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.
Actually, do you know what's funny? Security checks on pilots. I suppose one could be in cahoots with somebody in the cabin who could hijack and plane and bring it to Sudan, but since the pilot is the one flying the plane, even without a weapon he could crash the thing.Originally posted by: sirjonk
Clearly something is wrong with the system when Al Gore has to go through an airport search, even if randomly selected http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=51090
If we can't trust presidential candidates/former VPs to not be terrorists, what chance have we really got?
Thing is, currently NOBODY on the street is stopped for a random pat-down. If cops were charged to do such a thing, it would make sense then to profile based on race/age/dress as well. Ultimately, when you've got a system in which a woman with her four kids crying and screaming is given the same attention as a 25 year old single male, there's a problem!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.
Originally posted by: magomago
I would hope a thorough, complete, and more accurate profile would include simply more than "Middle Eastern Looking People". If we use race as a criteria - then our methodology of finding terrorists is going to suck. I would also believe that if we have to focus on their race, then our intelligence capabilities must have REALLY deteriorated...
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Ultimately, when you've got a system in which a woman with her four kids crying and screaming is given the same attention as a 25 year old single male, there's a problem!
Originally posted by: manowar821
That's idiotic. If someone wants to get past racial profiling to commit an act of terror, they need only look as far as a nice haircut, some makeup, some new clothes and perhaps a bit of study into English slang and such.
Idiotic.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: magomago
I would hope a thorough, complete, and more accurate profile would include simply more than "Middle Eastern Looking People". If we use race as a criteria - then our methodology of finding terrorists is going to suck. I would also believe that if we have to focus on their race, then our intelligence capabilities must have REALLY deteriorated...
Profiling for security, or any other reason for that matter, must include far more than just race, age and gender to be helpful.
There are many other factors that security professionals around the world successfully employ. And we should drop the whole "PC thing" and get onboard.
To randomly check people like Al Gore to give an appearance of being non-racist just wastes resources in an effort to be "PC".
Fern
I'll be glad to think that through a LOT more, I'll let you do the little thinking.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.
LOL @ All "essentially all terrorists look like the stereotypical terrorist ". Such a silly comment - terrorists look like stereotypical terrorists?
It would merely be one facet to explore.If we use race as a criteria - then our methodology of finding terrorists is going to suck.
Talk about royally pissing off a group without a good basis to do it....
Yeah - it is called having intelligence worth Sh|T, and heavily relying on race to do so is also proof of this.
Traditionally it has been males - but to ignore females would be to leave gaping hole in security.
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.
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Rather than doing "racial" profiling they should do "cultural" profiling.
People with masks, eye patches, parrots on shoulders, burkas, etc ....
It's not because of "race" but instead how they chose to dress/look.
If somebody looks like they could possibly be a pirate .. then profile them as a pirate.
If somebody looks like they could possibly be a ninja .. then profile them as a ninja.
If somebody looks like they could possibly be a terrorist .. then profile them as a terrorist.
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?
It would merely be one facet to explore.
See first question.Again, there is a very good basis for it. As I said "essentially all terrorists look like the stereotypical terrorist".
As I said again, it better be at the bottom of the list - that by now you are convinced its a terrorist race or not.Again, it would be just one aspect.
I never said that we need to focus on females. I'm saying in a complete and whole assessment of who and what to say, to ignore females rather than be aware of them can create problems for our security...especially if we are completely geared toward men only.Of the last 500 suicide bombers to kill themselves in the world, how many were females? I would be surprised if it was even a dozen.
So should that be changed?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.
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