Profiling

[Ted-Easton]

In an effort to wean myself back onto the bittersweet nipple of Newgrounds while still suckling on the sweetness of Snooble, I'm making a new topic.
(Apologies for the graphic analogy.)

Recently there was been a great deal of talk about police forces and racial profiling, racial discrimination, etc.
Main evidence has been differeing percentages.

i.e.- 10% of the population is black.
15% of the jailed population is black
Therefore, the police must be racist.

It may sound racist to you, but I believe it is possible that a greater percent of black people commit crimes (black is just an example. insert a different race anywhere. it still works).
For another example-

25% of the population is native
33% of the arrests made are of Native people

It is completely possible that there is a higher percentage of native people who commit crimes than people of other descent.
Not that they are mentally any different, but they simply commit more crimes.

i.e. 52% of the native population commits crime
comparted to
43% of blacks
and
47% of whites

Thoughts?
Please?
*Must not....visit...snooble.....*

[Commander-K25]

At 4/12/03 08:47 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: (Apologies for the graphic analogy.)

Ewww....

I think profiling doesn't really go on to any major extent within police forces. However, a few isolated incidents are hyped up by black 'civil rights' leaders (i.e. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the greatest demagogues in America).

[TheShrike]

Racial profiling is a sick excuse to enforce the law.

But on the other hand, if you were a cop, why wouldn't you investigate when you see a pimped out ghetto-mobile filled with so much smoke on the inside that you can't see through to the other side?

[Ted-Easton]

Also, something someone on here said not long ago, probably in better words.
What would happen if a cop heard you say:

I have a cache of marijuana, a large sum of money, and an attractive woman.

Ludacris (A rapper) says it everyday in one of his songs.

I got a big weed stash, pocket full of cash, I jus' seen a big 'ol ass.

[NJDeadzone]

profiling is wrong and the biases are based on the individual police offical

however the police have the right to investigate anything they find suspiscious therefore their biases can be unleashed

[karasz]

At 4/13/03 01:09 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 01:00 AM, NJDeadzone wrote: profiling is wrong and the biases are based on the individual police offical

however the police have the right to investigate anything they find suspiscious therefore their biases can be unleashed

Just because it's morally wrong, that doesn't make it wrong to be used by police officers for protection purposes. Profiling could prevent you from being mugged by some guy with corn rows, silver teeth, and over-sized pants. Of course, not all criminals can be profiled, it's still a helpful police tactic as long as it's not taken too far or handled with violence.

ah... the last sentence is the question... how far is too far? i mean its easy to set limits, but the specifics are the fun thing... white male 18-40 yr olds are about 90% of all serial killers... should we watch all of these people? according u we should... but profiling doesnt work... by arresting every black guy with a mercedes violates their civil liberites and civil liberties are the MOST IMPORTANT THING in this country... without them we are no better than Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran or any other country that isnt too fond of us...

[karasz]

At 4/13/03 02:31 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:27 AM, karasz wrote:
ah... the last sentence is the question... how far is too far? i mean its easy to set limits, but the specifics are the fun thing... white male 18-40 yr olds are about 90% of all serial killers... should we watch all of these people? according u we should... but profiling doesnt work... by arresting every black guy with a mercedes violates their civil liberites and civil liberties are the MOST IMPORTANT THING in this country... without them we are no better than Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran or any other country that isnt too fond of us...

I don't think monitering someone suspicious more closely than others is any violation of civil liberties. It becomes a violation when police brutality enters the picture.

im not sure where it says so but people are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty... but i guess if we suspect them as being guilty then its still ok, cuz it will decrease the amount of crime... (if you arrest all of one type of people guaranteed crime decreases...)

[karasz]

At 4/13/03 02:40 AM, evilkate wrote: Monitering closely and arresting are very different processes.

true, and i concede defeat on that front... but what about you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty?

[karasz]

At 4/13/03 02:49 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:44 AM, karasz wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:40 AM, evilkate wrote: Monitering closely and arresting are very different processes.

true, and i concede defeat on that front... but what about you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty?

That just means you aren't sentenced until proven guitlty, in my opinion.

oh... well im going to have to say, im 110% against ur opinion... but at least now we know where u stand on that issue...

the reason im against ur opinion is because, looking at one person differently based on the color of their skin or religion IS bad... just like slavery, apartheid, and genocide... and affirmative action... but hey thats a whole other debate...

[karasz]

At 4/13/03 02:58 AM, evilkate wrote: I do agree that it's not the fairest tactic, but I still see it as necessary.

why is it necessary to pull over black people for driving a mercedes?

[karasz]

At 4/13/03 03:05 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 03:00 AM, karasz wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:58 AM, evilkate wrote: I do agree that it's not the fairest tactic, but I still see it as necessary.

why is it necessary to pull over black people for driving a mercedes?

It isn't. Unless he/or she has a criminal appearance or looks suspicious. It's all about how an officer profiles, not the profiling itself.

... whoa, we must have different defintions of 'profiling...' cuz ur description of someone looking suspicious is called a cop doing his job... like if a window is busted and a guy is driving a car... then yes pulling him over makes sense...

my definition of profiling is using their skin color/religion against somebody...

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/13/03 03:05 AM, evilkate wrote: It isn't. Unless he/or she has a criminal appearance or looks suspicious. It's all about how an officer profiles, not the profiling itself.

wait a minuite. a 'criminal appearance' to some oficers being black is a crimial appearance. please be more specific. a criminal appearance to me is having something on view thsat is illegal (ie a gun or drugs) how do you define it?

[Slizor]

Ted_Easton : I do believe the statistics are more acute than the examples.

Anyhow, poverty causes crime. It's a fairly simple assertion. Poverty (it used to be called "Want" in the old days) is when you lack what you need (there are more economic definitions, but I'm a lazy cunt) therefore people resort to crime to get it. More black people in America are poor therefore more commit crimes.

The solution, of course, is to eliminate poverty.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 4/13/03 07:14 AM, Slizor wrote: Ted_Easton : I do believe the statistics are more acute than the examples.


The solution, of course, is to eliminate poverty.

Americans don't think that way. They don't want to see the elimination of poverty. They want more bars, walls, and police. I mean America's homicide rate is 5 times what Canada's is.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/13/03 07:42 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: Americans don't think that way. They don't want to see the elimination of poverty. They want more bars, walls, and police. I mean America's homicide rate is 5 times what Canada's is.

also, America is the only country where they have school shoot-ups. they would never happen in UK or Canada. (or at least EXTREMELY raarely) cases have occurred where a kid has bought a gun in, but only to shoot one person. these kids bring Uzis in and 12 clips of ammo.