Racial Profiling II

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.
Click to expand...
let me guess, you're over 35 and thus wouldn't be inconvenienced by this :p

Going to stop and search every single 15-35 year old male?
 
Redworm -
Well, no, I'm 28. But I'm a girl, so I wouldn't be so inconvenienced. :D

I did have one encounter at the airport where my "travel profile" obviously tripped some wire - one-way ticket purchase by a third party about 18 hours before flight time.

Of course, that was because the Army had randomly decided I needed to be "called up," which it didn't occur to me to explain until I had about 17 burly women closing in on me with nefarious intent :rolleyes: ...

And I could UNDERSTAND that. It was a strange flight arrangement. And it made more sense than just randomly pulling every 19th person out of line, regardless of whether or not it was some 90 year-old guy with a cane and a "Pearl Harbor Survivor" hat.

I'd just like to see these "searches" based on SOMETHING logical.
 
Last edited:
Well I let this run for a while without reposting just to see what everyone's opinions were, now I'll respond and try to clarify my OP.

First of all I'm not racist agianst anyone, and as far as thinking "oh he's black, he must be a criminal" I'm not part of that club. The reason I support racial profling is because it usually started out as behavioral profiling, the subject just happened to be part of the "stereotype" which causes the whole media and everyone to be up in arms yelling "RACIAL PROFILING RACIAL PROFILING!!!"

So to clarify, I am very much agaisnt reverse racial profiling and in favor of behavioral profiling. EVEN and ESPECIALLY if the target behavior is being observed by a certain race that fits the profile. I think racial profiling without any odd behavior however, is wrong.

The part about a 30 minute wait was supposed to mean, if the bomb sniffer takes 30 minutes to get a result than that can be harrasment. If the bomb sniffer is instantaneuos, then it is ok.

For instance, earlier this year there was a high profile case in Texas where a few middle eastern guys were arrested for having a bunch of cell phones.(Like thousands) Now, there were weird things that needed further investigation like pictures of bridges and thousands of modified cell phones. This kind of behavior warranted further investigation, but the fact that they were middle eastern caused the whole media and everyone to start spouting "Racial Profiling, Racial Profiling." I'm not saying I agree with them being arrested or how the case was handled, I'm just saying that everyone making such an uproar about racial profiling was limiting the Leo's ability to get the job done. Now, because of that case, people wanted to push anti racial profiling laws for LEO, which would basically amount to Reverse Racial Profiling and they would also allow people who WERE breaking the law, but were of a certain race to basically be exempt from the laws, due to the LEO not wanting to be sued for racial profiling.
 
So to clarify, I am very much agaisnt reverse racial profiling and in favor of behavioral profiling. EVEN and ESPECIALLY if the target behavior is being observed by a certain race that fits the profile. I think racial profiling without any odd behavior however, is wrong.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word especially is why your theoretical policy is racist. At this point what happens is suddently the bar for what defines "odd behavior" drops for those of a certain race, at which point it isn't really behavioral profiling anymore, just racial profiling with some thinly veiled behavioral profiling as an attempt to cover it.

The cell-phone example you gave is an excellent one...if that's such an "odd behavior," why haven't any young white males been arrested for the same? The LEO in that case wasn't getting any "job done." Which is why there was such an uproar about it. If he hadn't wasted his time on what was essentially racial profiling, he could have been doing something more useful. Even setting up a speed trap would have been more a beneficial use of his time to society than wasting it on those guys.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixForSure
I can see where this one's going>
*spiffyflushiesmiley*
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."
Click to expand...
Sure. These things usually end up with a lot of "your a racist. No I'm not a racist, you just have your head in the sand" resulting in a lot of people mad at each other after having accomplished exactly nothing. All of us, no matter how much we deny it to ourselves and others, is to some extent, racist. I think it is partly nature, mostly nurture. The proof of our character is how we treat others. It is my experience that in threads of this type we tend not to treat each other very well.
 
Race isn't everything, but is certainly isn't nothing. Everything should be taken into account. If a robbery is committed by a 6 ft blonde haired white man and he takes off into the neighborhood, there is little point to policemen stopping 5.5 ft. white men with black hair, to say nothing of 5.5 black men with kinky hair.
If a couple of black man driving a crummy looking low riding car with spinning things on the wheels is cruising through a predominately clean cut middle to upper crust white neighborhood then that looks suspicious and at least warrants keeping an eye on if not stopping and asking questions. (granted you wouldn't think most criminals are going to be that obvious but then again, most criminals have the IQ of dogs) If it is a clean cut looking black man in a normal looking car, not suspicous at all.

You take EVERYTHING into account, not leave something out because some self righteous liberal calls it Politically Incorrect or "racist."

It's just common sense, and their is nothing unconstitutional or "racist" (whatever that means at whichever given moment) about is as far as I can see.
 
Race isn't everything, but is certainly isn't nothing. Everything should be taken into account. If a robbery is committed by a 6 ft blonde haired white man and he takes off into the neighborhood, there is little point to policemen stopping 5.5 ft. white men with black hair, to say nothing of 5.5 black men with kinky hair.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Then again, this has nothing to do with racial profiling. At all. Using a given description of a suspect of a known crime to filter your questioning makes sense...however, the proponents of racial profiling (such as what is mentioned in the OP) think that we should suspect a crime has been/will be committed simply because of race.

Witnesses describe 6'2" black guy who robbed a liquor store, so you stop a 6'2" black guy in the area = okay (and expected). Black guys are statistically more likely to rob a liquor store so you stop black guys in the vicinity of a liquor store for some friendly questioning = not okay. The idea of singling Arabs out for questing, specifically at airports, falls into the latter.

If a couple of black man driving a crummy looking low riding car with spinning things on the wheels is cruising through a predominately clean cut middle to upper crust white neighborhood then that looks suspicious and at least warrants keeping an eye on if not stopping and asking questions. (granted you wouldn't think most criminals are going to be that obvious but then again, most criminals have the IQ of dogs) If it is a clean cut looking black man in a normal looking car, not suspicous at all.
Click to expand...

Keeping an eye on? Sure. Stopping for questioning? I'd say that's pushing it. The driver's/passenger's race, as well as their taste in vehicles, should not be used as an excuse to harass somebody, regardless of what neighborhood they're in. It's a public street, they have every right to be there. Watch away, but leave them alone.

You take EVERYTHING into account, not leave something out because some self righteous liberal calls it Politically Incorrect or "racist."
Click to expand...

If you are stopping and questioning somebody who, if not for the color of their skin, you would otherwise not stop and question then that is racist. You don't need to be a self-righteous liberal to spot that. You can decide whether or not being racist is good in this instance, but it is most definitely racist.

Now, the above example of black men in a lowrider may or may not qualify...depends whether you would stop similarly dressed white guys in a similar car. Many cops would, and I'd say that's fair. But as soon as you let the white kids in the lowrider go (after all, they could just be some rich doctor's teenage kids, right?) and pull over the black kids, that is racist.

As far as Arabs (and Muslims of other races) go, I think we've, as a society, most definitely crossed the line into racism. You can be a clean-cut lawyer in a nice suit, and if you're Arab you could very well be a terrorist as far as most people are concerned.
 
People like to have quick answers. Most of the time there are not quick answers. The comment earlier about it being bad to make a person have to wear a symbol or some such as a way to identify their religious beliefs I can agree with.
But... I assume that many think that the Nazi's were the ones to do this first. They were not. The Muslims were the ones that originated that method. A little home work on the individuals part will show this. Learn more about what the "possible" terrorist has as a methodology of thought. They are a religion of a warrior. We measure our lives by how well we lived it. They measure it by how they die. I know that many Muslims are not terrorists, why do they not speak up as a group and denounce the radical Muslims? When a christian uses his religion to justify his actions that are clearly wrong he is rebuked. Is it possible that they see nothing wrong with it? In the Quran it tells the believer that it is ok to lie if it will further the goals of Islam. Their ultimate goal is for the world to worship the one true god.

There are wars all over the globe that involve Christians being slaughtered by Muslims for their beliefs right now. Muslims right now take Africans out of their countries as slaves. The Russian spy that died recently from radiation poisoning was a Muslim convert for those that do not know. Google it. Is is possible that he accidentally poisoned himself during a delivery to a radical group? Probable... not likely. Possible? Well that is for you to decide.

A small group killed thousands. How many more do they need to kill before we understand that we are in a fight for the very way of life we enjoy? France imported them for cheap labor. France is now incorporating Sharia Law. How long till they have Islam as their state religion?Radical Muslims will take their time like cancer. When France converts, if they do. Radical Muslims will have the Nukes that they desire. Tell a radical Muslim that their religion is not as important as the separation of church and state. You will lose your head. We as a country understand the need for that separation. Do they?

Personally it really doesn't matter to me , I have no children. Those that do what awaits their grand childrens future? I am just stating observations. We are not at war with fear or terror. We are at war radical Islamic fundamentalism.
 
Just out of curiosity what in your opinion is logical criteria?
Click to expand...
honestly I don't know but perhaps it should be something that - oh I dunno - would actually catch someone? with the exception of rules about box cutters does anyone here realize that not a single change in airline security that has been made since 9/11 would have prevented it? they weren't wearing turbans, they didn't have long beards, there were no reports of them looking or acting nervous. most people can't tell the difference between a middle easterner, a hispanic or an Indian so what, people are supposed to check the "race" box when they buy a plane ticket?
 
Despite my disclaimer in the OP, I'm starting to regret using the word Arab. Just to get it straight, I understand there is a big difference between Arab, Muslim, Indian, Pakistani, etc... It was just an example!

Black guys are statistically more likely to rob a liquor store so you stop black guys in the vicinity of a liquor store for some friendly questioning = not okay. The idea of singling Arabs out for questing, specifically at airports, falls into the latter.
Click to expand...

In the OP I made a clear distinction between two scenarios:
1-a quick bomb sniff because an "Arab" person is acting nervious-ok

2-taking him to another section of the airport, running a test for 30 minutes, interrogating him while the test is being done, making him miss the flight.-NOT OK

Like I tried to explain, all LEO have the right to keep an eye on certain people based on their experience. If a LEO has been working the same area for 20 years and he has observed that a person of race X hanging around a store of type Y at 1 am in the morning is up to no good, he might just cite the guy for loitering to see if he has any warrants. Yea, the loitering charge may be bogus and 99% of the time LEO won't cite people for it, but based on this one specific LEO's opinion, this guy is up to no good, so he'll cite the guy. Well now you get the whole media and race X activists yelling racial profiling and racism.

So to even further clarify the OP, IMO, racial profiling is ok and constitutional when it only affects the LEO's perception. If it causes excessive harassment to someone then it isn't.


This isn't a thread to debate airport screening laws, nor is this a thread to bash specific races or religions and "prove" that they have certain criminal tendincies. Please start your own thread. Let's keep this civil and not have it locked.
 
honestly I don't know but perhaps it should be something that - oh I dunno - would actually catch someone? with the exception of rules about box cutters does anyone here realize that not a single change in airline security that has been made since 9/11 would have prevented it? they weren't wearing turbans, they didn't have long beards, there were no reports of them looking or acting nervous. most people can't tell the difference between a middle easterner, a hispanic or an Indian so what, people are supposed to check the "race" box when they buy a plane ticket?
Click to expand...


Redworm,
There isn't much we agree on, but I do appreciate your honesty about not knowing what to do.
 
lol in the next paragraph it points out that christians did the exact same thing. I love how people complain about the things islam does and flips a lid about the apologists but they're also the first to apologize for the same transgressions by christianity ^_^
 
they did it first.
Click to expand...

lol in the next paragraph it points out that christians did the exact same thing. I love how people complain about the things islam does and flips a lid about the apologists but they're also the first to apologize for the same transgressions by christianity ^_^
Click to expand...

Like I said, DO NOT let this turn into a thread about different religions. This thread is not about what Christians or Muslims or Nazis did. If that is all you have to post, please don't do it here. If this continues, I will ask the mods to lock it.
 
edit: scratch that, you weren't the one that brought it up. mea culpa

that being said, I agree. this thread shouldn't be about religion but we cannot ignore that the most prevalent form of profiling that many people here want is airport screening by religion.
 
Personally never did see anything wrong with it.
Just more political correctness gone amok.
Like the first post remarked " if it looks like a duck"
 
So, anyone? What part of racial profiling is unconstitutional?

In another incident, a woman was at a gym, and stopped to pray. Supposedly, another woman working out asked her to go elsewhere (out of the way of others working out.) The praying woman is suing the gym for "descrimination."

And btw, "descrimination" is not unconstitutional. Descrimination based on certain things (race, religion, sex, etc) FOR certain things (voting, employment, housing) is unconstitutional. For example, saying that men are not allowed in a women-only gym is by definition "descrimination." But there is nothing illegal about it. Not all descrimination is illegal or unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top