Afaik, whites ARE profiled too in such matters. As I said, it depends on where you are and what exactly the cops are looking for as to who is profiled.
Depends on exactly what the cops are looking for. What exactly would they be searching for in the case of rape? Its not feasible to do DNA screening for every random white male pulled over on the off chance he is a rapist…is it?
-XT
Tom, shmom. They’re Americans. Let 'em act as they please.
That wasn’t what I asked. Green river was a specific incident, I have no problem looking a black male in specific instances and D.C. sniper is another isolated incident…but does illustrate what happens when we allow prejudice to dictate policy. Note: I’m not against profiling, I’m against using it as a fish net, with no concern for whom it drags in it’s wake.
So? Murders or rapists don’t have evidence of their crime on their person or in their car? What the odds that a random white man has killed/raped a woman and as SOME evidence in his car vs a random non-white person having drugs in his?
Did you read what I wrote? If you value the concerns of the black community, you will not come to many of opinions many black republicans do. It has nothing to do with ignoring evidence. You act as though the evidence on both sides is objective and without bias. There is no objective truth, only perspective. My argument is the opinions of the black community don’t factor into your perspectives, then you may be a sell-out.
Yes, because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are worse than most other politicians. For every bad thing they have done, I can find a White politician on the other side who has done more. That’s not to say you can’t call them on their shit, just that dedicating your life to destroying someone who has no real power or position is suspect.
But they aren’t actually focusing on their community. The majority of those guys don’t live around any black people or hang out with black people. They criticize from the safety of their gated communities. Say what you want about Al Sharpton, but he is near the people he claims to represent.
It’s not racism. If Larry Elder was white, I’d probably think the same things about him minus the sell-out part. He can’t be a sell-out as he is not black. My opinion of him wouldn’t change much.
He’s looking for a woman. He pulls over a random sample of every car with a white man and woman in it for determination if she’s been raped…because most serial rapists are white. Why is that any different than me, pulling over random hispanic males to determine if they’re carrying drugs, because in my state, most drugers are hispanic?
Is there a difference?
So you are basically saying that all Black people must think alike no matter if there is evidence that they are wrong? They are to ignore anything that conflicts with their values and go along their merry way. I wasn’t aware that groupthink was a prerequisite to being a Black American.
No, there is such a thing as objective truth. Are you saying that someone who thinks that blacks are genetically inferior to whites is espousing a doctrine that is just as true as one who denies this?
So if you don’t think like other people who look like you, then you are suspect? How is that rational?
But they aren’t actually focusing on their community. The majority of those guys don’t live around any black people or hang out with black people.
[/quote]
Really? How do you know? Can you please give me a cite on this.
That’s just because it’s easier to rip them off if he’s close to them.
That’s racism. As you say, if he was white he would not have his motives questioned by you. But since his skin happens to be a different color, then you feel compelled to question his character. If your opinion of someone’s character hinges on his skin color, you’re a racist.
** xtisme** Again I have no problem with focused profiling. I do have a problem with blanket profiling. I realized that different states have different problems, and a different focus…however it seems to me that, and you may be right the enforcement is subjective to say the least.
That’s a ridiculous comparison and you know it. Rapes are much more rare than drug smuggling. Furthermore, when a rape happens police know that most often the victim will be there to help them find the rapist. Since drugs are a victimless crime police can’t rely on any victim to report the crime, and so they must resort to more invasive measures. Start comparing apples to apples and then we can talk.
Sure, there is a difference. The percentages of drug trafficing (or folks with concealed weapons), at least in my state, are a hell of a lot higher than those of random whites (male and raped female IN the car) pulled over even in a place of high white populations. Its also easier to search for drugs than to do DNA testing for rape/murder in a random pull over…and mostly thats what the cops are looking for (drugs or weapons out here).
In addition, the police usually pull over folks who fit a very narrow profile (i.e. YOUNG hispanic maleS, in an expensive or souped up vehicle, etc…though what the hell they were thinking pulling ME over and searching I still don’t know, so maybe you have a point…though admittedly I WAS near the border).
-XT
Do we see the routine and random stop of all Black Males?
I thought reading comprehension and critical thinking were prerequisites for being a doper.
Do you think all black non-republicans think alike? We don’t, and nobody is suggesting that we should.
See, this is what happens when you chop up what I said in an effort to completely distort my comments. I said there is no objective truth in reference to determining whether the aims of certain programs are helpful. Is a statement like, “Republicans don’t want to help the poor” objectively true or false? It’s all perspective. There is evidence on both sides, but no concrete truth.
Your statement about blacks is a factual claim that can be proven or disproven. The other things I mentioned are mostly opinion statements.
I already explained this to you. It has nothing to do with thinking the same.
You want addresses? How many of these people do you see speaking at black colleges, churches and events. Very few.
Yes, I would. That’s why I said I would feel the same way about Larry Elder if he was white (minus the sell-out part). Do you read my post?
Depends on where you are…I’m not opposed to little tightening of my argument here. Have to run, but here’s a cite for those interested:
http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/
** brickbacon ** Sorry for the hijack, let me know and I’ll start a new thread, or someone else can; if they can’t wait…
My sole cite was Belowjob–which made it so worrying that you couldn’t argue against this simple hypthesis =\
You aren’t really Evil Captor are you? And as has already been shown earlier in this thread,
Outside of military spending (which seems to have become smaller of an issue in recent times), I am not certain I know of any big financial issues that aren’t dealing with giving money to the needy…? Both sides are for increasing money to education. Republicans generally want to reduce all taxes (to the detriment of welfare and social security) while as Democrats disagree, so this goes back to giving money to the needy.
Whether “blacks need more money, thus they vote for the guy who gives them money” or not is true is a matter of how much people tie personal gain to voting habits. Generally I do, just because looking at demographics of who votes which way, it seems to go that those who will personally benefit from a particular party tend to vote that way. That it is such a consious decision as that, I don’t believe.
Original. :rolleyes:
A. Indeed I said that this is something I could envision that a Democrat might view as a “black issue”–and that a Republican would not. I feel no shame in that statement.
B. Ya.
Cite?
Maybe they’re A-holes. Maybe they just don’t feel that you’re worth the time of day. I honestly cannot say.
They’re black leaders too. That you see their attempts to help as attacks on the community simply means that you disagree with them.
Haven’t the foggiest what you have encountered so cannot comment without more information.
Dude, you just yelled at me four inches up because the “issue” is not financial.
And? I would assume that the black conservatives out there actively working with black people would have a better idea of what issues there are to be dealt with. If they think that full cut-off is the only solution (if going with the Republican solution)–I would probably be more inclined to trust that they were correct for that path.
Perhaps. Or perhaps they don’t care about corporate welfare because they are only concerned with black people. As to whether they chose to become a Republican to advance along the ladder–well there are sleazebags in every party, company, income range, intellgience range, and whatnot. Whether the ones you are talking about are or you just don’t like them–no one can say for a fact, but that still doesn’t mean that what they say is necessarily incorrect.
No, it does not.
Not once have I claimed the sell-outs I speak of weren’t rational, intelligent people. I said I question many of their motives. That’s not racism, that’s listening to what they say, and making an objective appraisal.
[/QUOTE]
Gah, preview before post. Preview before post. 
Ah well, long enough.
Those who live in glass houses. . .
That certainly sounds like what you are saying. What you said was that if a black person doesn’t think that government programs help black people, then they are a sell-out. That sure doesn’t leave much room for an honest difference of opinion.
My point exactly. There is evidence on both sides. However, you fail to acknowledge that when you say that any black person who views the evidence and has a different conclusion than you is a sell out. If there is evidence on both sides, why not simply acknowledge that some people, whether white or black, will view that evidence and come to differening conclusions? Instead, you say that a black person cannot do that. Do you think black people are too stupid to come to different conclusions?
It has everything to do with thinking the same. That’s the whole point of your thread. You think that blacks who don’t think like you do in the realm of politics are sell outs.
And how many times have they been invited by these colleges or churches?
Yes, I read your post. And when you call someone a sell out that means you are questioning his character. So you are questioning someone’s character based solely on his skin color. If a white person holds a view and a black person holds the identical view, how is it not racist to question the character of one based solely on the color of his skin?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Green River killer turned out to BE a white man.
He did. You’re missing the point. The point the poster was making was that whites are profiled for crimes that tend to be disproportionately committed by whites. This tends to negate a conclusion that police profiling is motivated by bigotry against blacks.
Stated in another way, in the Green River case, profiling worked.
Why should the Green River Killer be cited as an example of profiling? It was a case of trying to apprehend one guy who committed specific crimes, and from the beginning of the case it was apparent that the perpetrator was a white male.
Profiling, when discussing in the context of civil rights, is not simply about law enforcement using an individual’s physical description in deciding whether to investigate. Clearly if someone matches the physical description of a suspect who committed a crime, it’s not profiling that prompts a cop to want to talk to them.
When we’re discussing profiling, we’re really talking about law enforcement deciding to investigate, search, question or detain a suspect on the basis of race or ethnicity, absent a reasonable assumption of probable cause that a crime has been committed. (And “probable cause” is possibly an incorrect term; the website that holmes linked to uses a term called “Reasonable Articulable Suspicion” which is less demanding than probable cause.)
Stopping a car driven by a black man because he matches a suspect’s description is one thing. Stopping that car in the assumption that he shouldn’t be able to afford a car that expensive is something else entirely.
What, so we’re allowed to violate civil rights, because it’s dealing drugs is more popular than being a serial rapist and murderer?
We are talking apples to apples. Let’s use your Green River Killer.
[QUOTE]
In the beginning months of 1987, investigators had a new suspect in relation to the Green River murders. Previously known to police, the newest suspect had been picked up for attempting to solicit an undercover police officer posing as a prostitute in May 1984. However, the man was released after he successfully passed a lie detector test. When investigators looked deeper into the man’s past, they discovered that he had been accused of choking a prostitute in 1980 near the Sea-Tac International Airport. Yet, the man pleaded self-defense after claiming the woman bit him and he was soon after released from police custody.
I guess it’s not that rare to find a guy in his car, with his next victim, is it?
Would it not make sense to stop and question random white males, that visted dumpsites, visting prostitutes, drove by the scene of the crimes and cruised the strip? Why does it make more sense to stop and question random black men who drive the NJ turnpike?
I don’t see any random stop and searches of white men in this case, if I missed it; please note it. What I do see is solid police work, based on leads and follow up. Let ask you this, let’s say they did do random searches and caught Ridgeway with another girl in his car, do you think they would have focused their attention on him sooner?
Let’s see dem apples…We know the killer is most likely a white male.
We know the area that he likes to pick his victim.
We know that he drives his victim, before and after he kills them. Correct?
We know the drug dealer (Depending on area and type of drug) is a black male
We know the area that he likes to travel to transport his drug.
We know that he drives. Correct?
Again why does it make more sense to stop and search those black males whose only profile is the color of their skin and not white males with women in their cars? They knew he was white, they knew he was driving his victims, they knew where some of the victims were buried, they knew he liked to visit the bodies…so why does it not make sense to stop white males driving near where the bodies were found? Why does it not make sense to stop every white male that drives that strip and search their cars, even if it only served as a deterrent?
If you note one of the early suspects had been indentified as driving a blue and white truck…I makes sense to stop white men in blue and white trucks…it makes sense to stop black males who according to police description is driving a certain car…it doesn’t make sense to stop any black male who happens to drive past your cruiser and hope that if you do it enough; you catch someone committing a crime.
That’s not the same as cute Jodi Foster, “profiling” Bill.