What's Wrong with Profiling?

[Lon]

I just don't get it. If the MAJORITY of certain crimes are being committed by a particular group, be they black, asian, hispanic or muslim, wouldn't common sense dictate that that's the group that will be stopped the most?

This PC crap has gone beyond reason. I guess a Muslim Terrorist could disquise him or herself as a Nordic looking old lady or old man. And a Hispanic Drug Smuggler could change his appearance to look like an African American.

I guess we just have to stop everyone just in case and of course to be fair. To hell with common sense and efficiency. PC at all costs.

[Accountable]

I get your meaning, Lon, but who draws the line and where? Cops have pulled black people over for driving a nice car in a nice neighborhood, only to find that they owned the car and lived in that neighborhood.



Going strictly by statistics, we white folk should be stopped more often because most prison convicts are white.



Where it gets stupid, imo, is when they purposely ignore a suspicious character out of fear of being labeled racist.

[BabyRider]

Accountable wrote: Going strictly by statistics, we white folk should be stopped more often because most prison convicts are white.
And if there's one thing we've learned lately it's that not all the WHITE convicts in prison belong there.



Can I get an "AMEN!!!!"????

[BabyRider]

Diuretic wrote: There's a big difference between intelligence-led policing
OK, if THAT'S not the biggest oxymoron I've ever read, I don't know what is.

In our case alone there were 3 CRUCIAL, case changing points that were flat-out IGNORED. All of which can point back to sloppy police work. ALL of them.

[BabyRider]

Diuretic wrote: Two different concepts. Intelligence-led policing isn't about investigating an incident that has already happened, it's about putting information together to predict or at least have a pretty good idea about what might be happening before any reports from the public come in. So it's not an oxymoron, it refers to a specific process.



In your case you have the appeal process to get those arguments considered - if there are procedural errors then they should be analysed in the appeal process. I don't know what caused them because I have no idea of the details and frankly it's none of my business but if there have been errors and sloppy work then an appellate court should rip into them.
A) Let's leave "predicting" to psychics and other such mediums, cuz let me tell you...the cops SUCK at it.



B) *flipping Di a quarter*.....go buy yourself a sense of humor. :-5

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote: A) Let's leave "predicting" to psychics and other such mediums, cuz let me tell you...the cops SUCK at it.



B) *flipping Di a quarter*.....go buy yourself a sense of humor. :-5


Baby----your case has nothing to do with Profiling.

[valerie]

Lon wrote: Baby----your case has nothing to do with Profiling.


I didn't see where she said it did? She made a couple comments about

other people's posts... she didn't go off topic...



Sooo...

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: Baby----your case has nothing to do with Profiling.
I guess I know a "Get out of this thread, since you have nothing to contribute" when I hear it....sheesh.....

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote: I guess I know a "Get out of this thread, since you have nothing to contribute" when I hear it....sheesh.....


Let's not fight--------I know you are anxious about your case and every time you see something about the fuzz or law enforcement a bell goes off.

[valerie]

You guys are both sweet...

[gmc]

Lon wrote: I just don't get it. If the MAJORITY of certain crimes are being committed by a particular group, be they black, asian, hispanic or muslim, wouldn't common sense dictate that that's the group that will be stopped the most?

This PC crap has gone beyond reason. I guess a Muslim Terrorist could disquise him or herself as a Nordic looking old lady or old man. And a Hispanic Drug Smuggler could change his appearance to look like an African American.

I guess we just have to stop everyone just in case and of course to be fair. To hell with common sense and efficiency. PC at all costs.


It's the most basic of liberties that no one can have liberty taken away from them for any reason without knowing what they are accused of and facing the accusers in a court with guilt or innocence being decided by a jury of their peers. When you accept that any section of society is not entitled to the same protection from arbitrary arrest as you then you are on the way to losing your freedom.

One of the most dangerous things in any free society is for law enforcement authorities and politicians to say give us the right to imprison those we know are guilty or might commit a crime without trial and we will protect you from them and for people to agree. before you know it those who think it wring find themselves adccused of being on the side of the criminal. Justice is blind there are no sides.

posted by Lon

Baby----your case has nothing to do with Profiling.


Yes it does in a way-member of a biker gang, must be a criminal therefore dishonest and a liar never mind the evidence.

The basic principle is the same whether it's a hispanic, black, or a biker (all the best by the way babyrider) being imprisoned and judged guilty because of who and what they are perceived to be without any evidence of wrongdoing.

How would you like it if it was your ethnic group that was so profiled?

[Lon]

TO DIURETIC & GMC------Hold on guys-----you are jumping way ahead. I am not talking about ARRESTING OR IMPRISONING. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about when I refer to Profiling. There is a report by witnesses that a black male, approximately 6 feet tall & wearing a black zippered wind breaker and white tennis shoes robbed a clerk at 7/11 at knife point. Now, who are we going to stop for questioning? I am talking about Probable Cause and the right to stop and question someone that may fit the profile of the suspect or suspects. In the case of suspected terrorists, it should be the same thing. Authorities in my view have the right to stop and question suspects they fit a certain profile. Arresting or imprisoning is another mattrer and we could have a whole new discussion on that.

[Lon]

[quote=Diuretic]Given the quality of eye witness evidence I would immediatedly start looking for a little old lady





By definition that's not profiling, especially when you consider the other aspects (although understand that clothing can be discarded).

You are right----and I gave a poor example. Isn't it a fact that the vast majority of terrorist activities have been carried out by those that appear to be of Middle Eastern Origin, not Nordic looking types? Wouldn't that alone be sufficient reason to stop those individuals for questioning (not arrest or incarceration)?

[Lon]

.

As far as terrorist issues are concerned I can only say - purely untutored personal opinion - that I wouldn't use physical appearance for profiling purposes and I'm pretty sure that various organisations responsible for security don't do it. And that's not on the grounds of political correctness, it just seems to me that if the "enemy" knew that then they'd simply use people who didn't fit the appearance profile. No, it has to be more sophisicated and based on intelligence and that's the big debate, how that intel is gathered.


Wouldn't you agree however, that those of the Muslim Faith would have a hard time finding a Nordic or Oriental looking person, willing to strap dynamite around his waist, and commit suicide while killing others?

[Lon]

Diuretic wrote: What does a Muslim look like? There's a Syrian Muslim extremist who has blue eyes and red hair. Simply focusing on appearance won't do it.


I disagree. You are talking the exception. I think most of those that have admitted to terrorist acts and those that have directed threats against the U.S., Israel and others, bear a startling resembalance to a Middle Eastern Profile. There are of course Muslims in Indonesia, Phillipines and elswhere in the world that do not have the Middle Eastern appearance, but they sure as hell don't look like Irishmen either

[Lon]

Diuretic wrote: So how should profiling be done?


By going with the odds. Follow the mathematical odds of being correct in stopping those that are most likely to be the person you are looking for.

[gmc]

Lon wrote: .

As far as terrorist issues are concerned I can only say - purely untutored personal opinion - that I wouldn't use physical appearance for profiling purposes and I'm pretty sure that various organisations responsible for security don't do it. And that's not on the grounds of political correctness, it just seems to me that if the "enemy" knew that then they'd simply use people who didn't fit the appearance profile. No, it has to be more sophisicated and based on intelligence and that's the big debate, how that intel is gathered.


Wouldn't you agree however, that those of the Muslim Faith would have a hard time finding a Nordic or Oriental looking person, willing to strap dynamite around his waist, and commit suicide while killing others?


It's a complete red herring. What does somebody from the middle east look like?

What makes you think you don't get blond arabs or jews come to that? Blondes females used to be highly prized as slaves-still are come to that. Many afghans have white skins and blue eyes are not as unusual as you might think. Not to mention the failrly substantial muslim population in places like china and russia and malaysia who are oriental as well-who do you think carried out the bali bombing? it wasn't arabs-as well all the black muslims knocking around. We have indian friends that keep getting stopped at american customs because I suspect many in America don't actually know what someone from the middle east should look like and can't tell there is a difference betweeen an indian and a pakistani and i supect have a vague idea that the indian sub continent is in the middle east somewhere. Many turks and iranians would also blend in rather well. Incidentally you also get dark haired nordic types with brown eyes.

Up until recently the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the UK were carried out by Irish terrorists lickily we never made the foolish assumption that all irishmen were terrorists.

[Lon]

gmc wrote: Wouldn't you agree however, that those of the Muslim Faith would have a hard time finding a Nordic or Oriental looking person, willing to strap dynamite around his waist, and commit suicide while killing others?
It's a complete red herring. What does somebody from the middle east look like?

What makes you think you don't get blond arabs or jews come to that? Blondes females used to be highly prized as slaves-still are come to that. Many afghans have white skins and blue eyes are not as unusual as you might think. Not to mention the failrly substantial muslim population in places like china and russia and malaysia who are oriental as well-who do you think carried out the bali bombing? it wasn't arabs-as well all the black muslims knocking around. We have indian friends that keep getting stopped at american customs because I suspect many in America don't actually know what someone from the middle east should look like and can't tell there is a difference betweeen an indian and a pakistani and i supect have a vague idea that the indian sub continent is in the middle east somewhere. Many turks and iranians would also blend in rather well. Incidentally you also get dark haired nordic types with brown eyes.

Up until recently the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the UK were carried out by Irish terrorists lickily we never made the foolish assumption that all irishmen were terrorists.


C'mon GMC my friend---you have my quotes in the wrong box---very confusing, plus, did you read my post on the odds?

[Lon]

If a man stops me on the street and he is carrying a copy of the Koran in one hand and prayer beads in the other, and informs me that he and his friends will try to kill me and my family because I am an American and a infidel, just what kind of person do you think I will be most on guard against. One that looks Oriental, Indian, Caucasian? This kind of threat has been made against my country, and therfore me as well, so forgive me if it is prejudicial on my part to think that I can distinguish most Middle Easterners from others.

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: so forgive me if it is prejudicial on my part to think that I can distinguish most Middle Easterners from others.
Prejudicial?? Not at all as there is a very simple way to distinguish Middle Easterners from others: check for the scent of B.O. covered up by massive amounts of Polo.

[gmc]

posted by lon

C'mon GMC my friend---you have my quotes in the wrong box---very confusing, plus, did you read my post on the odds?



I clicked on the quote button on your post which should have put just put your bit in the box rather than include the bit you quoted but there seems to be a minor fault. .

I did see your post on the odds, I don't think it's a valid point. There are millions of people from the middle east, they are not all terrorists and categorising them as such is a bit silly, and the assumption that all people from the middles east look the same is ludicrous. It's a bit like claiming you can spot all french people just by their appearance or me claiming I can spot an american tourist as distinct from the european one. ( actually the golf trousers usually give it away but not all americans have a poor fashion sense)

All osama has to do is get a pakistani to carry out the next terrorist attack in america safe in the knowledge that the americans are looking for someone from the middle east because profiling tells them that's whare most terrorists come from. Even use female terrorists-take of the burkha and no one will spot them. Better concentrate on getting good intelligence than waste resources looking for simple fixes.

posted by lon

If a man stops me on the street and he is carrying a copy of the Koran in one hand and prayer beads in the other, and informs me that he and his friends will try to kill me and my family because I am an American and a infidel, just what kind of person do you think I will be most on guard against. One that looks Oriental, Indian, Caucasian? This kind of threat has been made against my country, and therfore me as well, so forgive me if it is prejudicial on my part to think that I can distinguish most Middle Easterners from others.


If a man stops you on the steet and does that he is a nutter and probably harmless. Real terrorists you won't see coming and the only way to stop them is good intelligence not hare brained notions that if they look like a bad guy they must be a bad guy.

By the same logic all irishmen should heve been targets for police action because they fitted the profile of a terrorist-irish, catholic and in the UK.

How about, white supremecicts are generally speaking white and christian, mainly protestant denominations. using profiling that means you should target all white people except for the pagans and catholics

The problem is not all fundamentalist muslims are from the middle east and the races are so mixed up that assuming you can tell someone origin from their appearance is a false assumption. Give osama bin laden a shave and put him in a western suit with a new york accent and I bet you wouldn't spot him.

All profiling does is spead fear and stupidity so innocent people find themselves arrested for no good reason and the general population become convinced that everyone around that looks a bit funny is out to get them.

[BabyRider]

gmc wrote: If a man stops you on the steet and does that he is a nutter and probably harmless.


That kind of attitude is a recipe for getting killed in my neighborhood. You can never, EVER assume anyone is harmless. You basically said it yourself....take a woman, lose the burkah, and no one would know.

[Lon]

If a man stops you on the steet and does that he is a nutter and probably harmless. Real terrorists you won't see coming and the only way to stop them is good intelligence not hare brained notions that if they look like a bad guy they must be a bad guy.

By the same logic all irishmen should heve been targets for police action because they fitted the profile of a terrorist-irish, catholic and in the UK.

.

All profiling does is spead fear and stupidity so innocent people find themselves arrested for no good reason and the general population become convinced that everyone around that looks a bit funny is out to get them.


You keep bringing up arrest and I am not talking arrest, merely stopping for questioning. Granted, at some point Fundamentalist Muslim Terrorists may, and in all probability will, be successful in recruiting others that do not fit the current profile, but at this point, stopping and checking passport and identification of those that appear to be from the Middle East is a wise idea in my view. Like the old saying---if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck, you can assume it's a duck.

[Bryn Mawr]

Lon wrote: If a man stops me on the street and he is carrying a copy of the Koran in one hand and prayer beads in the other, and informs me that he and his friends will try to kill me and my family because I am an American and a infidel, just what kind of person do you think I will be most on guard against. One that looks Oriental, Indian, Caucasian? This kind of threat has been made against my country, and therfore me as well, so forgive me if it is prejudicial on my part to think that I can distinguish most Middle Easterners from others.


Then again, if a man stops you in the street dressed in a smart suit do you suspect that he's a terrorist because he has a darkish skin and a slightly hooked nose.

It is purely predudice if you do.

Remember the thread on recognition of American Pit Bulls - apply that to muslims.

Then reverse the argument and ask youself what percentage of the muslim population are terrorist.

Put the answers together and work out how many innocent people you are suspecting for each one who deserves it.

Acting on appearance rather than information is predudice whichever way you look at it.

[Lon]

[quote=Bryn Mawr]Then again, if a man stops you in the street dressed in a smart suit do you suspect that he's a terrorist because he has a darkish skin and a slightly hooked nose.

Of course I would not think of him as a terrorist. I would wait until he said something to me and I would make a determenation based on our conversation.

It is purely predudice if you do.

Remember the thread on recognition of American Pit Bulls - apply that to muslims.

Then reverse the argument and ask youself what percentage of the muslim population are terrorist.

It does not matter what percentage may be terrorist. My initial thread was profiling people merely to question them re: passport, identification etc. Not arrest or incarceration. Do you feel that this type of questioning is invasive, illegal and prejudicial. Aren't questions asked at Customs when we go to another country. My passort is certainly checked when I go to Australia and Thailand and I am asked questions as to my purpose in visiting. If the Customs Officer had any concerns about me he could have me detained and questioned further.

[koan]

I can't figure out how the question of racial profiling is seriously under debate. You might as well ask "Why do we need a constitution?"

[Bryn Mawr]

Diuretic wrote: In post #3 I said:

That is not racial profiling - that is just profiling.


Over here we had a thing called the Sus laws - people could be stopped and questioned on the basis of Police suspicion.

The Police had profile evidence that the majoority of muggings were being carried out by people of afro-carribean origin.

It took about two years of outraged public demand and a huge amount of dammage to race relations before the sus laws were dropped.

Stop and question on the evidence available

[gmc]

posted by lon

You keep bringing up arrest and I am not talking arrest, merely stopping for questioning. Granted, at some point Fundamentalist Muslim Terrorists may, and in all probability will, be successful in recruiting others that do not fit the current profile, but at this point, stopping and checking passport and identification of those that appear to be from the Middle East is a wise idea in my view. Like the old saying---if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck, you can assume it's a duck.


If it looks like a duck but you haven't heard quack, or seen it walk or and most importantly go for a swim it might just be a sparrow.

If you are not going to arrest them why stop them? it's just harassment. What you are proposing ois giving your police the authority to stop and search and question people just because they fit a profile. In other words you are effectively saying that liberty is not a right but something that can be taken away at a whim by the police. That not everyone has a right to go about their business without being constantly stopped and asked to prove they are doing nothing. Profiling may be a useful tool but if you act on it alone all you are doing is acting blindly out of fear.

Why not target motorcyle gangs or white supremecist groups or political parties- or people who read harry pottter books and might be closet witches. Knowing that a potential terrorist may be from the Middle east is a useful piece of information but that is all it is. Believing that all potential terrorists have a middle eastern appearance is just plain silly.

I don't know about you but I live in a country where if a policeman stops you he has to have a good reason for doing so not just because I look funny or fit some kind of stereotype. I can refuse to answer unless he gives me a good reason and of course I can be lifted but then they have to press charges. In this country our govt tried to get powers of arbitrary arrest and to hold people without trial. They didn't get because if you have enough evidence to suggest someone might be a terrorist you have enough to arrest them and prove it in court. Throwing people in prison just on suspiscion does not work and gives a false sense of security because something seems to be getting done, but if you can't prove it you don't know you have the right people. It's kind of a moot point whether internment worked in Northern Ireland or made things worse.

The biggest threat to freedom is not terrorists but a politician saying give up some of these freedoms and we will safeguard them for you but they are stopping us arresting all these people we know are a threat-we can't prove it we just think they might be so we need to be relieved of the burden of proving them guilty. If you object to this then you are supporting terrorists. No one with any commonsense would fall for that one. Free societies are never destroyed from outside they are eaten away from within. There is a very good reason why powers of arrest and imprisonment are so circumscribed in all democracies.



posted by lon

It does not matter what percentage may be terrorist. My initial thread was profiling people merely to question them re: passport, identification etc. Not arrest or incarceration. Do you feel that this type of questioning is invasive, illegal and prejudicial. Aren't questions asked at Customs when we go to another country. My passort is certainly checked when I go to Australia and Thailand and I am asked questions as to my purpose in visiting. If the Customs Officer had any concerns about me he could have me detained and questioned further.


Being stopped at borders and airports is one thing but being pulled over and questiuoned just because you look suspicious is another. How would you feel if your particular tribal sub grouping was deemed a terrorist threat? You're seeing terrorists where there aren't any. In short it is invasive, probably illegal, prejudicial and probably not a constructive approach. America has had one major terrorist attack-albeit a big one. Terrorists win when they are able to generate a constant state of fear in the population. It seems to me that all things like proifiling do is play right in to their hands. They want muslims to feel ostracised from those around them, makes them easier to recruit.

posted by babyrider

That kind of attitude is a recipe for getting killed in my neighborhood. You can never, EVER assume anyone is harmless. You basically said it yourself....take a woman, lose the burkah, and no one would know.


I will assume someone is harmless until they do something. That doesn't mean you do stupid things or don't be careful in rough neighbourhoods. Generally speaking I find those that talk most about how tough they are and what they will do to people are usually the most harmless. Kind of Jack russel syndrome-the world is a big scary place so you show you are tough by snarling at everything that comes near because of fear and in the hope they leave you alone. The ones to worry about are the quiet ones that just bite when they have to.

[koan]

Diuretic wrote: In post #3 I said:



That is not racial profiling - that is just profiling.


There is no reason to generalize into the race of the perps. They had other indicators. If constitutional rights are relinquished then you have to ask which ones go next. With the hype about the PATRIOT Act I'm surprised that compromising constitutional rights seems so innocuous. It is easy to wave off when the profiling does not affect you. Have you ever been stopped and searched without cause? Just driving off on a holiday and stopped by police on a search? Maybe you have. I'd like to know.

Profiling is not a bad thing. Racial profiling has been determined to violate human rights. Being in the ruling majority race kind of makes it seem unimportant, I suppose.

[Bryn Mawr]

Diuretic wrote: I remember the outcry over the sus laws. But that example makes my point nicely. Working on a particular profile for a particular set of circumstances is good police work - stopping people at random based only on racial appearance is not good police work.

The sus laws allowed police to arrest a "suspected" person. In other words they had to be carrying out some sort of behaviour which led the police to suspect they might be about to commit a crime. An example might be a person walking along a street checking door handles on cars, hoping to find one unlocked where they could then either take something from the car or get in and steal it. That is appropriate. What's not appropriate is to stop someone simply based on appearance and ask them what they're up to when they're apparently doing nothing wrong at all.


The laws required that the police had grounds for suspician before they stopped a person. In reality it meant that they harrassed people on racial grounds which is why they were scrapped - how do you prove that you were not acting suspiciously.

My point was that, good intentions aside, profiling is used to justify predudice. (apart from forensic profiling which is a completely different area).