrorists.

The entire bent of this thread is to "excuse everyone white from scrutiny - in any situation! Our nations streets and highways are prone to "racial profiling" - again excusing "white people" - ah - but then that kind of people never commit crimes - they never have ever been involved in terrorist activities. Ergo when racial profiling is discussed it is a given that everybody but "white people" are subject to such profiling if they don't fit the obvious OK profile of "white".

Scientists have long held that there is no such thing as race. But who cares? Our established mode of identity works so well for those with the greater clout.

During the second world war "White America" portrayed the Japanese people as less than inhuman creatures. They profiled thousands into detention camps while moneyed "Whites" purloined ther homes and property. They never profiled German Americans - - but wait - - they were "White".

The inherent sickness of "White society" in America (The World?) has fomented a terrible sickness in those in America (and other places) who can and are targeted in inumerable ways by "The Ugly American" (look up the book.) You are reaping what you have sown.

 

[StageLeft]

So again you are going back to the point that it is simply about race.

You asked what they look like, I provided a pic. I never said it's all race, which leads to the irony of your next quote:

Glad to see you how intelligent savvy you are, especially when it comes to building profiles.

I don't actually believe you want racial profiling to be used simply because on some knee-jerk level it offends you. No amount of facts or data would ever change your mind because it's already made up and you are not interested in changing it.

I would love to see you in charge of profiling. so many people would actually get through, and you would continually harass people who have done nothing wrong.

?

Note that I never said it isn't a piece of useful information - I think it CAN be

I apologize for the above--in fact, you already are obviously aware that racial profiling is important, then. I suppose we need not argue since we're both on the same page with that it's one facet that has relevance in a profile.

Considering the amount of Americans killed by terrorist attacks in America from 2002-2008 (zero), it would be exceedingly foolish if not downright hysterical to abridge vital civil liberties for some sort of nebulous percieved increase in safety.

You are preaching to the choir on this one. I think that terrorism as a threat to this nation is grossly overblown. My question was to whether a policy put in place in great part to reduce terrorism (because that's what the increase in airport security is for) should strike at the heart of it and be honest about what it's trying to do and how to do it.

Scientists have long held that there is no such thing as race.

What?

 

[Moonbeam]

Baggage goes on a train; everybody else flies naked.

 

[StageLeft]

Actually you know this topic would be moot if we could get those cool xray machines in that pick everything up on their scan.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Considering the amount of Americans killed by terrorist attacks in America from 2002-2008 (zero), it would be exceedingly foolish if not downright hysterical to abridge vital civil liberties for some sort of nebulous percieved increase in safety.

You are preaching to the choir on this one. I think that terrorism as a threat to this nation is grossly overblown. My question was to whether a policy put in place in great part to reduce terrorism (because that's what the increase in airport security is for) should strike at the heart of it and be honest about what it's trying to do and how to do it.

Scientists have long held that there is no such thing as race.

What?

Well, as I mentioned before a significant number of terrorists that have struck in recent years, (McVeigh, Reid, the London bombers) have not been of arab descent and so I think the contention that this would be an effective policy leaves something to be desired. It tends to promote a false sense of security about those not targeted for increased scrutiny. Basically though, even if that were not the case my answer would still be no. Civil liberties, once abridged, are very difficult to restore and they are absolutely vital to who we are as a people and as a country. Our refusal to create such targeted groups (at least legislatively... sigh) is one of the things that make this country such an appealing place for people to live. It's easy to take them away from unpopular groups, but once they lose theirs we are next. Absent a colossal, overwhelming interest I would not support it in any way, shape, or form. I do not think the current risk of terrorism in the US comes even within the same ballpark as what that threat would have to be. September 11th killed 3,000 people. Maybe if they had killed 3 million I would agree, short of that... sorry.

Oh and yeah, scientists have been saying for quite awhile that race doesn't exist.

Here's a quote from a guy at princeton that pretty much sums it up: Take from it what you will.

Another realization coming from the genome project might have a profound effect on social understanding. "From a scientific perspective," Tilghman said, "there is no such thing as race. You cannot scientifically distinguish a race of people genetically from a different race of people. Now you can find a gene that affects skin color, and you can show that this gene has one form in people of African descent and is different form of people, let's say , of Danish descent. But that's just one little change. That doesn't make them a race. If you look at all the other things in their DNA that determine all the ways in which we're the same, in fact the two DNAs are indistinguishable.

So it seems that there is only one race: the human race. "There are variants," Tilghman said, "and the variants we pay more attention to are the variants that are visible to us. But in fact the variants that probably matter much more than whether your skin is black or your skin is white are variants that predispose you to breast cancer. And those occur in all populations; variants that predispose you to heart disease; variants that predispose you to Alzheimer's disease. And those do not track by race. So the important ones are not the visible ones."

 

[Moonbeam]

We are all the same and he who knows who he is knows everybody.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, guys? Racial profiling is a violation of the 14th amendment. Specifically targeting certain ethnic groups for increased searches, etc. is clearly unconstitutional. Yes I know that law enforcement frequently gets away with this because specific racist intent is hard to prove in court, but what you are arguing for is a specifically articulated policy targeting certain minorities. This blatantly violates other Americans' civil rights.

I'd like you to be more specific on the "etc." because all I suggested is whats going on right now, which is talking to or questioning, and despite how you may interpret the constitution (which so far doesnt seem wrong, just uncertain) many states have already upheld a policemans intuition.
Yes, it makes black people feel uncomfortable, and I am sorry for that, but life, liberty and pursuit of happiness dont include our government making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Well first of all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn't actually in the constitution, unlike the 14th amendment... haha. You are absolutely correct, and I didnt mean to imply it was. Just pointing out what so many people point out, the things we think we are entitled to arent always promised to us by the government. It may seem like a simple concept, but far too many Americans think they have a "RIGHT" to something they actually dont.
What the courts have generally upheld is the discretion of a policeman to stop who he wants to stop, yes, but most of this relies upon there being a reason outside of the person's race to stop them. I'm not sure if I agree with this but the courts have mostly put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove discrimination, otherwise they defer to the officer. Anyways I don't like that idea very much but it seems to be how the chips have fallen.

What's being talked about here though is a clearly articulated policy of extra scrutiny to certain ethnic minorities. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the US that has such a policy, and if they did have one if it wasn't removed for such a violation of the 14th amendment. In addition, when people complain of 14th amendment violations for 'driving while black' or whatever, the cop has a lot of things he could use as justification for the extra attention he's paying the person as it's really easy to find an excuse to pull someone over. Such justification would be far harder for people just walking through an airport checkpoint.

So I guess my point would be that any articulated policy would be obviously unconstitutional, and any policy relying on intuition would face far greater hurdles in explaining away the increased scrutiny due to the nature of the interaction. Oh, and morally I think its disgusting.

The cops also have a right to defend themselves if accused, and so far most state governments (and to certain extent, the federal govt.) have upheld that letting a law enforcement officer make his own decisions is the most effective thing to do.
They dont have any policy that says, "you must interview the exact same number of white people as black people in any investigation or inquiry" because that would be freakin stupid. They let the officer decide what the best course of action is.
Also, I am not suggesting a "policy" of extra scrutiny to minorities. Sorry if I came off that way. I am NOT saying the TSA needs an instruction ordering them to detain or strip search a minimum 10 blacks, 10 hispanics, and 20 arabs each day. Obviously thats just plain wrong.
I am saying the TSA and law enforcement officers be allowed to make decisions of their own accord.
And if the cops are doing something outright wrong, if they are doing illegal things then lying later to justify them then THATS the problem that needs to be fixed. You can make a hundred new laws this year if you want. Laws dont stop bad things from happening, they just provide procedures and punishments if they do. A dirty cop will always be able to fuck the system, but the dirty cop is the problem which needs to be fixed. Making more rules for honest cops to follow doesnt help things.
Same with the TSA. I think they're a bunch of idiots and incompetants, but lets fix that problem instead of making more restrictive and ridiculous policies for them to ignore or break.

As for the moral issue: I wont argue with your feelings on the matter, you seem well spoken and able to make a good point. I dont think you have bad morals.
But the fact is we all have our different views on morality and right now the government is trying to do the most effective thing, regardless of whether or not its "good" in everybody's eyes.
Its impossible for the government to always make a moral decision because so many of us see things differently.
I believe abortion is acceptable, I think homosexuality is OK, as is race mixing and I have a number of other "left" beliefs.
As for things like executions, guns and the size of the government, I tend to the "right". (Though lately the Republicans seem to be on a quest to turn our government into 1984.)

 

[Fern]

Racial profiling and (intellegent) profiling are two completely different things.

Racial profiling is not helpful for the many reasons already pointed out. Forget about the Constitutional arguement, racial profiling won't do the job. So far we've had Arabs, Caucasions (white guy from San Fran), Hispanics and Asian terrorist or AQ members. Who you gonna leave out? Inuits and other native Americans?

The confusion between racial profiling and professional profiling among the public is prolly why we're stuck with this stupid PC system we have.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, guys? Racial profiling is a violation of the 14th amendment. Specifically targeting certain ethnic groups for increased searches, etc. is clearly unconstitutional. Yes I know that law enforcement frequently gets away with this because specific racist intent is hard to prove in court, but what you are arguing for is a specifically articulated policy targeting certain minorities. This blatantly violates other Americans' civil rights.

I'd like you to be more specific on the "etc." because all I suggested is whats going on right now, which is talking to or questioning, and despite how you may interpret the constitution (which so far doesnt seem wrong, just uncertain) many states have already upheld a policemans intuition.
Yes, it makes black people feel uncomfortable, and I am sorry for that, but life, liberty and pursuit of happiness dont include our government making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Well first of all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn't actually in the constitution, unlike the 14th amendment... haha. You are absolutely correct, and I didnt mean to imply it was. Just pointing out what so many people point out, the things we think we are entitled to arent always promised to us by the government. It may seem like a simple concept, but far too many Americans think they have a "RIGHT" to something they actually dont.
What the courts have generally upheld is the discretion of a policeman to stop who he wants to stop, yes, but most of this relies upon there being a reason outside of the person's race to stop them. I'm not sure if I agree with this but the courts have mostly put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove discrimination, otherwise they defer to the officer. Anyways I don't like that idea very much but it seems to be how the chips have fallen.

What's being talked about here though is a clearly articulated policy of extra scrutiny to certain ethnic minorities. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the US that has such a policy, and if they did have one if it wasn't removed for such a violation of the 14th amendment. In addition, when people complain of 14th amendment violations for 'driving while black' or whatever, the cop has a lot of things he could use as justification for the extra attention he's paying the person as it's really easy to find an excuse to pull someone over. Such justification would be far harder for people just walking through an airport checkpoint.

So I guess my point would be that any articulated policy would be obviously unconstitutional, and any policy relying on intuition would face far greater hurdles in explaining away the increased scrutiny due to the nature of the interaction. Oh, and morally I think its disgusting.

The cops also have a right to defend themselves if accused, and so far most state governments (and to certain extent, the federal govt.) have upheld that letting a law enforcement officer make his own decisions is the most effective thing to do.
They dont have any policy that says, "you must interview the exact same number of white people as black people in any investigation or inquiry" because that would be freakin stupid. They let the officer decide what the best course of action is.
Also, I am not suggesting a "policy" of extra scrutiny to minorities. Sorry if I came off that way. I am NOT saying the TSA needs an instruction ordering them to detain or strip search a minimum 10 blacks, 10 hispanics, and 20 arabs each day. Obviously thats just plain wrong.
I am saying the TSA and law enforcement officers be allowed to make decisions of their own accord.
And if the cops are doing something outright wrong, if they are doing illegal things then lying later to justify them then THATS the problem that needs to be fixed. You can make a hundred new laws this year if you want. Laws dont stop bad things from happening, they just provide procedures and punishments if they do. A dirty cop will always be able to fuck the system, but the dirty cop is the problem which needs to be fixed. Making more rules for honest cops to follow doesnt help things.
Same with the TSA. I think they're a bunch of idiots and incompetants, but lets fix that problem instead of making more restrictive and ridiculous policies for them to ignore or break.

As for the moral issue: I wont argue with your feelings on the matter, you seem well spoken and able to make a good point. I dont think you have bad morals.
But the fact is we all have our different views on morality and right now the government is trying to do the most effective thing, regardless of whether or not its "good" in everybody's eyes.
Its impossible for the government to always make a moral decision because so many of us see things differently.
I believe abortion is acceptable, I think homosexuality is OK, as is race mixing and I have a number of other "left" beliefs.
As for things like executions, guns and the size of the government, I tend to the "right". (Though lately the Republicans seem to be on a quest to turn our government into 1984.)

Biden?

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Fern
Racial profiling and (intellegent) profiling are two completely different things.

Racial profiling is not helpful for the many reasons already pointed out. Forget about the Constitutional arguement, racial profiling won't do the job. So far we've had Arabs, Caucasions (white guy from San Fran), Hispanics and Asian terrorist or AQ members. Who you gonna leave out? Inuits and other native Americans?

The confusion between racial profiling and professional profiling among the public is prolly why we're stuck with this stupid PC system we have.
Fern

You are brilliant, and I should have let you speak all along. Now I know why people here think I'm not being clear. I wasnt expressing myself very well.
You are correct, intelligent profiling is they way to do it. And thats what most cops and security agents tend to do, if left alone.

My apologies to all the folks here who thought I was the next David Duke. I was thinking "intelligent profiling" in my head and kept writing "racial profiling".
My only concern is that if we get bent out of shape with the laws then cops will no longer be able to "intelligent profile" correctly.

Sometimes I get so caught up in the debate I forget to be practical. Suspect I've been out of the Navy too long, starting to think like a civilian.

 

[Jaskalas]

Our enemy comes from Islam. All races and colors fit the profile of the Islamist, only one religious profile fits and that is the only profile to use accurately and to give extra scrutiny to.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our enemy comes from Islam. All races and colors fit the profile of the Islamist, only one religious profile fits and that is the only profile to use accurately and to give extra scrutiny to.

And we do that by asking, are you a Muslim? Or we profile anyone in Muslim dress? (Because terrorists would be too dumb to wear Western dress once we started doing that of course...)

 

[fskimospy]

Actually Fern you should be very happy... we already use intelligent profiling. There are a bunch of behavioral things (buying one way tickets, paying for things in cash, and I'm sure many others) that our security people already use in order to single out passengers for extra inspection. I don't really know exactly what they are doing at this time or how far they take it, but they certainly do employ it to some extent.

I have to say that I don't understand or really like how PC is thrown around as a pejorative term every time someone doesn't discriminate based on race or ethnicity. If people don't like how our country is too "PC", blame our damn liberal PC 14th amendment.

Oh, and shorty.. no worries. I used to be in the navy too actually.

 

[AliasX]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I dont have a problem with racial profiling in ANY situation, provided they only use it to question people. When they start grabbing folks, throwing them into little rooms and "interrogating" them simply on profiling, we have a problem.
I dont have any issues with it at home for city police, provided its just questioning.
Its not acceptable for search and seizure and warrant aquisition.

So stopping blacks just to "question" them is ok for no reason? Having police detaining citizens based on nothing but skin color is a violation of just about every civil right I can think of. What, blacks don't have to be on time for meetings, school? They should be subject to being stopped or detained at any time for any reason as you suggest? Think that through a little more.

Further, stopping for questioning may lead to a reasonable suspicion of anyone who is stopped. So if you stop blacks in larger numbers, you going to end up with more reasonable suspicion, and then more arrests based solely on race.

I think in many areas statistics would show that there is more "black" crime than "white" crime. If that were the case, wouldn't racial profiling help?

 

[palehorse]

U.S. says threat against airlines remains high

Highlighting one perceived difference between the United States and Europe, Chertoff said Muslims in the United States were well integrated into society. "I don't think there is a perception that they are marginalized and we want to make sure they don't feel marginalized," he said.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Actually Fern you should be very happy... we already use intelligent profiling. There are a bunch of behavioral things (buying one way tickets, paying for things in cash, and I'm sure many others) that our security people already use in order to single out passengers for extra inspection. I don't really know exactly what they are doing at this time or how far they take it, but they certainly do employ it to some extent.

I have to say that I don't understand or really like how PC is thrown around as a pejorative term every time someone doesn't discriminate based on race or ethnicity. If people don't like how our country is too "PC", blame our damn liberal PC 14th amendment.

Oh, and shorty.. no worries. I used to be in the navy too actually.

OH SHIT, YOU WAS A SWABEE?!? I thought you was a swabee!

I thought he :thumbsup: was a swabee!

 

[babylon5]

I don't know if it's legal or not, but I have seen Immigration agents at an airport pull people out for interrogation based on race. It seems someone on the plane
was caught with something, and this one Immigration guy checking passport for entry, at his own discretion pull people of the same 'race' as that guy out. I was
surprised to say the least.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our enemy comes from Islam. All races and colors fit the profile of the Islamist, only one religious profile fits and that is the only profile to use accurately and to give extra scrutiny to.

And we do that by asking, are you a Muslim? Or we profile anyone in Muslim dress? (Because terrorists would be too dumb to wear Western dress once we started doing that of course...)

so do we make them wear a badge in the image of the Mosque in Mecca? So all can persecute them? You'll find quite a few folks who aren't of Middle Eastern descent.


personally I don't know how to best do things. Obviously the best answer won't be politically correct, but it shouldn't be appalling either.

(how did I get in here? in P&N? :shudders: ...slowly backs out)

 

[StageLeft]

Perhaps people are interpreting racial profiling as a mutually exclusive approach instead of merely one significant consideration.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: AliasX

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I dont have a problem with racial profiling in ANY situation, provided they only use it to question people. When they start grabbing folks, throwing them into little rooms and "interrogating" them simply on profiling, we have a problem.
I dont have any issues with it at home for city police, provided its just questioning.
Its not acceptable for search and seizure and warrant aquisition.

So stopping blacks just to "question" them is ok for no reason? Having police detaining citizens based on nothing but skin color is a violation of just about every civil right I can think of. What, blacks don't have to be on time for meetings, school? They should be subject to being stopped or detained at any time for any reason as you suggest? Think that through a little more.

Further, stopping for questioning may lead to a reasonable suspicion of anyone who is stopped. So if you stop blacks in larger numbers, you going to end up with more reasonable suspicion, and then more arrests based solely on race.

I think in many areas statistics would show that there is more "black" crime than "white" crime. If that were the case, wouldn't racial profiling help?

I agree that racial profiling will help because of the limited resources we have in this country. If we can develop a system that inspects all people equally and effectively deters highjackers and prevents dangerous items from coming on board with close to 100% accuracy, then I say we don't need to racially profile. Until we can do that, I say racial profiling will help our strained resources.

With that said, it's very difficult to draw a line with racial profiling. You might have one airport just stopping Muslims for questioning, but another might be more strict and use interrogations. So how do you define a standard for profiling? You read so many threads about people checking in firearms in their bags, but every airport treats that differently. While people follow TSA requirements, some get in trouble, some don't. So how do you deal with that? You're not dealing with people's personal property when you profile but actual people. This means emotions are flying when you screw up with profiling. Until there's proper training and a uniform standard defined, I don't think we should go into profiling yet. Do I think it will work on paper? Yeah. Do I think it should be done? Yeah, but not unless we iron out the problems first.