Racial Profiling II

V

Venison_Jerkey32

New member
Since the original was hard to read and had refrences to suspending the BOR:eek:, I started part deuce because I think that racial profiling is important and wanted to hear others' opinions.

Is it unfair to use it on certain races? probably. Is it unconstitutional? I think not. I think that it falls under 2 catagories: 1) freedom of speech and ideas and 2) The 4th amendment as it pertains to probable cause. IF a certain stereotype is acting in a suspicous manner, I think LE can focus on them, and IF by futher investigation this leads to probable cause, then LE has the right to investigate this person. Notice, I did not say that the racial profiling is in itself probable cause, only when further investigation yields further evidence does LE have probable cause.

An example:
An arabian type person is in an airport and is acting very nervous. While he goes through the detector and takes off his shoes, LE can put his shoes in the bomb sniffer device thingy, and NOT the shoes of the 80 grandma just to be PC. The sniffer thing then detects traces and arabian man is taken in for further questioning.

If however, the bomb sniffer requires substantial amounts of extra time-say walking to another part of the airport and being interviewed for 30 minutes while the results come in, than this can be constrewed as harrasment and should not be allowed.

But racial profiling in the most pure sense of LE having certain ideas about certain people based on clothes, race, speech, etc... IS protected by the constitution because everyone has freedom of ideas, and that is what racial profiling boils down to-specific ideas based on previous experience.


**Sorry that I had to use Arabian people for my example, it is just what most people view of when the think of racial profiling now a days. I do not think that all arabians or muslims are terrorists, it was only to be used as an example.
 
Behavioral profiling makes more sense. It also helps you catch people who might not be on the radar or who don't fit preconcieved notions of looks.
It would pass Constitutional muster also.
 
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to assume it's a duck.

Insert "thug" for "duck", and it doesn't matter what color we're talking about, cause all races have their thugs.
 
jfrey123,
What if it doesn't look like a duck, but actually is? We're discussing who we're not going to check, so the consequences are pretty serious if we get it wrong.
 
If we've got to be stupid and offend anyone, we might as well be stupid and offend EVERYONE... or, learn and practice behavorial profiling, as croyance stated.

I can think of at least two wack jobs who were Male, American Caucasian and did nasty things w/ explosives and several more who were serial murderers. Let's racially profile all white males as a result. What's that? We already DO? OK. Don't I feel safer now?

We can call it terror if it makes us feel better (?) and wage war all day long. I call it crime. Criminals come in all colors, shapes and sizes.

This nation was founded with several prinicples. It would certainly be quaint, if we could get back to thinking on those lines. Not all good injuns were dead injuns (and I hope we learned that lesson). Now if we could just uncock the bomb our federal gov't has given themselves in way of "making us safer"... for them.

Life isn't safe.

Deal with it.
 
In your example you've mixed two criteria, race and behavior (Arabic person acting nervous). One is race based, the other is behavior based, by mixing the two you've used behavior to justify selecting the person based upon race.
Using race as your sole criteria (or gender and/or religion) is wrong, both morally and constitutionally. Race can be used, combined with other known factors, when seeking a specific person for a specific offense such as a robbery suspect for whom you have a description. But to use race as your only profile because "we all know" that "X" group commits "Y" offenses is poor police work (or airport security).
 
There is no Constitutional right to not be offended. I can exercise my free speech and say something that is offensive to anyone. It is my right. However if I do this, there will be repercussions. Maybe a shop owner will refuse to provide services. His right as a property owner. Seeing as the airports are privately owned they could in theory have their own screeners and search anyone they choose. If they desired to single out a particular group, that would be their option. Just as I can tell any person, I want off my property, to leave. The problem is that I may eventually have no business because it offends too many folks.

Personally, all Muslims are not terrorists. Almost all terrorists have been Muslim. Yes ,they need to know that we are gonna be watching them very closely. I believe that the terrorists make plans in their " Mosques" and we should be busting them at the source instead of at the place of departure.

Oh nooooo:eek: I offended their sacred holy place... I wonder if Neo-Nazi's were using churches as bases of operation, that we would be so nice. PC is killing us and will continue to do so.

Stop all immigration, stop importing terrorists. Clean up our house for the time it takes. Then we can open up the door again. If I live in a house that has an open door policy and a group of people start trouble. I will kick them out and close my door. Find the others that hid inside while I was distracted and then make sure all is well. After making sure that my occupants are reasonably safe, reopen my door and make real sure that no more undesirables enter my home again.

We have liberty. Liberty has inherent dangers. We may never be able to totally protect the general populace. That is why we own firearms. Open eyes watching outsiders will help keep the bag guys in check.

I don't advocate a "Fortress America". We just need time to clean house. If I kick out my unwanted neighbor, it may lead to bad relations. The other option is to let them run my house. I think you know the result of unempowering yourselves.

Is it possible that one day we may be bowing to the east and speaking Spanish? Look around and you will see the seeds taking root. Bit by bit.

There is no easy solution. A country is defined by it's language, borders and culture. We are losing all three.
 
Reverse profiling.

My problem with the situation now is reverse profiling. That is where TSA makes a big production of searching/scanning average joe and his 90 year old grandmother while the middle-age male of middle eastern descent is ushered through as though the carpet under his feet were gold.

Interesting anecdote in this vein. Coming home from Iraq on leave a few weeks ago, and coming back just now, we were on full flights chartered by the military and consisting entirely of military personnel/DOD employees. When we landed in Atlanta, our plane was first searched by bomb dogs, then our checked baggage searched, then we were all x-rayed/metal-detected in the terminal. This was to get OFF the plane. Talk about a TSA hassle. A bunch of personnel in uniform with Federal ID stripped down to literally pants/socks/undershirt/underpants to clear security.

While I'm not at all advocating that the military get special treatment, that was a little excessive. Especially given that people who fit a more common criminal/terrorist profile are given special courtesy so as not to "offend" them.

While I agree that not all terrorists are Muslim or Middle Eastern, and that certainly MOST Muslims and Arabians are not terrorists, I do think that the standards should be the same across the board. Muslim, white, black, Asian, or otherwise.

When we intentionally harrass one group at the expense of not "offending" another, it has become racial profiling, regardless of what race is being profiled.
 
Last edited:
depends on what one means by "racial profiling"

Victim describes 6 foot black man wearing jeans and a white tshirt, cops are not going to bother looking for a 5'4" white guy. That qualifies as racial profiling but wasting time chasing anyone but a 6 foot black guy is bad police work.

Black guy driving a Lexus through a nice neighborhood while listening to rap music gets pulled over for DWB. That's also racial profiling but that's racist profiling and is very wrong.


The term "racial profiling" can mean either of those things so we must be careful how much of it we allow. Sure, there's little point in putting a random 80 year old Granny through the bomb sniffer but does that mean the only guys that get checked are going to be dark skinned?

_1729022_richardreid150ap.jpg


Something certainly needs to be done to secure air travel but extra security on someone strictly because that person is Muslim is utterly pointless. Hell, what if Achmed walks up to the security check wearing a curcifix around his neck? Or a Star of David?

These guys were not wearing turbans. Does anyone think they were nervous or perhaps they'd been training for this day so long that they appeared perfectly normal?

portlattat2.jpg
 
I think the whole argument is fundamentally racist and self-serving.
Not all arabs are terrorists, but some are. Not all caucasians are terrorists, but some are. Not all asians are terrorists, but some are. Not all blacks are terrorists, but some are. You name the race. You'll never be able to coherently argue that their skin color makes it impossible for them to hijack a plane.
If the screening wasn't an insulting hassle, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The proponents of profiling are all for screening so long as they don't have to be subjected to it. But the other guy shouldn't be afforded the same consideration. It's crap.
If I had my way there would be no screening. Let's see 'em hijack planes then ;).
But since we do have screening to make us "feel" safer, we can't afford the luxury of deciding who to not check because their skin is a non-threatening shade because there is no such thing.

If I were to profile anybody, it would be based on their apparent ability to pull something off. The 90 year old lady in the wheelchair who can't walk. The mother with 2 screaming kids. The shuffling veteran with an oxygen tank.
The 5 year old travelling across country to meet his relatives.

We don't need to waste our time checking those folks. Our enemy may be unscrupulous, but they are not masters of disguise. And if Al Qaeda has actually co-opted these people, they deserve to win.
 
Just what specific part of the Constitution forbids racial profiling? I'm familiar with racial descrimination regarding the right to vote.

Now, that being asked, I personally think this is a very fine line that should, as others have mentioned, be tempered with behavioral observation. Someone above mentioned that having a 30 minute detention for a person whose shoes set off the "sniffer" is harassment. Not even close. If you, by some manner, set off the detector of explosive material, I sure do not want you on my plane. You can take the time to explain to officials why you have that residue on your person. There might be a perfectly legitimate and harmless reason for your clothing having explosive residues. But it's not beyond reason to hold someone with explosive residue until you can make sure they aren't planning on blowing up a plane.

Note that there is nothing in the preceding paragraph qualifying race.
 
Now, that being asked, I personally think this is a very fine line that should, as others have mentioned, be tempered with behavioral observation. Someone above mentioned that having a 30 minute detention for a person whose shoes set off the "sniffer" is harassment. Not even close. If you, by some manner, set off the detector of explosive material, I sure do not want you on my plane. You can take the time to explain to officials why you have that residue on your person. There might be a perfectly legitimate and harmless reason for your clothing having explosive residues. But it's not beyond reason to hold someone with explosive residue until you can make sure they aren't planning on blowing up a plane.
Click to expand...

This would be a reasonable sentiment if, should you be able to show a "perfectly legitimate and harmless reason" for having such residue on your person (or that it was a false positive, which does happen), you were assured a spot on a later flight at no additional charge.

As it is, the airlines reserve the right to tell you to go screw yourself which could basically amount to a fine of hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars for nothing more than angering the machine.
 
If you, by some manner, set off the detector of explosive material, I sure do not want you on my plane. You can take the time to explain to officials why you have that residue on your person.
Click to expand...
The problem is that is those machines cannot tell whether the chemicals its designed to detect are actually due to residue of explosive material.
 
The largest organ on the human body is the dermal layer.

Are other characteristic traits on other organs of the human body eligible for use in IDing an individual? Then so should the appearance of the largest human organ.

If you can 'profile' a midget with an exceptionally large left arm, no right arm, left leg with only 4 toes that is taller than the right leg by 2", with a glass right eye, missing left ear then why not the color of the skin?

Now if you go out looking for a 'black man'. Good luck you'll have about 18,000,000 suspects to check out.
 
SixForSure said:
I can see where this one's going>
*spiffyflushiesmiley*
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on why, or contribute in any way to the thread? Because otherwise this falls under what might on other forums I frequent be called "thread assassination."
 
If you can 'profile' a midget with an exceptionally large left arm, no right arm, left leg with only 4 toes that is taller than the right leg by 2", with a glass right eye, missing left ear then why not the color of the skin?
Click to expand...
maybe because the color of one's skin has absolutely ZERO to do with their propensity for violence or terrorism? :rolleyes:
 
exceptionally large left arm, no right arm, left leg with only 4 toes that is taller than the right leg by 2", with a glass right eye, missing left ear
Click to expand...

Suppose the midget just murdered the entire kennedy clan. Do any of those traits suggest a propensity for violence either? No, it's a description of a suspect.

When you're looking for that midget does it make sense to stop Shaq and cavity search him? Only if you're a politically correct liberal.
 
My primary issue with racial profiling is that it's not a very certain technique, at least in relation to "Arab Terrorists."

"Arab" isn't even what we're really talking about - most Afghans aren't Arabs. Most Iranians aren't Arab. Terrorism also breeds in the Philipines (not Arabs) and East Africa (lots of non-Arabs).

I think what we're talking about is "Muslims." Beyond the obvious fact that considering an entire major world religion a clear threat isn't very...good, we have a long standing policy in the US of not making making people wear signs, badges, t-shirts or baseballs caps that announce their religion.

"Look out, honey! A Lutheran! Hide the herring!"

Now, I can get behind those who point out the idiocy of this PC "reverse profiling." Every time I see someone who speaks good, clear english and is OBVIOUSLY over 55 pulled out of a line...I think "my tax dollars at work."

Squirrely men between 15 and 35 are the big threat. Yep, there are a few women and yep - there's probably a 40-year-old terrorist "operator" out there, but I think 15-35 males are our "target market." We should be relentless about BEHAVIOR PROFILING with this group.
 
Suppose the midget just murdered the entire kennedy clan. Do any of those traits suggest a propensity for violence either? No, it's a description of a suspect.

When you're looking for that midget does it make sense to stop Shaq and cavity search him? Only if you're a politically correct liberal.
Click to expand...
but that's not the same as stopping every midget in the airport because one day a couple midgets hijacked a plane

The color of one's skin not only has zero effect on their propensity for violence and terrorism but it does not identify their religion nor does someone's religion have an effect on their propensity for violence and terrorism. :rolleyes: So what if a potential terrorist is a white guy like Richard Reid and is wearing a massive crucifix to show that he's not Muslim? He doesn't "look" like a "terrist" so might as well check the businessman with dark skin instead, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top