Actually, no; he was a naval consultant for the Star Wars program.
He doesnt like to be called Muslim, he prefers calamari.
Well, if a CMDC is a mid-level governor, he might say: “It’s satrap!”
Okaaaaaay. That’s not a cite for what you claimed. The British National Party is a political party.
So, got any other cite you’d like to use?
Before this thing runs completely off the rails, (although I am enjoying the humor and it would be fun to move it to a joke forum and see what develops), I guess I ought to make one effort at a serious response.
The Supreme Court has never issued a ruling that would suggest that legitimate information about a suspect of criminal activity be ignored or suppressed based on the person’s perceived race, ethnicity, or religion, so there is no reason to ignore “leads” that happen to include that information.
A prohibition against racial (or religious) profiling does not mean that no information can ever be used, so we can dismiss that straw man argument as nonsense.
Racial (or religious) profiling does not mean including relevant information about suspected criminals that happens to include the perceived race or belief. Rather, racial profiling means that we focus on perceived race or religion to the exclusion of legitimate facts. That is what the phrase means. Racial profiling includes things such as pulling over drivers for Driving While Black, harrassing innocent citizens for the color of their skin. As has already been alluded, racial profiling for people of Middle Eastern ethnicity would never have caught Richard Reid or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, neither of whom were of Middle Eastern ethnicity. Used in airports, racial or religious profiling would mean that we would harrass every person of apparently Middle Eastern extraction, (including the Lebanese Maronite Christians, the Egyptian Coptic Christians, and a host of others), while failing to stop any actual terrorists who happened to be able to pass as Italian or Greek, (or German).
Genuine profiling involves looking at behavior, not skin color, and is rather more effective. So the claims of the OP–starting with a nonsense claim regarding the opinions of the Supreme Court and continuing through the imagined usefulness of race-based stereotypes–are merely silly posturing that have nothing to do with the real world.
If he is who he claims he is, it seems that perhaps he lacks the appropriate training for his current duties. If he is truly interested in keeping this country safe, it would behoove him to get it.
New York City is one of the safest cities in the United States.
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm
Race profiling is widely considered to be one of the major reasons. The police scrutinize young black and Hispanic men very closely.
In other words, they search tens of thousands of people because they have brown skin, only a tiny number of which turn out to have anything incriminating on them. They create a climate of fear and hatred between the cops and anyone who isn’t white.
Making such a statement shows either extreme ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
William Bratton, the Police commissioner who put in place the policies that caused New York’s crime rate to drop has criticized racial profiling.
I can’t help but notice you seem to be obsessed with black people, having on several occasions made rather lame attempts to prove black people were less intelligent or more violent than whites.
I have to ask, what happened to you to cause you to become so obsessed with black people?
Did a woman you loved dump you for a black man?
Did get beaten up by a black person at one time?
Did your mother abandon you and your father for a black man?
I don’t know what happened, but it must have been something extreme.
What was it?
Regardless of the reasons for the poster’s odd beliefs, these questions–particularly as worded–are irrelevant to this discussion and inappropriate to this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
The facts indicate the exact opposite:
Salon.com: Why Racial profiling doesn’t work
New York is safer because they dropped the racial profiling and began to use the more effective behavior profiling.
It doesn’t really matter who I am or what I have done in the past. I don’t have to prove myself to you. My logic is really quite simple in form. Because I am a former SEAL and have worked in the private sector for 15 years I take for granted that some people still need a valid link for the term “Sharia”
Most apologetic,
Chief White Sr.
When racially profiling other key data must be observed. ie: police intelligence and good old fashioned hard nosed question asking. When I observe data I observe it freely and with objective, that is not to mean bias. Simply by the color of one’s skin does not hold water… Maybe my choice of using the term racial profiling was indeed a mistake from the beginning of the point if you can’t get what I am stating as a matter of experience in investigative technologies. If so, I deeply apologize for the misuse of the term. One thing about America is certain. Once there has been a definition laid down and become acceptance in the mainstream it becomes difficult to change peoples perspective because they depend so desperately on those definitions for their arguments survival and we all love to debate. Well I should say some of us love to debate. Some of us have a real difficult time controlling ourselves and to the effect of what comes spewing out of our hole in our head located just below the nose.:dubious:
The whole point of the objections to your Original Post is that you claimed that the Supreme Court had ruled racial profiling unconstitutional, but that it was necessary to good police and security work.
Now you note that you were not talking about racial profiling, per se, but something more along the lines of behavioral profiling. The Supreme Court has never ruled against behavioral profiling and I suspect that most of the posters in this thread would be comfortable with security forces engaging in profiling based on the actions of a person.
“Racial” profiling, however, remains a stupid thing to do, as it is ineffective and counter-productive to both security and good order.
Exactly. Even ignoring the moral problems, racial profiling fails in its alleged purpose by not narrowing the investigative targets anywhere near enough to be useful, and by using a really bad criteria for profiling to boot. Profiling only makes sense if the profile narrows your prospective targets down to manageable numbers that let you concentrate your resources, and (to use the NY example) 175,000 people isn’t manageable. Especially where there’s no great correlation between actual criminality and the criteria you are using.
Are you suggesting that in the cases of large-scale fraud, they don’t, in fact, look at the Wall Streeter “rich white” types, and instead look first at the “poor black” people?
No. The (ironic) point was that in cases of large-scale fraud, they do not resort to profiling; they simply follow the evidence of a crime to its source. (Hence “random rich white guys” in the post you quoted.)
It is only when the targets are going to be politically less well supported, (ethnic minorities), where there is a sudden call for racial profiling to stop crime, (even though that sort of profiling is ineffective and counter-productive).
Is it really likely that a former US SEAL doesn’t speak English as a first language? I’m surprised.
If you have a problem with a poster, take it to The BBQ Pit. Do not hijack threads with attacks on posters.
[ /Moderating ]