Discussion for article #230886
Well I am sure this will be good news for all of the unemployed bigots. I bet it works as well as the stop and frisk program in NYC and the inquisition. My pride in the country just grows and grows, smaller and smaller.
1 Like
This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of ***fair and effective policing
**This offer does not apply to brown or black people, Muslims, and whoever else we feel like shaking down at airports and border crossings. Void where prohibited.
Another fail by Eric Placeholder.
1 Like
What do you mean, “white privilege”???!
1 Like
I understand your reaction. But think this through a bit. Do you really think that airport security folks should, in the interests of being fair and high-minded, spend just as much time doing enhanced screening on 80-year-old blue-haired grandmothers as they spend on twenty-something guys who look like one of bin Laden’s sons? After all, to do otherwise would be “racial profiling,” which we all agree is an abomination, right?
I’m just suggesting that this isn’t as simple as some would make it out to be. If security screening is rendered useless, is that an outcome that’s worth it, in order to be virtuous?
What does it tell you when a Democratic administration with a black president and a black attorney general essentially admit that racial profiling is proper and effective in certain situations?
Sometimes “profiling” makes perfect sense. If a bank robbery suspect is described as a 30-year-old blonde woman, do we really want the police to pay equal attention to blonde 30-year-old women, middle-aged Hispanic men, black teenagers, and Asian senior citizens? Of course not. We shouldn’t let political correctness require us to be stupid.
Yeah, it is that simple. You don’t judge people on ethnic appearance alone. An 80 YO grandma could be recruited. Judging people on looks is bigoted and stupid & very bad policing. Smart people can analyze facts not just make generalized policies.
1 Like
It means they’re trying to scale it back too slowly. They are indeed scaling it back just not cold turkey, did you miss that part of the article?
As for the rest, either that or they’re in the pockets of their masters. I choose the former.
Profiling never makes sense.
Reaching much on you example? Your example’s not profiling BTW.
It’s analysis of facts given. If the suspect is described as a 45 YO black male, you’re obviously not going to stop 25 YO white males or women. That’s absurd.
Your example’s not profiling, it’s just investigating actual info offered.
However erroneously assuming that all 48 YO black males or all 25 YO white males of every crime regardless of lack of evidence in a particular instance is what is called profiling. Assuming behavior before the fact based on appearance alone is actual profiling. What you mentioned is just investigating a lead which is rational investigation & nothing to do with profiling.
1 Like
Yeah, right. So we should be paying just as much attention to little old ladies as to everyone else. Sure.
Don’t quit your day job.
That’s rich coming from you. You don’t even have a day job if profiling is what you’re defending.
You should be ashamed, just shows your selfishness. If you were one of the groups in jeopardy of being profiled for naught, you’d suddenly feel different.
Hyperbole, much? Already I’m a Nazi. Who knew?
C’mon, you know better than this. If you’re responsible for providing security for something (whatever it is), you can’t check everyone. Your only hope of achieving any measure of success is to play the percentages. You have to figure out where the bulk of the threats are coming from, and focus your attention there. That’s not going to be the same for every target.
Those who try to bring down airliners are not the same people who are trying to smuggle drugs across the border, nor are they the same people who are inclined to shoot up government buildings. If you’re guarding the local IRS office, you need to pay attention to young-to-midde-aged white guys. Now if you happen to be a middle-aged white guy, that may mean that you’re subjected to a level of scrutiny that you may find offensive. You know that you’re not a threat, and resent the fact that your ethnicity is making you a suspect. That’s unfortunate. We’re sorry. But ignoring the fact that the bulk of anti-government loonies are middle-aged white guys would be dopey.
During the mid-1990’s standoff with the Montana Freemen, my brother-in-law, a leftie who, however, looks like he could be a Freemen supporter, found himself subjected to some heavy scrutiny while crossing the border from Canada into Montana. It took a while for the light to dawn on him. But it was understandable. The border patrol folks were “profiling,” and that was the smart thing to do. Spending their time searching Japanese tourists would have been politically correct, but would have been a monumental waste of time.
Hell, if you’re trying to prevent shoplifting, you should probably be on the lookout for Hollywood celebrities.
Bin Laden is not Timothy McVeigh, in other words?
Precisely. And pretending that any given terrorist act has an equal chance of being committed by absolutely anyone just flies in the face of real world experience.
BTW, just so I’m not misunderstood (again), a quick counter-example. If you’re trying to stop drunk driving, and you decide to pull over mostly black drivers. that’s a failure of law enforcement. Why? Is it because that will make black drivers feel bad, or oppressed? No. It’s a failure because the premise is wrong. Drunk driving (AFAIK) is more of an equal opportunity offense. No particular visible characteristics typify the drunk driver - they come from all nationalities, all ethnicities, all religions, all ages, etc., etc. Profiling makes no sense in that case. (The best strategy may be to pull over absolutely anyone who’s driving around at 2:30 am!)