Political Correctness Overrides Law Enforcement in Suburban New Jersey

Wyckoff Police Chief Benjamin Fox takes leave after profiling email
The text of the “offending” e-mail (publicly available) is as follows:

[QUOTE=Police Chief Benjamin Fox]

I think that most police officers are finding the national rhetoric about police abuse and racial profiling quite upsetting. Profiling, racial or otherwise, has it’s place in law enforcement when used correctly and applied fairly. Unfortunately we have never heard that from our President, top political leaders or our US Attorney General. Don’t ask the police to ignore what we know. Black gang members from Teaneck commit burglaries in Wyckoff. That’s why we check out suspicious black people in white neighborhoods. White kids buy heroin in black NYC neighborhoods. That’s why the NYPD stops those white kids. The police know they are there to buy drugs. It’s insane to think that the police should just dumb down just to be politically correct. The public wants us to keep them safe and I’m confident that they want us to use our skills and knowledge to attain that goal.

My major concern is that all of this misguided complaining about police officers will cause an officer to react slower to something you might perceive as a threat. That delay could be deadly. Continue to do your job relying on your training, instincts and knowledge: A common thread in the recent national incidents are persons who resist the police. That resistance then creates your counter reaction. We don’t run from fights. This department has a history of being respected by the public. Each of you contribute to that daily. Continue to be fair with people and treat them with respect. If someone resists your authorized demands, use your counter reaction as the law allows and you have my 100 support should others complain. If you have done your job correctly, they don’t want to get me on the other end of the phone. Above all, do what you have to do and that which the law allows you to do to remain safe.
[/QUOTE]

I think his being forced to take leave is a bridge too far. Specifically, majority people, as outlined in the e-mail, can also be subject to profiling. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with allocating scarce police resources in an economical manner in accordance with common sense. Police are powerless to change the semi-segregated nature of society. Thus they should use that unfortunate fact to society’s advantage.

Another example concerns terror. It is obvious that most, though not all terror emanates from certain groups. In an effort to maintain a spurious “fairness” we force all people to undergo security checks when entering New York City office buildings. Clearly, almost all of those people are going about their day to day business, and having to add 15 minutes to the needed time to make a meeting is bad for productivity and society. Yet to spare the feelings of communities that more or less refuse to integrate we are inconveniencing all.

Similarly, in Brussels and Paris, as well as other European cities (and a few communities in the U.S.) there are large areas that are “off limits” to police and to majority communities. Common sense dictates that nothing good is happening in those communities. It is not as if the people in those communities are plotting out peaceful demonstrations. Nor are they working on arguments that they will ask their members of Parliament to debate. They are devising ways to hurt or kill us. And given the relative lack of employment, largely on the Government’s “dime.”

All that I ask is some common sense, not racism.

What is your common sense alternative to that example? Please be as specific as possible.

Cite?

Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities

Which “communities” would those be exactly?
What exactly does “integrate” and “more or less refuse to” mean?

And why am I certain I already know who’s on your list and who, strangely given “more or less refuse to integrate”, isn’t?
CMC fnord!

Nope, that’s just run of the mill racism.

What complete fucking nonsense.

You don’t think terrorists of a certain appearance would know they’re being singled out? You don’t think they can disguise themselves (perhaps even with plastic surgery), or recruit a white person, or hide a bomb on someone without their knowledge?

Leave the security to the security experts. Racial profiling is not only wrong, it doesn’t work.

The community that refuses to integrate is the last one to get here. Every generation of immigrants and their descendants looks at the next one and says “we integrated, but they’re different.” It’s a cycle of complete lack of self-awareness or historical perspective.

I am not a criminal mastermind, but I imagine that if I were planning some terrible terror plot, or a grand criminal campaign, profiling would be excellent news for me. The police are primarily stopping a certain group of people? Great! I will make sure that all my agents will not fulfil the criteria they’re looking for, and so escape the greater scrutiny. My most deadly threat in this hypothetical will look exactly like “almost all of those people are going about their day to day business”, whose daily productivity the police should not interfere with.

Your agents would be…eight year old girls? 90 year old Okinawan grandmothers? People with Down syndrome?

Little Italy and Chinatown, centers of Islamic terror.

No you won’t, because if you try you won’t fulfill your agents’ criteria. A Muslim theocracy built on the persecution of non-Sunnis and women can’t just wander down to HenchCorp and recruit a bunch of non-Sunni women to do their dirty work, because anyone who was not already sympathetic to ISIL’s goal of building an Islamic Nazi Germany will tell them to fuck right off.

But anybody with brown skin and funny-looking clothing will automatically agree to strap on a suicide vest and carry in a couple of ticking suitcases, am I right? And all women who wear head scarfs are practically begging for the chance to blow something up, correct? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Tithonus]
Your agents would be…eight year old girls? 90 year old Okinawan grandmothers? People with Down syndrome?
[/QUOTE]
They would be “people who don’t fit the specific criteria the police are looking for”.

Of course I can, and here’s how; lying. No, officer, I’m a Christian. Here’s my crucifix. Let me rattle off the names of the disciples for you. Nice day, isn’t it?

I’m very confused how having a public list of things that will get you stopped isn’t a godsend to anyone planning any kind of criminal activity. “Don’t look/speak/appear like this, and you will experience lesser scrutiny!”.

You fail at basic logic. “All ISIL terrorists are Muslims” does not equal “All Muslims are ISIL terrorists.”

And then ISIL kills you for idolatry.

Because the average criminal is not very smart.

It really is that simple.

You can find story after story after story of criminals who committed serious crimes getting caught simply and solely because they were too stupid to obey the traffic laws.

This would be my agent, in the hypothetical, and in my criminal/terror organisation I’m theoretically considering my goals much more important than whether my agent lies. In fact, I’m going to specifically tell my agent that whatever moral scruples they might have about lying will be counteracted by the worth of what they’re doing, whether that’s in money or righteousness or whatever.

Assuming that ISIL, on the other hand, will certainly and immediately kill whoever lies about their religion… what difference does that make? The crime has been carried out. Profiling has been taken advantage of.

I have to say, an argument that lots of criminals are morons who are caught thanks to their own stupidity is not a great argument for profiling. Either we’re using profiling to catch intelligent, organised criminals, in which case my point holds; or we’re using profiling to catch stupid, idiotic criminals who get themselves caught through their own moronic behaviour, in which case… why are we going to such lengths to catch them, again? “These people are idiots” is not an argument that convinces me we need to take extra steps with their own negative effects to keep up.

I don’t know about 90-year-old Okinawan grandmothers, but I can think off-hand of actual situations in which young girls and people with Down syndrome have been used by terrorists, by trickery or otherwise, as suicide bombers. I’m sure I could hide a bomb in grandma’s knitting bag too.

Muslim terrorist can and do recruit people who don’t look Middle Eastern. White people convert to Islam sometimes too, and some aren’t even motivated by religion. Google Colleen LaRose for an example.

And that doesn’t even consider the possibility of tricking someone into committing a terrorist attack, or using a disguise.

You fail at supporting your argument for racial profiling. “Muslim” is not a race, and some of those who have taken it upon themselves to engage in terrorist acts at home (and even some of those who have gone overseas and joined ISIL) have not fit the stereotypical racial characteristics you think you should be looking for, and in some cases have self-identified as “Muslim” only in later life and only as a matter of political identity, not as a practicing religion. By far the most salient characteristics of these individuals have been “criminal record, often involving violence” and sometimes a history of aberrant mental health. You’re not going to weed those out by targeting those who you believe “look like Muslims”, but you are going to antagonize and alienate a big part of an innocent community.