Traveling while Black or Latino.

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Looks like PJs got this one right. If a crime is probably being committed by blacks and latinos it makes sense as to why they are doing just what they are. It isn't racism. It's not being stupid.

No, he's totally incorrect. This is supposed to be a "random" stop and frisk procedure, and when originally instituted it was challenged by the ACLU. The court ruled for the police and found the law allowing random searches to be constitutional.

Once you demonstrate that the searches are anything but random, a new legal challenge can be brought. The police have now created a class of people who are being subject to increased police searches because of their skin color, and not because they were randomly selected.

The law creating these searches was upheld as constitutional on it's face. However, I guarantee there will be another challenge now that the program has been running for a while, and it will be an "as applied" challenge. That means while the law allowing random searches is constitutional, it's application has been anything but.

Beyond the legal argument, can you envision what would result from the logic of "X race is more likely to committ Y crime, so we can search more of X race without ANY cause?" That's like communist russia where they ask people for their "papers" everywhere they go. If whites were shown to be statistically higher shoplifters, you'd support increased "random" searches among the bags of all white shoppers? We're not talking about finding rapists and murderers by doing random searches on the subway, so citing those statistics is irrelevent.

The problem here is that increased searches/surveillance will ALWAYS result in increased arrests. If you stop more black motorists you will find more reasons to arrest them just as if you stopped white motorists more often you'd find more reasons to arrest them (contraband on the car seat, etc.) Couple that with white cops letting whites found with small infractions like one joint off the hook while arresting blacks for the same infraction, and you now have defacto second class citizenship.

So you are saying that crime is evenly distributed in that area. That's a remarkable claim that no one has demonstrated.

Suppose that someone developed a way identify criminals in an area where it is predominately carried out by some group. Let's say they have three eyes. Further let's say that some technique was developed that didn't mention it.

The results is that in that particular location three eyed people would be identified as those to check. Then someone claims the sole basis for identifying them was because of three eyes.

This isn't a perfect world. Sometimes things aren't fair, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. The question is do you ignore it?

Hello Hayabusa, my friend, i hope you are well?

I think his point is that anything but completely random makes a selection of the populace effectively suspects since they are handpicked while there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.

I might be wrong though, but that's the way i see this, and no, random searches don't make much sense, i'll agree on that, but it's fair and treats everyone like equals.

Well that's the problem...the way Hayabusa Rider and others are arguing, there IS evidence of wrongdoing that justifies searching them...being black. Having the wrong skin color is effectively "evidence of wrongdoing" because there is a slightly higher chance that a random black person is doing something wrong based on criminal demographics.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Looks like PJs got this one right. If a crime is probably being committed by blacks and latinos it makes sense as to why they are doing just what they are. It isn't racism. It's not being stupid.

Nope, I'd say it's still pretty racist. After all, there is no reason at all to think that the specific person being stopped did anything at all wrong, the way it's being justified is that people who have the same skin color have committed some crimes. In other words, the only suspicion the police have is based on skin color...how is that not racist?

The problem with your argument is that you're taking an abstract idea and trying to use it to justify treatment of specific people. From a totally practical standpoint, if the ONLY goal is to search people most likely to be doing something wrong, then searching people belonging to groups more likely to commit crimes makes sense (this extends beyond racial profiling, though). But that's NOT the only goal, because we don't live in a police state...and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're trying to use statistics to justify treatment of individuals, and that just isn't compatible with a free society. In other words, the fact that black people in NYC represent a disproportionate percentage of criminals does not mean the police are entitled to treat Jim Smith any different just because he happens to be black.

Personally I'm surprised that this argument comes up as often as it does. I mean, it's one thing to debate the effectiveness of various police methods...that's fine. But I'm pretty surprised at the number of people who are implicitly arguing, as you are, that police efficiency should be the ONLY factor taken into account.

Then by all means propose a real world working alternative that offends no one.

Random searches. Or even better, behavioral profiling. Look for people acting suspiciously, and search THEM.

Not that that really matters...our goal should be to draw the lines for civil liberties, THEN find a way to solve our problems within those lines. If the police can't find a way to fight crime without trampling all over our civil liberties, maybe we need some new police instead of new civil liberties.

What you are effectively saying is that you haven't any idea, and if people are victims of crime so be it as long as there isn't any appearance of racism. It's better to let someone be harmed then offended.

I'm sorry but I can't buy that. The facts are that in that setting, a group which happens to be black are committing more crimes. You are also assuming from the statistics that it's their skin color which trips the trigger. What if it is behavior, and the the behaviors do indicate who is more likely to commit a crime and what THEN what if they happen to be black?

What you ask for is to exclude people because they happen to be black even if other factors are involved. If blacks cannot be excluded to the extent reflective of their percentage of population, then we have to sacrifice public safety in order not to offend sensibilities.

What next? "Please describe the criminal, but don't use any terms which could be considered descriptive of race?"

Sometimes sensibilities should not overwhelm sense.

I'll tell you what, chief, you put away your mind reading powers for a minute and I'll try to restrain myself from reading what *I* want to read into your statements.

In the first place, I did offer some alternative ideas to racial profiling..."behavioral profiling" was a term I explicitly used, and I think that is both more fair and more effective than dragging people out of line because they have the wrong skin color.

I am not making any assumptions about why the NYC police are doing what they are doing, I'm reacting to what people like you are saying...and whatever the cops in New York are thinking, it's pretty obvious that you aren't talking about behavioral profiling...you are talking about racial profiling. I am not suggesting that we IGNORE black people either if other factors make them suspicious looking, and you know that's not what I'm saying. However, I don't think skin color is an appropriate way to classify someone as potentially criminal or not. If you look suspicious as hell and happen to be black, so be it, but I honestly don't think it's OK to pull someone out of line just because they are black.

And it's not a matter of wanting to not offend anyone, it's an objection to TREATING people differently just because of their skin color...and more than that, an objection to the attitude inherent in racial profiling. Look at what you're saying, if we don't target black people for special treatment, we're harming public safety. Am I the only person who sees that as a remarkably dangerous attitude? Right now it's "just" getting searched on the subway or getting pulled over for driving too nice a car in too wealthy a neighborhood, but I can't help but think how much farther these ideas could take us in a direction we probably don't want to go.

But at the end of the day, here's my objection. We live in a free society, and fundamental to that freedom is the idea that you are largely able to go about your business without getting hassled by the government or by other people unless you are doing something wrong. And I don't think "being black" is justification enough to warrant infringing on that fundamental freedom. And you're right, I am considering certain things above safety...I don't think racial profiling makes anyone safer, but even if it did, that's not enough justification. "Safety" should not be the ultimate argument when considering social policy, and I'm honestly surprised at the number of people who think it should be.

Sorry but you already engaged in assumptions, and that's the reason we're having this discussion right now.

The OP who was "shocked" that blacks and latinos were being searched in higher proportion than whites. My point is that if someone has a criteria that selects those most likely to commit a crime, and the majority happen to have some common trait and in this case it happens they are black I haven't a problem. If they were Catholic or gay or athiest I'd say the same. Well you can't see that. The whole "injustice" is the statistic, regardless of context. Someone chose to make a point of race, and I don't care about it one way or another. The police have some criteria which many assume is race, which happens to identify people who happen to be black and that's apparently racist.

Look at what you're saying, if we don't target black people for special treatment, we're harming public safety.

Really? I didn't say that. But you insist on making it my point. Here it is to pick apart.

If there is a proper, reliable criteria put into force which identifies those most likely to commit a crime I'm fine with that. That criteria should be based on something other than race, but at the end of the day it MIGHT include it as a contributing factor. Let's put that last in context so you don't run with it.

Given an all black group of teens has a gang fight with an all black gang of teens and one gang has certain colors, and the other side has other colors and they are known it makes the most sense to interview black teen members who were in that area at that time wearing those colors. It makes little sense to look for criminals who weren't black. Now ALL blacks? No, but those who "fit the profile" in this case. Let's say they interview 11 people and 1 of those was white, because he was around and might have seen something.

Next day PN headlines
BLACKS QUESTIONED TEN TO ONE! I'M SHOCKED!

Well why not? In real life we wouldn't be privy to what the police knew, or what the policy was, but yet THE POLICE ARE RACIST, and further anyone who says it might make sense are racist too.

Ah well, this is P&N.

Back to the OP. No, I don't feel people should be randomly targeted because they are anything in particular, but if a working profile happens to identify individuals who happen to belong to any group (mine included) then I haven't a problem with it. If the policy is "Hey let's give that black guy a tough time", then I do.

That people take an isolated statistic and make something out of it that can't be known is being ignorant or disingenuous at best.

If that's racist so be it. Ok chief?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Looks like PJs got this one right. If a crime is probably being committed by blacks and latinos it makes sense as to why they are doing just what they are. It isn't racism. It's not being stupid.

No, he's totally incorrect. This is supposed to be a "random" stop and frisk procedure, and when originally instituted it was challenged by the ACLU. The court ruled for the police and found the law allowing random searches to be constitutional.

Once you demonstrate that the searches are anything but random, a new legal challenge can be brought. The police have now created a class of people who are being subject to increased police searches because of their skin color, and not because they were randomly selected.

The law creating these searches was upheld as constitutional on it's face. However, I guarantee there will be another challenge now that the program has been running for a while, and it will be an "as applied" challenge. That means while the law allowing random searches is constitutional, it's application has been anything but.

Beyond the legal argument, can you envision what would result from the logic of "X race is more likely to committ Y crime, so we can search more of X race without ANY cause?" That's like communist russia where they ask people for their "papers" everywhere they go. If whites were shown to be statistically higher shoplifters, you'd support increased "random" searches among the bags of all white shoppers? We're not talking about finding rapists and murderers by doing random searches on the subway, so citing those statistics is irrelevent.

The problem here is that increased searches/surveillance will ALWAYS result in increased arrests. If you stop more black motorists you will find more reasons to arrest them just as if you stopped white motorists more often you'd find more reasons to arrest them (contraband on the car seat, etc.) Couple that with white cops letting whites found with small infractions like one joint off the hook while arresting blacks for the same infraction, and you now have defacto second class citizenship.

So you are saying that crime is evenly distributed in that area. That's a remarkable claim that no one has demonstrated.

Suppose that someone developed a way identify criminals in an area where it is predominately carried out by some group. Let's say they have three eyes. Further let's say that some technique was developed that didn't mention it.

The results is that in that particular location three eyed people would be identified as those to check. Then someone claims the sole basis for identifying them was because of three eyes.

This isn't a perfect world. Sometimes things aren't fair, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. The question is do you ignore it?

Hello Hayabusa, my friend, i hope you are well?

I think his point is that anything but completely random makes a selection of the populace effectively suspects since they are handpicked while there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.

I might be wrong though, but that's the way i see this, and no, random searches don't make much sense, i'll agree on that, but it's fair and treats everyone like equals.

Well that's the problem...the way Hayabusa Rider and others are arguing, there IS evidence of wrongdoing that justifies searching them...being black. Having the wrong skin color is effectively "evidence of wrongdoing" because there is a slightly higher chance that a random black person is doing something wrong based on criminal demographics.

Well he IS right about one thing, completely random searches are stupid.

I'm ok with profiling regardless of it's by age, race or gender, i'm opposed to calling it random and pretending like it is anything but selective though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Looks like PJs got this one right. If a crime is probably being committed by blacks and latinos it makes sense as to why they are doing just what they are. It isn't racism. It's not being stupid.

No, he's totally incorrect. This is supposed to be a "random" stop and frisk procedure, and when originally instituted it was challenged by the ACLU. The court ruled for the police and found the law allowing random searches to be constitutional.

Once you demonstrate that the searches are anything but random, a new legal challenge can be brought. The police have now created a class of people who are being subject to increased police searches because of their skin color, and not because they were randomly selected.

The law creating these searches was upheld as constitutional on it's face. However, I guarantee there will be another challenge now that the program has been running for a while, and it will be an "as applied" challenge. That means while the law allowing random searches is constitutional, it's application has been anything but.

Beyond the legal argument, can you envision what would result from the logic of "X race is more likely to committ Y crime, so we can search more of X race without ANY cause?" That's like communist russia where they ask people for their "papers" everywhere they go. If whites were shown to be statistically higher shoplifters, you'd support increased "random" searches among the bags of all white shoppers? We're not talking about finding rapists and murderers by doing random searches on the subway, so citing those statistics is irrelevent.

The problem here is that increased searches/surveillance will ALWAYS result in increased arrests. If you stop more black motorists you will find more reasons to arrest them just as if you stopped white motorists more often you'd find more reasons to arrest them (contraband on the car seat, etc.) Couple that with white cops letting whites found with small infractions like one joint off the hook while arresting blacks for the same infraction, and you now have defacto second class citizenship.

So you are saying that crime is evenly distributed in that area. That's a remarkable claim that no one has demonstrated.

Suppose that someone developed a way identify criminals in an area where it is predominately carried out by some group. Let's say they have three eyes. Further let's say that some technique was developed that didn't mention it.

The results is that in that particular location three eyed people would be identified as those to check. Then someone claims the sole basis for identifying them was because of three eyes.

This isn't a perfect world. Sometimes things aren't fair, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. The question is do you ignore it?

Hello Hayabusa, my friend, i hope you are well?

I think his point is that anything but completely random makes a selection of the populace effectively suspects since they are handpicked while there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.

I might be wrong though, but that's the way i see this, and no, random searches don't make much sense, i'll agree on that, but it's fair and treats everyone like equals.

Well that's the problem...the way Hayabusa Rider and others are arguing, there IS evidence of wrongdoing that justifies searching them...being black. Having the wrong skin color is effectively "evidence of wrongdoing" because there is a slightly higher chance that a random black person is doing something wrong based on criminal demographics.

Well he IS right about one thing, completely random searches are stupid.

I'm ok with profiling regardless of it's by age, race or gender, i'm opposed to calling it random and pretending like it is anything but selective though.

It's all dependent on circumstance. It wouldn't make sense to factor in being black when looking for suspects where only whites are involved.

The whole problem is that we are arguing a specific incident unencumbered by context. The reality is that we could be dealing with saints or KKK members and not know. As almost always, the truth lies somewhere in between. We are also collectively hamstrung by the fear of not appearing PC, even if claims of racism are baseless. I'm not PC. I don't want people to be hassled simply because they are black, but if something suspicious happens and the people happen to be black that's tough. As I've said before neither they or we are special flowers.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Looks like PJs got this one right. If a crime is probably being committed by blacks and latinos it makes sense as to why they are doing just what they are. It isn't racism. It's not being stupid.

No, he's totally incorrect. This is supposed to be a "random" stop and frisk procedure, and when originally instituted it was challenged by the ACLU. The court ruled for the police and found the law allowing random searches to be constitutional.

Once you demonstrate that the searches are anything but random, a new legal challenge can be brought. The police have now created a class of people who are being subject to increased police searches because of their skin color, and not because they were randomly selected.

The law creating these searches was upheld as constitutional on it's face. However, I guarantee there will be another challenge now that the program has been running for a while, and it will be an "as applied" challenge. That means while the law allowing random searches is constitutional, it's application has been anything but.

Beyond the legal argument, can you envision what would result from the logic of "X race is more likely to committ Y crime, so we can search more of X race without ANY cause?" That's like communist russia where they ask people for their "papers" everywhere they go. If whites were shown to be statistically higher shoplifters, you'd support increased "random" searches among the bags of all white shoppers? We're not talking about finding rapists and murderers by doing random searches on the subway, so citing those statistics is irrelevent.

The problem here is that increased searches/surveillance will ALWAYS result in increased arrests. If you stop more black motorists you will find more reasons to arrest them just as if you stopped white motorists more often you'd find more reasons to arrest them (contraband on the car seat, etc.) Couple that with white cops letting whites found with small infractions like one joint off the hook while arresting blacks for the same infraction, and you now have defacto second class citizenship.

So you are saying that crime is evenly distributed in that area. That's a remarkable claim that no one has demonstrated.

Suppose that someone developed a way identify criminals in an area where it is predominately carried out by some group. Let's say they have three eyes. Further let's say that some technique was developed that didn't mention it.

The results is that in that particular location three eyed people would be identified as those to check. Then someone claims the sole basis for identifying them was because of three eyes.

This isn't a perfect world. Sometimes things aren't fair, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. The question is do you ignore it?

Hello Hayabusa, my friend, i hope you are well?

I think his point is that anything but completely random makes a selection of the populace effectively suspects since they are handpicked while there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.

I might be wrong though, but that's the way i see this, and no, random searches don't make much sense, i'll agree on that, but it's fair and treats everyone like equals.

Well that's the problem...the way Hayabusa Rider and others are arguing, there IS evidence of wrongdoing that justifies searching them...being black. Having the wrong skin color is effectively "evidence of wrongdoing" because there is a slightly higher chance that a random black person is doing something wrong based on criminal demographics.

Well he IS right about one thing, completely random searches are stupid.

I'm ok with profiling regardless of it's by age, race or gender, i'm opposed to calling it random and pretending like it is anything but selective though.

It's all dependent on circumstance. It wouldn't make sense to factor in being black when looking for suspects where only whites are involved.

The whole problem is that we are arguing a specific incident unencumbered by context. The reality is that we could be dealing with saints or KKK members and not know. As almost always, the truth lies somewhere in between. We are also collectively hamstrung by the fear of not appearing PC, even if claims of racism are baseless. I'm not PC. I don't want people to be hassled simply because they are black, but if something suspicious happens and the people happen to be black that's tough. As I've said before neither they or we are special flowers.

I see your point perfectly and i agree with you on this one, but don't say that it's "random searches" call them race selective based on probability or something, it might not be PC but the truth is never PC.

You didn't answer my question though, is everything ok with you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pretty much good. I've been busy with some things at home, but nothing major. That little naggy stuff.

It's just me and the dogs for the next few days. Family is in Boston visiting, so I get to screw off

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Pretty much good. I've been busy with some things at home, but nothing major. That little naggy stuff.

It's just me and the dogs for the next few days. Family is in Boston visiting, so I get to screw off

Good to hear that you are doing well and right now i wish my kids would have the courtesy of staying away, living in a confined space for so long (hotelrooms) has taken it's toll on my patience with them but it's also been very fun.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Looks like PJs got this one right. If a crime is probably being committed by blacks and latinos it makes sense as to why they are doing just what they are. It isn't racism. It's not being stupid.

Nope, I'd say it's still pretty racist. After all, there is no reason at all to think that the specific person being stopped did anything at all wrong, the way it's being justified is that people who have the same skin color have committed some crimes. In other words, the only suspicion the police have is based on skin color...how is that not racist?

The problem with your argument is that you're taking an abstract idea and trying to use it to justify treatment of specific people. From a totally practical standpoint, if the ONLY goal is to search people most likely to be doing something wrong, then searching people belonging to groups more likely to commit crimes makes sense (this extends beyond racial profiling, though). But that's NOT the only goal, because we don't live in a police state...and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're trying to use statistics to justify treatment of individuals, and that just isn't compatible with a free society. In other words, the fact that black people in NYC represent a disproportionate percentage of criminals does not mean the police are entitled to treat Jim Smith any different just because he happens to be black.

Personally I'm surprised that this argument comes up as often as it does. I mean, it's one thing to debate the effectiveness of various police methods...that's fine. But I'm pretty surprised at the number of people who are implicitly arguing, as you are, that police efficiency should be the ONLY factor taken into account.

Then by all means propose a real world working alternative that offends no one.

Random searches. Or even better, behavioral profiling. Look for people acting suspiciously, and search THEM.

Not that that really matters...our goal should be to draw the lines for civil liberties, THEN find a way to solve our problems within those lines. If the police can't find a way to fight crime without trampling all over our civil liberties, maybe we need some new police instead of new civil liberties.

What you are effectively saying is that you haven't any idea, and if people are victims of crime so be it as long as there isn't any appearance of racism. It's better to let someone be harmed then offended.

I'm sorry but I can't buy that. The facts are that in that setting, a group which happens to be black are committing more crimes. You are also assuming from the statistics that it's their skin color which trips the trigger. What if it is behavior, and the the behaviors do indicate who is more likely to commit a crime and what THEN what if they happen to be black?

What you ask for is to exclude people because they happen to be black even if other factors are involved. If blacks cannot be excluded to the extent reflective of their percentage of population, then we have to sacrifice public safety in order not to offend sensibilities.

What next? "Please describe the criminal, but don't use any terms which could be considered descriptive of race?"

Sometimes sensibilities should not overwhelm sense.

I'll tell you what, chief, you put away your mind reading powers for a minute and I'll try to restrain myself from reading what *I* want to read into your statements.

In the first place, I did offer some alternative ideas to racial profiling..."behavioral profiling" was a term I explicitly used, and I think that is both more fair and more effective than dragging people out of line because they have the wrong skin color.

I am not making any assumptions about why the NYC police are doing what they are doing, I'm reacting to what people like you are saying...and whatever the cops in New York are thinking, it's pretty obvious that you aren't talking about behavioral profiling...you are talking about racial profiling. I am not suggesting that we IGNORE black people either if other factors make them suspicious looking, and you know that's not what I'm saying. However, I don't think skin color is an appropriate way to classify someone as potentially criminal or not. If you look suspicious as hell and happen to be black, so be it, but I honestly don't think it's OK to pull someone out of line just because they are black.

And it's not a matter of wanting to not offend anyone, it's an objection to TREATING people differently just because of their skin color...and more than that, an objection to the attitude inherent in racial profiling. Look at what you're saying, if we don't target black people for special treatment, we're harming public safety. Am I the only person who sees that as a remarkably dangerous attitude? Right now it's "just" getting searched on the subway or getting pulled over for driving too nice a car in too wealthy a neighborhood, but I can't help but think how much farther these ideas could take us in a direction we probably don't want to go.

But at the end of the day, here's my objection. We live in a free society, and fundamental to that freedom is the idea that you are largely able to go about your business without getting hassled by the government or by other people unless you are doing something wrong. And I don't think "being black" is justification enough to warrant infringing on that fundamental freedom. And you're right, I am considering certain things above safety...I don't think racial profiling makes anyone safer, but even if it did, that's not enough justification. "Safety" should not be the ultimate argument when considering social policy, and I'm honestly surprised at the number of people who think it should be.

Sorry but you already engaged in assumptions, and that's the reason we're having this discussion right now.

The OP who was "shocked" that blacks and latinos were being searched in higher proportion than whites. My point is that if someone has a criteria that selects those most likely to commit a crime, and the majority happen to have some common trait and in this case it happens they are black I haven't a problem. If they were Catholic or gay or athiest I'd say the same. Well you can't see that. The whole "injustice" is the statistic, regardless of context. Someone chose to make a point of race, and I don't care about it one way or another. The police have some criteria which many assume is race, which happens to identify people who happen to be black and that's apparently racist.

Look at what you're saying, if we don't target black people for special treatment, we're harming public safety.

Really? I didn't say that. But you insist on making it my point. Here it is to pick apart.

If there is a proper, reliable criteria put into force which identifies those most likely to commit a crime I'm fine with that. That criteria should be based on something other than race, but at the end of the day it MIGHT include it as a contributing factor. Let's put that last in context so you don't run with it.

Given an all black group of teens has a gang fight with an all black gang of teens and one gang has certain colors, and the other side has other colors and they are known it makes the most sense to interview black teen members who were in that area at that time wearing those colors. It makes little sense to look for criminals who weren't black. Now ALL blacks? No, but those who "fit the profile" in this case. Let's say they interview 11 people and 1 of those was white, because he was around and might have seen something.

Next day PN headlines
BLACKS QUESTIONED TEN TO ONE! I'M SHOCKED!

Well why not? In real life we wouldn't be privy to what the police knew, or what the policy was, but yet THE POLICE ARE RACIST, and further anyone who says it might make sense are racist too.

Ah well, this is P&N.

Back to the OP. No, I don't feel people should be randomly targeted because they are anything in particular, but if a working profile happens to identify individuals who happen to belong to any group (mine included) then I haven't a problem with it. If the policy is "Hey let's give that black guy a tough time", then I do.

That people take an isolated statistic and make something out of it that can't be known is being ignorant or disingenuous at best.

If that's racist so be it. Ok chief?

Hey, you keep bringing up the idea of "racism", not me. I think it's just a stupid, un-American policy...and I'd think so even if the characteristic was something other than skin color. I would object just as readily if we were doing it to Catholics or gays or atheists or Muslims or middle aged men. My problem isn't with the specific traits we're using, it's that we're dividing people into groups based on how they look or what they believe and saying people in one group are more likely to be criminals than people in the other group, so they should be treated differently.

The example you give about the gang fight is a different animal all together. If there are specific people we're looking for, and we know they are black or white or 6 feet tall or have dark hair or whatever, I see no problem with constructing a profile of that particular person or group of people in order to find them. But that's different than trying to build a broad profile of "criminal" and telling people they are more or less likely to be criminals based on how well they fit that profile.

And forget our obvious ideological differences on this topic, look at it from a practical perspective. If we build a racially based profile of who's likely to be a criminal and who isn't, it would seem like we're in danger of widening the divide between black people and white people in this country. We're not exactly living in harmony to begin with, and official government policies that separate us into good guys and bad guys based on skin color (or any similar trait, really) further enforces the idea that the purpose of the police is to protect one group from the other group. That seems like it could have pretty negative consequences that I don't think should be dismissed quite so readily.

Any time the topic of race comes up, it can get pretty emotional, and that makes reasonable discussion difficult (for me as much as anyone). So forget we're talking about race for a minute, or any specific trait at all, really, and consider how you'd feel if there was an official policy that identified you personally as more likely to be a pedophile...and that you were regarded with extra suspicion whenever you went near a playground or school. I'm not saying this is exactly the same scenario, but I think it's close enough...and I have a hard time believing you wouldn't find that a little off-putting.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
...

It's all dependent on circumstance. It wouldn't make sense to factor in being black when looking for suspects where only whites are involved.

The whole problem is that we are arguing a specific incident unencumbered by context. The reality is that we could be dealing with saints or KKK members and not know. As almost always, the truth lies somewhere in between. We are also collectively hamstrung by the fear of not appearing PC, even if claims of racism are baseless. I'm not PC. I don't want people to be hassled simply because they are black, but if something suspicious happens and the people happen to be black that's tough. As I've said before neither they or we are special flowers.

I see what you're saying, but aren't we talking about broad policy rather than a reaction to specific instances? If there is a KKK threat against a specific event, you're right, paying more attention to the white attendees doesn't seem particularly out of line. But that's different than ALWAYS paying more attention to white people because they're more likely to be KKK people up to no good.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
...

It's all dependent on circumstance. It wouldn't make sense to factor in being black when looking for suspects where only whites are involved.

The whole problem is that we are arguing a specific incident unencumbered by context. The reality is that we could be dealing with saints or KKK members and not know. As almost always, the truth lies somewhere in between. We are also collectively hamstrung by the fear of not appearing PC, even if claims of racism are baseless. I'm not PC. I don't want people to be hassled simply because they are black, but if something suspicious happens and the people happen to be black that's tough. As I've said before neither they or we are special flowers.

I see what you're saying, but aren't we talking about broad policy rather than a reaction to specific instances? If there is a KKK threat against a specific event, you're right, paying more attention to the white attendees doesn't seem particularly out of line. But that's different than ALWAYS paying more attention to white people because they're more likely to be KKK people up to no good.

I think we had a misunderstanding of each other's emphasis. I was reacting to the OP and his statistics which really say nothing. You were saying something else.

To put it as simply as I can, being black doesn't make one a criminal, but neither does citing statistics about an event make for racism. Anyone should be treated as innocent unless there is good cause to believe otherwise, and at times the innocent will be questioned. It's how and why that matter.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
...

It's all dependent on circumstance. It wouldn't make sense to factor in being black when looking for suspects where only whites are involved.

The whole problem is that we are arguing a specific incident unencumbered by context. The reality is that we could be dealing with saints or KKK members and not know. As almost always, the truth lies somewhere in between. We are also collectively hamstrung by the fear of not appearing PC, even if claims of racism are baseless. I'm not PC. I don't want people to be hassled simply because they are black, but if something suspicious happens and the people happen to be black that's tough. As I've said before neither they or we are special flowers.

I see what you're saying, but aren't we talking about broad policy rather than a reaction to specific instances? If there is a KKK threat against a specific event, you're right, paying more attention to the white attendees doesn't seem particularly out of line. But that's different than ALWAYS paying more attention to white people because they're more likely to be KKK people up to no good.

I think we had a misunderstanding of each other's emphasis. I was reacting to the OP and his statistics which really say nothing. You were saying something else.

To put it as simply as I can, being black doesn't make one a criminal, but neither does citing statistics about an event make for racism. Anyone should be treated as innocent unless there is good cause to believe otherwise, and at times the innocent will be questioned. It's how and why that matter.

I think you're right, what we were saying just totally went over the other person's head

I don't think statistics alone prove racism, there isn't nearly enough detail to say WHY more black people were stopped to say they were only stopped because they were black. If, for instance, all the white subway riders were clean cut guys in suits and all the black subway riders were thug looking dudes wearing heavy coats in July, that's clearly not racism if the black guys get stopped more often.

I don't think people should be treated differently because of skin color, and that goes both ways. You shouldn't get pulled over for driving too nice a car while being black, but if you are doing something suspicious, pulling out the race card shouldn't be a defense, either. I'm not really troubled if more black people get searched, I'm troubled if they get searched just because they are black.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: beyoku
Does anyone think its perfectly fair for our domestic spying program to mainly spy on the White population because they are the ones the commit most acts of domestic terrorism like Church bombs, truck bombs, mass school shootings, etc?

First of all, put down the Tom Clancy novel. Second, yes, I think that it's perfectly fair for the FBI to focus their ant-domestic terrorism efforts on the population that is most likely to commit the crime. Of course you can't exclude other segments of the population, because they commit these acts as well, but you should definitely focus your investigation on the people most likely to commit the crime. Otherwise, you're just wasting time in an effort to be PC.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taejin
How do you people know that the police aren't stopping and frisking based on how the person acts/dresses? If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often? So taken into account that blacks have a larger population than the #2 race committing crime (latinos) and are generally of lower socioeconomic status (thus possibly increasing the pool of youngsters involved in bad environments), it would seem that the police have it about right.

Race could be correlating strongly with how these people dress - and the police may be frisking people based on how they dress/act. You aren't going to see a policeman frisking anyone who seems well groomed, expensive business suit, briefcase, walking out of Goldman Sachs, etc (well..not normally, right?).

Just a thought.

If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often?

Wow. Just wow. You are really advocating that in America the police should have policy of searching you based on the style of your dress?

Has ANYONE ever read a book about Nazi Germany and Fascism?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm advocating. Seriously, how dense can you be? If I'm a policeman and I see people flashing gang signs, gang tattoos or wearing clothes in a manner that would indicate possible involvement in an illegal activity, then I absolutely advocate 'profiling' them. You don't have to be black, white, latino or yellow to be part of a gang and a candidate for suspicion.

If the larger number of crimes are committed by black people, particularly if this is how they dress, then the profiling is appropriate. If more black people decide that this kind of wear is appropriate, then it makes sense they're going to be profiled.

This is the exact same way that store associates keep track of possible suspects that may be stealing from stores. For you to act like they should completely ignore all aspects of how a person presents his or herself and simply frisk based on random chance is to advocate a degree of stupidity that could only be surpassed by a lobotomy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: beyoku
Does anyone think its perfectly fair for our domestic spying program to mainly spy on the White population because they are the ones the commit most acts of domestic terrorism like Church bombs, truck bombs, mass school shootings, etc?

First of all, put down the Tom Clancy novel. Second, yes, I think that it's perfectly fair for the FBI to focus their ant-domestic terrorism efforts on the population that is most likely to commit the crime. Of course you can't exclude other segments of the population, because they commit these acts as well, but you should definitely focus your investigation on the people most likely to commit the crime. Otherwise, you're just wasting time in an effort to be PC.

You don't think it's wrong (in a way beyond not being "PC") to tell people we think they are criminals because they've got the wrong skin color or pray to the wrong God? Now you're right that the FBI should focus their efforts on the population most likely to be the bad guys, but that would seem to be a much more specific population than "Muslims" or "people from the Middle East". Your approach would have the FBI follow the Muslim cab driver instead of the white guy buying lots of diesel fuel and fertilizer. Personally, I think the FBI should focus on the guys doing suspicious stuff. If they are a minority, so be it...but I don't think it's overly PC to suggest we shouldn't target people JUST because they are in the wrong minority.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taejin
How do you people know that the police aren't stopping and frisking based on how the person acts/dresses? If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often? So taken into account that blacks have a larger population than the #2 race committing crime (latinos) and are generally of lower socioeconomic status (thus possibly increasing the pool of youngsters involved in bad environments), it would seem that the police have it about right.

Race could be correlating strongly with how these people dress - and the police may be frisking people based on how they dress/act. You aren't going to see a policeman frisking anyone who seems well groomed, expensive business suit, briefcase, walking out of Goldman Sachs, etc (well..not normally, right?).

Just a thought.

If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often?

Wow. Just wow. You are really advocating that in America the police should have policy of searching you based on the style of your dress?

Has ANYONE ever read a book about Nazi Germany and Fascism?

Sorry, but the way you dress DOES matter. If the police are looking for a homeless guy that just robbed someone, do you think they will bother talking to the guy wearing a three piece suit? ZOMG WERE IN NAZI GURMANY!!?!?!?11?

Just so we know your background here, how many investigations have you conducted?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taejin
How do you people know that the police aren't stopping and frisking based on how the person acts/dresses? If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often? So taken into account that blacks have a larger population than the #2 race committing crime (latinos) and are generally of lower socioeconomic status (thus possibly increasing the pool of youngsters involved in bad environments), it would seem that the police have it about right.

Race could be correlating strongly with how these people dress - and the police may be frisking people based on how they dress/act. You aren't going to see a policeman frisking anyone who seems well groomed, expensive business suit, briefcase, walking out of Goldman Sachs, etc (well..not normally, right?).

Just a thought.

If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often?

Wow. Just wow. You are really advocating that in America the police should have policy of searching you based on the style of your dress?

Has ANYONE ever read a book about Nazi Germany and Fascism?

Sorry, but the way you dress DOES matter. If the police are looking for a homeless guy that just robbed someone, do you think they will bother talking to the guy wearing a three piece suit? ZOMG WERE IN NAZI GURMANY!!?!?!?11?

Just so we know your background here, how many investigations have you conducted?

And since you HAVE conducted investigations, I assume you realize how silly it is to try to catch bad guys using a profile using extremely broad characteristics that fit half the people in your search area. Imagine a guy robbing a convenience store and you're trying to track him down based off of "he was wearing pants". And you don't even have that here, we're not talking about one specific crime or one specific suspect...we're talking about trying to PREVENT crimes based off of who is "more likely" to commit them using a trait that fits 50% of the population.

The whole thing seems phenomenally silly to me, surely the police have a better way to prevent crime than this.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taejin
How do you people know that the police aren't stopping and frisking based on how the person acts/dresses? If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often? So taken into account that blacks have a larger population than the #2 race committing crime (latinos) and are generally of lower socioeconomic status (thus possibly increasing the pool of youngsters involved in bad environments), it would seem that the police have it about right.

Race could be correlating strongly with how these people dress - and the police may be frisking people based on how they dress/act. You aren't going to see a policeman frisking anyone who seems well groomed, expensive business suit, briefcase, walking out of Goldman Sachs, etc (well..not normally, right?).

Just a thought.

If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often?

Wow. Just wow. You are really advocating that in America the police should have policy of searching you based on the style of your dress?

Has ANYONE ever read a book about Nazi Germany and Fascism?

Sorry, but the way you dress DOES matter. If the police are looking for a homeless guy that just robbed someone, do you think they will bother talking to the guy wearing a three piece suit? ZOMG WERE IN NAZI GURMANY!!?!?!?11?

Just so we know your background here, how many investigations have you conducted?

And since you HAVE conducted investigations, I assume you realize how silly it is to try to catch bad guys using a profile using extremely broad characteristics that fit half the people in your search area. Imagine a guy robbing a convenience store and you're trying to track him down based off of "he was wearing pants". And you don't even have that here, we're not talking about one specific crime or one specific suspect...we're talking about trying to PREVENT crimes based off of who is "more likely" to commit them using a trait that fits 50% of the population.

The whole thing seems phenomenally silly to me, surely the police have a better way to prevent crime than this.

My point was that you use every possible tool available, you don't count something out just because it might offend someone. Techs assertion that because we take into account the way that someone dresses when conducting an investigation means that we are one step away from throwing all the jews in gas chambers is ridiculous.

FWIW - I didn't conduct many investigations at all, this is just basic stuff.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taejin
How do you people know that the police aren't stopping and frisking based on how the person acts/dresses? If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often? So taken into account that blacks have a larger population than the #2 race committing crime (latinos) and are generally of lower socioeconomic status (thus possibly increasing the pool of youngsters involved in bad environments), it would seem that the police have it about right.

Race could be correlating strongly with how these people dress - and the police may be frisking people based on how they dress/act. You aren't going to see a policeman frisking anyone who seems well groomed, expensive business suit, briefcase, walking out of Goldman Sachs, etc (well..not normally, right?).

Just a thought.

If a larger majority of African Americans wear 'thug-life' outfits, or look like gangsters, etc - then doesn't it make more sense that they get frisked more often?

Wow. Just wow. You are really advocating that in America the police should have policy of searching you based on the style of your dress?

Has ANYONE ever read a book about Nazi Germany and Fascism?

Ever hear of the expression, If it looks like a duck, quaks like a duck and walks like a duck...?

How many of the 23,909 blacks and latinos were wearing a business suit or even a tie for that matter?

I'm sorry, but if i am concerned remotely with potential crime i am going to be staring at the guy with tatts, the do rag and the piercings and i could careless what the professionally dressed peeps are doing.

 

[FuzzyBee]

It seems like there are some people in this discussion that are making the assumption that these statistics exist in a vacuum.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
It seems like there are some people in this discussion that are making the assumption that these statistics exist in a vacuum.

yes and that vacuum is called Berkeley

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What percentage of the crimes on the NY Subway are committed by Blacks and what percentage by Latinos?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Don't you suburban guys know who commits all the crimes in the big cities? It's not Blacks and Hispanics! According to legend, years ago, Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young revealed that most of the crime in the city of Detroit was committed by...get this...white people from the suburbs entering the city to commit crimes!

So now you know...it's the suburban white guys...not the Blacks and Latinos...who are committing most of the crime in the cities! (Or at least in Detroit, according to the late Coleman Young.)

Quotes of Mayor Coleman A. Young (from the Wikipedia):

Swearing is an art form. You can express yourself much more exactly, much more succinctly, with properly used curse words.

Coleman Young to reporters in Hawaii: "Aloha, Motherfockers!"

Racism is like high blood pressure?the person who has it doesn?t know he has it until he drops over with a goddamned stroke. There are no symptoms of racism. The victim of racism is in a much better position to tell you whether or not you?re a racist than you are.

 

[ahurtt]

The whole problem I have with stupid statistics like this is that they seem to automatically imply that people were stopped because of skin tone/ethnicity as opposed to other stereotypes or traits. As soon as somebody non-white gets stopped by a white cop, out comes the race card. Nobody for a second stops to look in the mirror and ask themselves, "do I look like a thug? Does my image portray me as somebody who might look scary or suspicious?" No, it's always because the white man is trying to keep somebody down. I should be able to give off a "fuck you, society" image and walk around looking like I have a chip on my shoulder and I'm pissed off at the world without anybody stopping to wonder whether or not I might be potentially dangerous. Don't worry that the look in my eye conveys "speak to me and I might strangle you," it's just my image. You should completely deny all the innate instincts that warn you of potential danger and just not be worried about my intentions at all. I'm only dressing like this and acting like this to be cool. Yes, I know you can't tell the difference between me and a "real" criminal, but please, just take my word for it officer. I'm really a nice guy...Huh? oh, the guy pictured on my t-shirt? Why, yes. You're right, I believe he did in fact have a hit rap song entitled "Fuck the Police" now that you mention it. What? Against the wall? Why?

 

[drbrock]

this is no different than the stupid "angry white man" thread. the Feds do what works. Race cards are worthless.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe blacks and latinos are committing more crimes or present a tough-guy in-your-face image.

If you dress like a thug, you have to be expected to be treated like a thug.