Racial profiling. Does it happen? Is it just?

Extramedium,

Consider this, you are a terrorist (Christian, Muslim or other doesn't matter) who is going to fire a shoulder-launched missle at the top of a building near central park. There may be a cop there.

You can either look like a young middle-eastern male, or you can dress up like one of the 101 people happen who look like little old ladies.

What would you choose?

If you chose old lady, aren't you going to be glad that there is almost always a dark skinned young man who the local cop is going to assume fits the part?

These ridiculously contrived examples are more instructive than they appear at first.

Ebrown, we understand your strategy regarding what terrorists and criminals should do, dress like an inconspicious person. But it won't matter what a terrorist on a rooftop with a rocket launcher on his shoulder looks like, anyone above times square with a rocket will be apprehended, even if they're white (believe it or not)

Ya got me there. I'd definitely go after the one male.

Mainly because I don't know many little old ladies that are strong enough to work a shoulder held missle launcher.

Are you done with the extreme hypotheticals yet?

This is the crux of your argument and what I think is its biggest flaw.

There are a lot of things we can do that would make the American public safer.

The Bill of Rights protects criminals and without question makes it harder to put them in jail. We allow free speech, even for Nazi's that without question makes certain crimes more common. We protect privacy and ask for due cause before we search houses. You don't think that if we allowed the police to be able to randomly search the houses of Americans, it would mean more criminals were arrested and crimes prevented?

The best part of American is that we put our ideals above our security. We allow free speech for anyone. We ensure the right to a fair trial. We even have policies that let people who are most likely guilty go free to make sure that the rights of the accused are gauranteed.

I believe that this is the right decision. Living in an open society is worth the risk. The gaurantee that I can express and believe anything I want is worth the cost of giving Nazis and others the same right.

There are countries that choose differently. China, for example does not allow these rights. They don't allow free speech, and they give police much more power to pursue criminals without worrying about such "moral issues" as civil rights. Consequently, in spite of ethnic conflicts there is very little problem with terrorism (and many other types of violent crime) in China.

I choose to live in America where we hold to "morals" even at the cost of security. I believe this is the right choice, even though it takes courage. I also believe it is the rational choice because I know that human beings are subject to emotional reactions and prejudice that often turn out to lead to incorrect conclusions. Sticking to a set of well-defined principles of fairness and justice is the best way to counter these prejudices.

Ok, you succeeded and finding a type of "profiling" that I will accept. If the cops apprehend people with rocket launchers in Times Square under the assumption they are up to no good I will concede that this is a reasonable measure to ensure public safetly

I don't disagree that things would be safer without those precautions and laws stated in the bill of rights. The thing is, when you say well defined, who is defining them? Some morals and ethics must be sacrificed for the security of others, despite how important you think they are, sacrifices must be made. Without these sacrifices America wouldn't be the free country you know and love.

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?

The historical examples where we have sacrificed the rights of some for the security of others have, in hindsight, almost always turned out to be mistakes.

Some examples...

- The Japanese Internment of WWII.
- The McCarthy anti-communist Witch Hunts.
- Use of the FBI against Martin Luther King and other anti-Vietnam protesters.
- The Alien and Sedition Act

I can't think of a single example where prejudice has made America any more secure.

I don't accept that morals and ethics need to be sacrificed for the security of others. The history of our nation has shown that we can have both.

I would love to hear a historical example of this.

ebrown_p,

It's funny, I usually agree with almost every post I've read of yours. Even when I disagree, I admire your reasoned intellect. I have come to respect your cyber persona. But here, hmmm, I don't know, you've lost me. Let's see, first you avoided my question by answering a question with a question, then you further avoid the issues by calling my examples ridiculous. I'll be darned. I am disappointed.

Oh well, in any case, I will try to answer your question to me. If I am a t___ist, odds are that I will not disguise myself. I am on a mission. If I die, I will go to heaven. I am proud of what I am doing. In most of the recent terrorist activities, they have not been disguised. Unless one counts the facemasks worn in the beheading scenes.

ebrown_p,

Perhaps where some of our differences come in are in the arena of the ideal world vs. the real world.

I feel that it should be my (and everyone's) right to travel across this nation without being searched, scrutinized, and x-rayed. Yet, when I board a plane, I am forced to give up this right to privacy.

I willingly give up this right for the security of others. Practically speaking, I do not think it is a mistake for us to give up our right to privacy when boarding an airplane.

Although, idealistically and in an ideal world, I do not agree with this concept of invading our privacy. Ideally, I believe we should have the right to travel by any means without being searched and x-rayed.

Yet I give up this right willingly, for the security of others and myself, in this imperfect, real world.

Does that make any sense?

It makes perfect sense to me, i have a feeling ebrown is speechless.

Well said, and I think this is where this topic has become so emotional and so political for so many.

A proficient police officer is one who lets evidence and information dictate his/her response. It is also important to evaluate such information, and to consider the source.

About a decade ago, the New Jersey State Police used to give training in which they would promote racial profiling in drug investigations. Their theory was that by stopping black males driving cars with out of state plates, (especially from Florida) an officer would be more likely to find drugs vs stopping a car with New Jersey plates with white drivers.

As fortune so eloquently stated, hooey. What New Jersey was doing was obviously racial profiling.

Compare that to other situations I'm familar with: A patrol officer receives info from the dispatcher that a drive-by shooting just occured in front of a night club. There were 4 suspects who left in an unknown type of vehicle. A proficient officer will know:

What age group attends that paticular club (older professionals, or those in their mid-20's);

He/she will know if the club attracts a mixed racial group or if it is a 'speciality' club (such as a white biker bar, or a hispanic club that attracts spanish-language bands, or a club that attracts young blacks, or a club that has metal bands drawing young whites)

As the officer arrives, he/she sees a few cars pulling away with various occupants. With his/her knowledge a proficient officer will attempt to stop the car containing the most likely suspects. If the shooting was at the biker bar, the officer is going to focus on the car containing the 4 white guys with long hair, beards, and wearing motorcycle club vests; if it was at the club that attracts young blacks, he is going to focus on the car with the young blacks wearing clothes that identify them as gang members.

Unless, of course, the officer is aware of recent local racial violence; that may cause her/him to reshuffle his/her priorities.

So for ebrown and others: profiling is not necessarily racial profiling. An officer without bias and prejudice is the one most likely to be the most effective, and will use profiling as a legitimate tool.

Re airline security: I agree with the ebrown that it is just a matter of time before Muslim terrorists begin using women and children; this is already occurring in Israel. But again, it is important to follow the evidence and evaluate information. If a Muslim snitch (yeah, I bet they have them there, too) tells law enforcement that 8 young Middle Eastern men posing as musicians are going to target an airline out of JFK, you bet security should be looking real hard at Middle Eastern men carrying guitar cases.

I think the policy of targeting every 8th person is quite stupid. That is nothing better then a crap shoot, and a waste of everybody's time. With our current situation, everybody should be looked at.

Which sucks, doesn't it?

But law enforcement should not be curtailed if they are acting on credible information, which is sometimes hard to do with the hue and cry of the left-wing.....

Lone voice,

I agree with your distinction between "profiling" based on specific information and "racial profiling" based on race. In your nightclub example I have no problem with the police looking for people who match the people in the club.

I do think that targetting a fraction of the people is a good strategy and many security experts have proposed this. (Actually this only works if the selection is does not follow a predictable patter "Every eighth person" fails because it is to easy to predict and defeat).

The "target a random sample for extra scrutiny" approach works for two reasons. First it dramatically raises the risk. Don't think there isn't risk to a suicide attack. There is.

A suicide bomber does not want to get caught and end up in jail. Spending a life in prison (or even being executed) does not offer much hope or glory to anyone. His sponsors don't want this either as having an accomplice in custody compromises them. Terrorist attacks simply will not happen if there a big enough chance of getting caught.

The second reason it works is that it give valuable information to people trying to detect and prevent attacks. Doing extreme and complete searches on one eighth of the population gives good information on the population as a whole. Not only that, a group attack that involves more than seven or eight people has a very good chance of being detected.

There is a balancing act in preventing terror. Complete searches of everyone would certainly be the best from a security perspective, but the costs are untenable.

Searching some random percentage selected unpredictably is quite valuable and lowers the cost. I am willing to accept this (even as a left of left lefty).

Searching people by the color of their skin, or even country of origin is not as good since it has the same problems of predictablity as selection "every eighth person" and is to easy to defeat. Not only that, the cost as far as justice, equality, and the sacrifice of American ideals is way too high.

By ignoring the color of someone's skin, you are putting yourself and the community at a higher risk and in turn making the more vulnerable. This risk is not worth the possible consequences.

Tough ogna;

By giving people free speech, we are putting yourself and the community at a higher risk.

We tell the police they can't search your house without due cause. We give you a fair trial when you are accused of commiting a crime. We give you the right to have a weapon. We let you read dangerous books.

All of the freedoms and rights we enjoy put you and your community at a higher risk. Liberty makes you somewhat more vulnerable.

If you don't think the risk of living in a society that is open, free and fair is worth the "possible consequences", you shouldn't be living in the United States.

It is awfully hypocritical of you to be willing to sacrafice the rights of other people...

Actually it isn't hypocritical at all. Racial profiling is a necessary piece of the law enforcement pie, and someone who doesn't believe that is really going to be surprised when an old woman never shoots an RPG off of her shoulder, it will be an arab man with a towel . . .i mean turban on his head.

I'm just half way through reading this thread, but I feel I should take a break and just say that I think this quote is absolutely hilarious...

Why?

Are you surprised when someone who robs a liquor store doesn't have an afro?
Are you surprised when a drug pusher doesn't speak Spanish?
What do you think about Asian who don't get good grades?
... or women who act with authority?
... or a white man who can run fast?
... or someone who is greedy isn't Jewish?

Prejudice is prujudice. It isn't rational and is not needed for security.

And what did you think about the Man who destroyed a Federal building with a truck bomb? Guess what.....?



...No towel.

Guess what, you drew a comparison to an old lady blowing up a building, how often does that happen? Just because your son is being part of the racial profiling and is taking the pain for the majority, and keeping others safe, so let's call is community service.

One of the strengths of American culture is the recognition that we are all equal, and all free. I never thought I would see the day when I was agreeing with "a left of left lefty" (as ebrown describes herself), but I feel a need to do so now.

I have been in law enforcement for over 20 years, and I firmly believe true racial profiling is just a sign of a lazy investigator. Before you disagree with this, Carbon, read my earlier post for a clear definition of racial profiling vs good police work.

To even imply that someone should feel that being detained is a "community service" is laughable. I'm hoping you were joking.

On the other hand, I have been accused of being guilty of racial profiling. I usually find that an explanation of why a stop or detention was made is sufficient to allay someone's fears. And this is where I think the main problem with the idea of racial profiling occurs.

ebrown is right when she talks about evolving tactics. This is done by many crooks, as well as terrorists. And the answer is better intelligence, better threat-recognition, and better training.

Anyone see the photo in the news about the Muslim arrested in New York for trying to by a shoulder-launched missile? His name is Mohammed Hossain; shave his beard, put him in a suit, and he would look like an American businessman......

'Nuff said. End of thread, E wins it.

Have a good day.