Jump to content

Racial Profiling - A debate


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay guys, I was going to wait until after Thanksgiving to start this debate, but a story written today peaked my interest. I'll let you read the story first:

quote:

November 21, 2001

Profiling needed

Standing in long lines to pass through airport security, I thought: Where's racial and sexual profiling now when it can benefit most, if not all, passengers? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Everybody knows that profiling has been declared racist and sex profiling is no better?" Let's look at profiling as a principle.

Suppose you were chief of police seeking to apprehend some unknown gangsters involved in a recent drive-by shooting. Would you instruct your officers to include 80-year-old women as possible suspects to be detained and questioned? You probably wouldn't and why? It's not because you have affection or special respect for the civil rights of older women. Focusing police resources on 80-year-old women, and for that matter 80-year-old-men, as suspects would be stupid and a gross waste of resources, because the chances that 80-year-olds would be involved in drive-by shootings is close to nil.

Criminals involved in the drive-by shooting would benefit if there were to be an anti-profiling law forcing police to view 80-year-olds just as likely to be involved in drive-by shootings as any other age group in the population. Doing so would waste police resources and give criminals greater opportunities to escape detection and apprehension.

Similar reasoning can be applied to airport security measures. Right now, part of enhanced security includes forcing all passengers to wait in long lines to have their tickets and ID checked, take off outer garments, be frisked and have their carry-on items searched for anything that might be used as a weapon -- that includes fingernail files and clippers, cuticle cutters, knitting needles ... you name it.

Lines and passenger inconvenience could be reduced by applying profiling where less scrutiny is given to older women and men. While older women and men are not likely to be hijackers, they might be used by hijackers to carry weapons -- thus, a reasonable case can be made for requiring them, as well as any other passengers, to pass through metal detectors.

Who should receive more scrutiny, and who should receive less? This is an important question if we are to insure against hijacking. As a generality, women should receive less scrutiny. After all women have never been significant players in hijacking. Black Americans of either sex should receive less scrutiny for the same reason. Most security resources should be spent scrutinizing Caucasian males, particularly those with a Middle Eastern appearance. And why? It's simply that virtually all hijackings in the United States and elsewhere have been committed by men fitting that general description.

Some might say that it's unjust to single out some Americans for more security scrutiny than others. But it is also unjust, plus a waste of resources, to subject people to airport security harassment who pose absolutely no hijacking threat, such as old men, women of any age and young children.

There are security measures we can take that are far more effective than anything that we're doing now. There are tens of thousands of retired policemen and active duty policemen, as well as their counterparts in the FBI and Secret Service who fly. How about a program that allows them to fly half-fare if they carry their weapons and act as sky marshals? That would create considerable uncertainty for hijackers. They wouldn't know who or how many people were on the plane who would be in the position to blow their brains out.

Current government regulations give aid and comfort to hijackers. The Federal Aviation Administration has guaranteed hijackers that no one on the plane is armed but them. That must be changed.

s-cpwalter.gif

-
Walter Williams


So the question I pose to everyone, is to accept there are two sides to this issue. He raises a valid point. There is also todays political correctness issue to consider.

I remember immediately after the hijacking ABC was interviewing people at airports if we should have racial profiling at airports. They posed this question to several black men who said yes either immediately or after stuttering. After realizing what they said they kind of had this look.

It's okay for racial profiling as long as it's not you? The fact remains that the people who hijacked these planes were of middle eastern decent. The man who slit a greyhound driver's throat days later was of middle eastern decent. It is men of middle eastern decent who have threatened death on Americans anywhere.

So what are your thoughts on this issue? About similar race laws?

Personally I don't think racial profiling in this instance is unconstitutional. I don't think it lacks common sense either.

I'm gonna sit back for a bit and let everyone noodle this over. Let our debate begin.

Dan "$iLk" Cooper

The "Compassionate" Conservative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You won't have to wait long for the debate to begin.

I'll start and let Menchise finish up for me.

Racial profiling = bad idea.

It is unconstitutional. And it's not effective. Just because someone is from a particular background it doesn't mean they are a) a terrorist, B) a threat to national security.

And on the flip side, just because someone is blond, blue eyed, female and american, that doesn't stop her from being a) a terrorist B) a threat to national security.

Race is the worst catagory to go by if you want to know whether someone is a threat to you or not.

And that goes for journalists too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two issues here: profiling, and profiling by race.

I was talking about this to a friend last week. He had taken BART home from a concert in San Francisco where he and a friend had many drinks during the show. They were looking for a fast-food joint that was still open at 2:00am, while at the same time hoping to not be pulled over by police. I told him that he "fit the profile."

"What profile?" he said.

"A car on the road at 2:00am." I said.

Who would be on the road at 2:00am when most people are home asleep? Bartenders, waitresses, maybe donut bakers, people working the graveyard shift, and drunks looking food. Simply being on the road at 2:00am would be suspicious. Perhaps he would be pulled over, but if he was one of the legitimate people on the road, then the local cop would now know him and he'd never be pulled over at 2:00am again. That's what beat cops do.

Now add race as a profiling element. There's the "driving while black" aspect, which is bad. Then there's the driving on the road at 2:00am and being black.

More to the point, though, is that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all 9/11 terrorists were Muslim. So, what do you do? Do you say that Muslims are more likely to be suspects than non-Muslims? This is not to say that non-Muslims might also be terrorists -- maybe a Cuban might try to hijack a plane again. But, given the recent circumstances, it is more likely than not that a suspect would be of Muslim ethnicity.

However, we do have Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and siezures. To me, this does not mean that you never search. To me, this means that the search must be reasonable. I believe that we should declare our borders and our ports (especially airports) as "high-security zones." People in these zones should expect higher scrutiny than if they were at the local supermarket. Racial profiling while attempting to board a jet would not be considered "unreasonable" at this time, while racial profiling at the market would be.

The key is whether it is reasonable or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitutionally I don't see a problem really. The profiling itself is "reasonable" assuming the definition fits the need of the officers, security guards, etc. It's a fact of life that a majority of teens on the road at 2AM are up to no good. I myself had a night shift job, and got pulled over by the police, but once they saw who I was they let me go without a hassle.

I don't feel bad that they did it, in fact by doing it no doubt they save lives everyday by catching those who are drunk or otherwise unable to drive - or are breaking the law.

That's profiling people by actions, which may not be reasonable to them, but to the officers it fits a pattern most often followed by those breaking the law. Statistically it isn't really debatable. But the person doing nothing wrong at 2AM might feel intimidated, while not realizing that they may have done the same thing to someone 5 miles up the road who WAS drunk who could have killed him in a car wreck.

Obviously this isn't followed evenly during the day because a majority of the people on the road at 5PM are less likely to be drunk than a majority on the road at 2AM. Statistically speaking.

Back to "racial" profiling. It's one thing to pull over just any black male you see just because of race. But racial profiling goes too far sometimes.

Take for instance a police officer is parked on the side of the road. A car going 90 MPH flies past him. He follows, the car is swerving and beer bottles are flying from the windows. So much pot smoke is coming out of the windows that trees he is driving by get high. So the cop pulls him over. Then he happens to notice the man he pulled over is black. The man in the car coughs and sits down his bong and says "You pulled me over because I was black! That's racial profiling!!!"

Then the cop has to defend against that in court.

What about so-called quotas which call for investigations into officers who pull over 75% black as compared to 25% white - in a black neighborhood?

Same scenario, a cop is on the side of the road, the car speeds by going 90 mph - but this time the officer knows he is black. He looks at his quota book first and says "Damn, I can't afford an inquiry, I have kids to feed... I hope the next officer down gets him, assuming he hasn't reached his quota. Before the maniac kills somebody."

Is racial profiling unconstitutional? I don't see how really if it is applied with a reason - say that it is a white collar suburban neighborhood, and everyone there drives a porsche, and you notice a couple of black men in a rickety old 83 buick with gold rims and a gold chain on the license plate "Bling Blingin" heading into the neighborhood 10 miles under the speed limit with speakers that register on the rhictor scale, looking at all the houses. Could they be casing the place? You don't know. Should you check it out by pulling them over and questioning them, or just letting you know that you are in the neighborhood? Or should you let them do whatever and go get some doughnuts from the coffee place because it would be illegal to assume that just because they are suspicious it would be racist to think they might be up to no good.

About planes - since nearly every terrorist action that has ever happened here or anywhere on a plane has been perpetrated by those of middle eastern appearance, wouldn't that lead to give some credence to the feeling of - that might be who we should target in our searches.

The guy above makes the point that if you spread your security too thin they will slip through, while at the same time, if you concentrate exclusively on one race, you will let others slip through. Why then are we wasting resources checking 8 yo girls who are patted down by security officers, and mothers, while men of Middle Eastern decent walk right through because it would be "insensitive" to check them.

If I was airport security, any middle-easterner, any white male travelling alone would be my most likely searches. I would probably let grandmothers and mothers and daughters right through while only checking their bags for stuff that doesn't belong, as it is unlikely they are strapped down with bombs without their knowledge.

Any middle eastern male should be scrutinized until you are 100% sure they aren't a terrorist.

Not because it's racist, but because it just so happens that people who commit terrorist acts are generally from that part of the world. There are exceptions, who would most likely be caught by standard searches, but the extensive ones should go to Middle Eastern Males.

I'm going to hold off on any more for now to see what other arguments develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I was flying back from Prague a week after the WTC incident and there was a Middle-Eastern guy in our departure lounge and I had this thought go through my head, 'What if?'. I immediately slapped myself mentally; I'd made an assumption about this guy because of his race, something I'd promised myself I'd never do. What am I trying to say? I'm not sure, maybe we all go through 'profiling' subconciously, due to experiences or upbringing or our social environment. In a way it's part of human nature, to put you on your guard based on your experiences.

There was actually an article in a British paper a few weeks ago about a young British Internet entrepeneur who had to sell his Porsche Boxster because he had been pulled over by the busies a ridiculous number of times in the first month of owning the car, just because he was a young guy driving an expensive car. In the eyes of the cops, that meant there was a fair chance he had stolen it, and they admitted that to him once everything had checked out.

I also had a close friend in the UK who didn't trust blacks (vehemently sometimes), just because he'd had a few bad experiences with dickheads who happened to be black. He was a totally rational guy otherwise (except for his penchant for strong Lager).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my view on racial profiling.

Me and my buddy driving down the street. The neighbourhood I live in is predominatly rich Chineese. So a mercedes pulls up next to us with a Chineese driver. We started counting and betting if next mercedes would have a chineese driver or not. Guess what 8 out of 10 mercedes had Chineese drivers.

Next thing. If osama wants to terrorise America, osama is Arabic, he has Arabic followers, who is he most likely to send fighting for his cause? If you say anything besides Arab you are not so smart. Point being is I never saw a Chineese terrorist blow up a plane in USA. So racial profiling should be there and it works.

I went to Sacramento a couple of times. That city has a huge Russian population. I am Russian and was walking down the street with my friends, a guy walks up to us and asks us for a stereo. We said well how the hell are we supposed to get a stereo for him, he said "Well you are Russian aren't you" The guy wasn't trying to be insulting, he was dead serious. The thing is, there's a lot of Russian thugs down there who break into cars and rip out stereos so the reputation builds and now if you have a stereo stolen out of the car in Sacramento you will suspect a Russian person, and guess what 80% says you will be right. So if a cop stops me in Sacramento and asks me a couple of questions just because I am Russian and a Russian person is suspected of have commited some crime, I have no problem with that.

The problem with Racial profiling occurs only when the authority starts maliciously exercizing racial profiling. Then you have cops harrasing people just because they are of a certain race. So should racial profiling be legal, YES. But people in authority possitions should be very carefull with exercising it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Any time I give my passport at any airport, my luggage and my person are inspected with twice the "dedication" as other passengers.

Why? I carry a Colombian passport. 8 years ago I was even offered a glass of milk while waiting for my luggage to be taken out of the airplane and inspected. I was young and naive and didnt think much about it, until it was explained to me when I was with my family about WHY milk (which makes a large % of people have go to the bathroom sooner) was offered.. and only to me and a few others.

I dont particularly like the treatment, but it is understandable. At least they dont break out the latex gloves.. yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I'll start and let Menchise finish up for me.

Do I have to?

Maybe later.

On another note (off-topic), I see that the political sigs have debuted. Yippee!

Nick Menchise

Socialist and Economic Democrat (don't call me a liberal!)

P.S. I think that the sig should only be used in the first post for each debate thread. What do you think, $iLk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Works for me Menchise - it is simply to identify your stance. While you can put it there if you want, it's really only necessary the first time. Anyway I'm amused to see that I prison-raped the anti racial profiling argument so quickly .

Seriously, I don't see what's wrong with it if - like I said it isn't abused to the point of any Middle Easterner anywhere. For airports, buses, heavily commercial or military areas - check them out.

While it is true that there are terrorists who don't share those features - a majority of those who have threatened death on American civilians fit a certain profile.

Why use the same standard on 80 year old women? it wastes resources.

The whole issue here is that resources should be allocated to the most likely terrorists, rather than being fair and targeting the most unlikely just as proportionatly.

It only makes sense. Disagreements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Tac:

Yup. Any time I give my passport at any airport, my luggage and my person are inspected with twice the "dedication" as other passengers.

I dont particularly like the treatment, but it is understandable. At least they dont break out the latex gloves.. yet

I have a similar problem with being the only one of a group who is stopped when travelling because I used to carry a Nigerian passport. I still get it now with my brand new British one, they just spend less time checking.

It is very annoying and frustrating being hassled becuase of your skin colour, but when it comes to circumstances like airport security, as much as I dont like it, its hard for me to argue against profiling.

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: TRD ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once in Ottawa there was a an older couple in their sixties whose son was in hospital with a fatal disease. They got a call from the hospital at 2 in the morning that he was about to die.

The couple ran to their car and started driving to the hospital. They were stopped by a police officer for speeding. They explained to the officer that their son was about to die. The police officer didn't believe them. He was suspicious about a black couple speeding around at 2 in the morning, and was going to take them down to the station for questioning. The father decided he wasn't going to do that, and started to drive away. The officer shot the Man, hitting his hand. The son died, while the parents were waiting for an ambulance.

Racial profiling sucks. No matter how you slice it.

Just because someone looks like they are from the middle east, that doesn't mean that they support terrorism. It doesn't mean that they are Muslim. It doesn't mean that they aren't born in North America. There are so many different religions, and belief systems and political points of view in that part of the world. It is impossible to tell, by looking at someone, the content of their character. And as far as Martin Luther King was concerned, it is the content of your character that you should be judged by.

I have a close friend from the middle east, who works in the entertainment industry. He has to travel all the time. People constantly look at him now. They don't see that he is a gay guy from Toronto who wouldn't hurt a fly, and would probably be murdered for his sexual orientation back home. They see a possible threat to their lives. And it's too bad. He's actually a nice guy.

Yes, the guys who were responsible for sept 11 had a specific look, and ethnicity, but Americans would be unwise to believe that the only threat to their nation would come from people who look a certain way, and have a certain background. There are Muslims with blond hair and blue eyes. There are people who have dark skin and strange accents who support America, and are proud to be Americans. There are people who are American, caucasian, and they pose a very serious and present threat to American security.

Racial profiling means you suspect someone of doing something, or having a tendency to do something based on their race. That is wrong. It's un constitutional here in Canada, and it should be in America if it is not. If a police officer sees a black person committing a crime, s/he should apprehend that person. If the police officer sees a black person, and the only reason s/he suspects a crime is about to be committed is because the person is black, then they are committing an act of bigotry. They are not policing, they are antagonizing a citizen who, in the eyes of the law, has committed no crime. That form of activity only belongs in a police state, where you rule through fear and intimidation.

All people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Period. That is the bedrock of a free society. The moment you compromise that truth, you no longer live in a free and just society. An argument could be made that we have never lived in a free and just society, but if we aspire to one, we must believe in our hearts, and know in our minds that race, or ethnic background, or sexual preference or language do not indicate whether or not someone is about to commit a crime.

I don't mind taking part in a debate, it's an interesting by product of recent events, but I fear we are getting dangerously close to condoning racial bigotry, and that concerns me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If racial profiling is used and condoned by the people then the terrorrist would have won. All the work integrating various races would just be a wasted effort. I will not be part of a racist (even constitutionally racist) state. This Walter William guy obviously doesn't know his history well enough. He seems to have this mentality of "You can be racist as long as it's not to us". Next (on another board) there'll be a debate on "It's okay to exterminate a certain race if they are terrorrists". Come to think of it I've seen that argument already on another board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Fendi:

If racial profiling is used and condoned by the people then the terrorrist would have won. All the work integrating various races would just be a wasted effort. I will not be part of a racist (even constitutionally racist) state. This Walter William guy obviously doesn't know his history well enough. He seems to have this mentality of "You can be racist as long as it's not to us". Next (on another board) there'll be a debate on "It's okay to exterminate a certain race if they are terrorrists". Come to think of it I've seen that argument already on another board.


Racial profiling isn't racist, and it's been employed in this nation long before Sept 11.

Think: If we receive a credible threat that middle eastern terrorists were going to bomb a government building, do we start checking the cars of Asians or Arabs? Racial profiling doesn't mean someone is tossed into jail or has their rights taken away because of their race, it just means that they fit the profile of someone who may commit a crime and should be checked. If they've done nothing wrong, then what do they have to worry about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. Once again guys the point is that the likelihood of one race over another to commit a crime is fact. Statistically. Wishful thinking at it's worst allows those to assume that everyone is just as likely.

All arabs are not terrorist, but a majority of terrorists are arabs. It's a crappy deal any way you cut it - but those are the people who should be thouroughly checked.

It's not racist - it's common sense. Also any caucasian men should be checked because quite frankly I don't believe a black person has ever hijacked a plane. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen - but those aren't the people we should concentrate on. And I'm not saying that just because you are black you should walk by without being checked AT ALL. I'm saying that the more scrutiny should be given to those who are more likely to pose a threat.

To the extreme of accusing any black person of a crime because of skin color is wrong. But if they fall into a certain slot - black person in raggedy car in uptight white neighborhood at 2 in the morning I can see where you may need to profile. And no one said anything about their being guilty off the bat. They are simply scrutinized to be sure that it really is innocent.

The world is not colorblind, and it's every race, not just white or black. If a majority of whites realize that they can be colorblind, a like number of blacks will stir up racial tensions because of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Morris Dees who antagonize blacks to make a profit. Democrats as well. Do you think the Democrats really want black people to be equal? How will they be able to buy their votes then?

Different cultures exist and likewise statistically different races DO fit in different categories. Arabs tend to fit in international terrorism. Blacks tend to fit in domestic crime. Whites tend to fit in both small amounts of domestic crime and to a small extent terrorism.

But I believe that you take men one at a time to determine their value based on their actions not color. However, likelihood of that person being in a certain category relates statistically with their race.

I'm not sure if I worded this well to get my point across, but I know I worded my 2nd post well to get the gist of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If racial profiling is legal in America, then that's unfortunate. Here it is not.

There is NO proof that one race commits more crime than another. None. There have been questionable studies done by well known bigots but there is no REAL HARD SCIENCE proving that one race is more likely to commit a crime than another. As a matter of fact, most scientific studies have proven that there is more variety and difference within a single race, then there are between the races.

And even if there was some way to prove scientifically that a certain individual from a certian socio-economic group, and race and gender, is predisposed to commit a crime, there is still nothing you can do. Each citizen should be considered innocent until proven guilty. You could be black, have gold teeth, car, you could be standing on the sidewalk looking at a house, and you can even say the words, "Gee, I'm just the kind of person who would rob that house." Until you actually commit the crime of robbing the house, you are innocent. Period. You may not like it, but that's the price of living in a society that prizes freedom, or at least pays lip service to doing so.

Your "fact" that certain races are more likely to commit crimes may be based on anecdotal eveidence, but don't confuse that with science.

I think most American's feel a deep fear about terrorism, and the fear is justified. Sitting up here in Canada, I'm sure I have no idea what it must feel like to walk around not knowing when the next terrorist attack will come. There was a time in the sixties when Canadians had to worry about the FLQ. Our Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, enstated the War Measures Act, basically giving the police and military the ability to search and seize and arrest at will. Many were charged and thrown in jail without cause or warning. The FLQ were found, and routed out and defeated. But at the cost of our civil liberties.

When terrorists attack, it is hard, very hard to strike back without risking freedom. If you strike out, taking away the rights of fellow citizens, based on their ethnicity, then the terrorists have won. You have been terrorized. They have accomplished what they set out to do. And if you become a society where you harras and antagonize innocent citizens, filling them with fear, then YOU've become a terrorist.

(Okay Menchise, you can sit this one out. You've picked up the slack for me for quite some time now. It's payback time. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

75% of burgulary is done by caucasians in England. I don't see many caucasians being checked over randomly (even known criminals). Chances are it's going to be Indians and Pakistanis that would get checked here. You see racial profiling could be abused by the police especially racist ones. Hell I even had to get rid of one racist cop from my neighbourhood. Instead of getting the sack she just got transfered. I love the system.

Bottom line is Racial Profiling = Stereotyping

My wife a pure caucasian English rose agrees with me on this one. She and her family are dead againts it.

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Fendi ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want some proof? Go to Sacramento, drive by a starbucks with a $2,000 stereo system blazing, then park it nearby and go somewhere for 2 hours. When you come back, I can guarantee you you won't find the stereo there, AND if they catch whoever did it, I can ALMOUST guarantee you it will be a RUSSIAN guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Fendi:

75% of burgulary is done by caucasians in England. I don't see many caucasians being checked over randomly (even known criminals). Chances are it's going to be Indians and Pakistanis that would get checked here. You see racial profiling could be abused by the police especially racist ones. Hell I even had to get rid of one racist cop from my neighbourhood. Instead of getting the sack she just got transfered. I love the system.

Bottom line is Racial Profiling = Stereotyping

My wife a pure caucasian English rose agrees with me on this one. She and her family are dead againts it.

[ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Fendi ]


Hey now -- just because something could be abused doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing nor that is shouldn't be employed. The US presidency is a good example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

AND if they catch whoever did it, I can ALMOUST guarantee you it will be a RUSSIAN guy.

Hey now it basically depends on the person. I know lots of Russians that's decent (like you) and yes there are some that are total a****le. It's basically the minority that does these sort of things and I have some run ins with them in the past.

quote:

Hey now -- just because something could be abused doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing nor that is shouldn't be employed. The US presidency is a good example

True but this really border line at racism and would definately give the KKK (or in our case BNP) some kind of ammunition. Don't forget there are some racist people who holds some position of power. Since I will be traveling this year (I'm brave) I will see how it would affect me (Aramike check out my real name ) as my given name is a bit "contraversial". I just haven't had the time to change it yet to what most people (including my parents) call me.

p.s. don't tell anyone my real name please....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta explain this. The reason I said that it will most likely be a Russian guy is because the Sacramento has a huge Russian population. In some other city you would never think the guy would be Russian. My point is you have to fit racial profiling to the situation and conditions at hand. Lets say someone robs the house on the in New York, and lets say statistics say that most crimes commited there by people of (A) race, and in the San Francisco most crimes are commited by the (B) race. Would you suspect the (B) race in New Your robery or (A) then? See, you can't say equally, because it's not. Yes, it might be the person of a (B) race, BUT most likely it was (A).

So to touch on this hijacking thing. Whens the last time you see a plane being hijacked by an Asian guy? I can bet never. So if you search a bag of an elderly couple who are going from NY to SF for Thanksgiving to visit their family then you are doing squat, when you can be searching the bag of an Arabic guy who is acting nervous or has a one way ticket and is lightly packed.

[ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already said that just because someone's a certain race has nothing to do with what kind of person they are. It just means that they are in a group which the likelihood of a certain behavior is greater than others.

It's not genetic, it perhaps has something to do with the area that they are in. Perhaps a majority of the blacks who commit crime are in areas like California, Cincinatti, New York, and Washington D.C. (Interestingly enough - the areas with the strictest gun control )

But if I had only enough manpower to keep an eye on one out of two suspects in a white, rich neighborhood. Would I post my men on the poor black men in the suspicious car, or the rich white kid playing tennis in the park?

By your logic, both of them are equally likely to be criminals.

As a matter of fact, by your logic, this innocent until proven guilty attitude - we can't move on someone until AFTER the crime has been commited.

Racial profiling is offering a preventative measure to terrorism, rather than being sensitive to their needs and waiting until AFTER another 4000 people are dead before we move to question or arrest them.

if we focus on those MOST likely to commit the crime - those fitting a certain profile - we can prevent 9/11 attacks in the future.

Your argument stems from the fact that criminals and terrorists are cut from the same cloth as you and me. They don't fit the same profile.

If what I say is true (and it is) and somewhere above 95% of highjackings occur by Middle Easterners. And the only way to prevent an attack is to focus on groups. What group are you going to focus on>?

Police have used profiles to find criminals in the past. I haven't said that these people because of race lose ANY freedom. They are simply scrutinized harder. Perhaps if they fly often enough they can use their frequent flyer card to get though quicker as being someone reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...