Profiling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Sloth wrote:
50% of homicide victims are black.

52% of known race homicide offenders are black

But, like whites, blacks are far more often killed by their own race. I think we’re looking at high 80-to low-mid 90% depending on race. I couldn’t find the data with a brief search, though I’m sure I’ve seen it before on the FBI site.

So, yes. It’s undeniable that about 13% of the population, as a population, has a tragically high homicide rate.

But ultimately, if you’re a white guy, you’d want white guys profiled more, no? You’re far more likely to be killed by a white, as a white.

[/quote]

The problem is defining any of this by race in the first place.

No, I do not want blacks profiled more…because I understand a CULTURAL ISSUE when I see one and don’t ascribe it to RACE.

It is not the job of black people to police all other black people.

It is not the job of white people to police all other white people.

yet for some reason, this stuff makes sense to people here when it comes to minorities.

42

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is a difference between data driven and racist. That is what DB was saying, and that is where I agree with him.[/quote]

No, merely your racism is data-driven.
[/quote]

Which is the very definition of “institutional racism”.

It seems to be blatantly supported…while “AA” is treated like Satan.[/quote]

You seem to be saying I am a racist. If that is the case, you both can go fuck yourselves.

Are there very real problems associated with data collection and how it is looked at? Yes. And we need to really look at them. And we need to really fix them. The posts you made on the Innocence Project are both scary and sad.

That being said, if you do not use some sort of categorization, you overload the resources of your police force. You have to direct your efforts some how. Would you put the same amount of police officers patrolling River Oaks that you would patrolling the 2nd or 3rd Ward?

If so, you’re foolish. If not, how do you direct those resources? And if you decide to direct more resources to the 2nd or 3rd Ward than to River Oaks, you are profiling.

43

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No, I do not want blacks profiled more…because I understand a CULTURAL ISSUE when I see one and don’t ascribe it to RACE.

It is not the job of black people to police all other black people.

It is not the job of white people to police all other white people.
[/quote]

Of course it’s cultural. How do you define culture in statistics? You can’t.

It’s not the job of black people to police all other black people. That is an absurd notion. It is, however, within the realm of possibility to have local communities help keep an eye out and actively try to change their local communities. I believe they call one of those ways Neighborhood Watch.

This is true of all nationalities and cultures. It so happens unfortunately that some need less community activity than others. This has more to do with socioeconomic status than anything else. However, just because it’s not my job to police all other white folks doesn’t mean I’m not going to keep an eye out for the people I live around.

44

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

You seem to be saying I am a racist.[/quote]

You really shouldn’t need to ask what I am saying because I am writing clearly enough for there to be no questions.

The issue is not whether YOU personally are “racist”.

You can still live in a society filled with “INSTITUTIONAL RACISM” especially if you agree that I should be looked at more often for “crime potential” just because the guy next to me is black and stole a tv.

That makes no sense to state you agree with that…and then claim you are against “affirmative action” when AA has the goal of correcting the “INSTITUTIONAL RACISM” YOU JUST CLAIMED YOU AGREE WITH.

[quote]
Are there very real problems associated with data collection and how it is looked at? Yes. And we need to really look at them. And we need to really fix them. The posts you made on the Innocence Project are both scary and sad.[/quote]

Agreed…and they show clearly that bias alone and “police tactics” lead to innocent people ending up in jail for no crimes being committed.

If you look at more black people, you will find more wrong.

It does NOT mean crime is decreasing because you did it.

[quote]

That being said, if you do not use some sort of categorization, you overload the resources of your police force. You have to direct your efforts some how. Would you put the same amount of police officers patrolling River Oaks that you would patrolling the 2nd or 3rd Ward?[/quote]

No, but I would do that because of the CULTURE associated with those areas…and yes, there are WHITE PEOPLE in 3rd ward.

I gasped when I saw one yesterday. Hell, they acted like they belonged there or something. Go figure.

[quote]

If so, you’re foolish. If not, how do you direct those resources? And if you decide to direct more resources to the 2nd or 3rd Ward than to River Oaks, you are profiling.[/quote]

If you look for CRIMES BEING COMMITTED good on you.

If you are pulling over the car filled with black people for ANY violation you can find just because they are black, you are going along with INSTITUTIONAL RACISM…whether you want to call yourself a racist or not.

45

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Of course it’s cultural. How do you define culture in statistics? You can’t. [/quote]

You can if you are looking for criminal acts alone and not “black people”.

If that leads to less blacks being arrested…unless you can show crime increasing as a result, what is the issue?

[quote]

It’s not the job of black people to police all other black people. That is an absurd notion.[/quote]

But…no one claimed it was absurd when it was written in this thread.

46

Profiling is a lot like socialism. It sounds like a good idea until it happens to you.

47

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I won’t go as far to say that Race is not a factor but I think a bigger factor would be age and socioeconomic [/quote]

I tried to go there once in one of these debates and it flopped like a fish out of water.

Not nearly tantalizing enough.

Sorry dude.

48

I don’t agree with profiling strictly on race regardless of what the data says. It marginalizes too many well-to-do people and that creates a cultural division and that makes our country weaker. In general we need to focus on unifying our culture and promoting common American values and culture that everyone can benefit from. Racial profiling is not a healthy way to tackle problems in the long term.

But I do agree with profiling, just not strictly on race. Mannerisms, dress, and actions can give insight into someone’s character. Sketchy people are sketchy people regardless of race. Sketchy people that raise red flags should be profiled. People naturally do this in everyday situations and I wouldn’t criticize law enforcement for profiling based on red flags associated with violent behavior. Race alone should not be a red flag.

49

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The police should use discretion. Unfortunately, they don’t always use discretion. But if minorities have a problem with profiling, they should look at the members of their communities that are out committing crimes to the point where huge swaths of their population in this country are being incarcerated at rates that far surpass those of other ethnic groups.[/quote]

I don’t agree with the sentiment that minorities should look to their own communities if they’re not happy with racial profiling. I agree that communities bear a responsibility in their own development, but that doesn’t mean it’s beneficial to marginalize and profile individuals based on race.

What is one black teenager going to do? He can’t influence and compel his entire community by himself. He can contribute but he shouldn’t bear the consequences of the actions of others. This creates an us versus them mentality, which I think is dangerous and not conducive to mutual prosperity. This country will always have whites, blacks, and latinos so we should get used to it and promote a culture that isn’t divisive. Racial profiling is divisive to me.

I am not totally against profiling, I just think we can profile people on other elements. We are a civilized nation, not a loose organization of different ethnic tribes with competing interests. We do not want to devolve into what’s happening in the middle east right now, where ethnic profiling is destroying the region.

50

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Race? No.

You don’t police one segment of your citizens differently.

If I’m against AA because I actually want a color-blind society, letting people (applicants) be judged on individual merit, how could I possibly accept racial profiling?[/quote]

Because if two races comprise over 60% of the prison population, while only taking up less than 30% of the regular population ya kinda gotta give it a second look.

I don’t condone breaking anybodys civil rights…but if you see a group of MS-13 bangers walking down the road, chances are they got some shady shit planned at some point.

If you saw these broskis walking through your neighborhood…would you not want the cops to give them a 2nd/3rd/4th look?[/quote]

I agree with both of you. UtahLama - the situation you presented wouldn’t be racial profiling, but gang profiling. Yes, if I saw MS-13 members in my community I would not be happy about it and would keep a close eye on them or notify police. But, it’s because I “know” they are MS-13, not because they are latino. MS-13 members behave, dress, and get tattoos in a certain way that identifies them as thugs. This is gang profiling not racial profiling so there’s no problem. The latino guy selling mangoes by my house does not concern me nor should it concern law enforcement.

My problem is when normal people acting normally get profiled. I don’t know if that’s a problem or not because I’m not personally affected by it but we shouldn’t encourage it.

51

52

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[/quote]

Video’s like this don’t help the cause. It is like it was made by 7 potheads with access to good video equipment.

Any good information that video may contain is ruined by how shitty it is presented…

Just being honest.

54

Black people aside, should Giles O’Connell be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny at the airport as Fuwaad al Jazeebazabkabob?

55

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[/quote]

Video’s like this don’t help the cause. It is like it was made by 7 potheads with access to good video equipment.

Any good information that video may contain is ruined by how shitty it is presented…

Just being honest. [/quote]

I disagree , I think America is all about presentation

56

@beans Not only is the presentation good , it is a study conducted by ACLU , it has good content as well . I will have to interpret your post as you are not a fan of the youngturks :slight_smile:

57

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@beans Not only is the presentation good , it is a study conducted by ACLU , it has good content as well . I will have to interpret your post as you are not a fan of the youngturks :)[/quote]

No… The dude sounds like a jackass that is yelling into a tin can. Audio production is shit. And they spent so much time making the weed graphics they forgot to actually compliment anything he said with any sort of credibility or verifiable fact, without the watcher having to do too much leg work for it to be effective.

He speaks like a high school drop out and obviously didn’t practice this take at all, nor is he in a position to communicate with anyone with any level of sophistication often.

The content of the video is lost, because the actual video is an assault to the senses. He may be making very good points, but this video isn’t going to reach very many people, mainly because it is shitty.

It is like a first draft, in desperate need…

58

My larger point being: if pot heads want to point out how shitty the War on Drugs is, and how it disproportionally effects Black people in America, they need a better medium than this video.

59

We disagree , The main stream will not side with this point until it is a done deal . Then they will act as though they were there all along

60

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We disagree , The main stream will not side with this point until it is a done deal . Then they will act as though they were there all along [/quote]

You are confusing my saying “the video sucks, if you want to get this message out to a broad audience you need to better than this video” and thinking I’m saying “this video’s content is bullshit.”