Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   So if you go to a grocery store and use your credit card to buy
> >   something
> > and they want to check your ID to make sure you are the real owner of
> > the card, are they presuming you guilty until you prove you are not? Or
> > is this simply a security measure which, on the grand scale, benefits
> > you as well as everybody else?
> > 
> >   If you enter the country and at the airport they check your baggage
> >   using
> > an X-ray machine, are they presuming you guilty? Or is this just a
> > security measure?
> > 
> >   If a police officer asks for your ID to check that you have the right
> >   to
> > live in the country, is he presuming you guilty, or is it just a
> > security measure?

> He's presuming you're guilty, because he has to have probable cause to 
> pull you over to ask if you're legally in the country.  Being brown isn't 
> sufficient.

  Well, that was kind of my point: If the store clerk is not assuming your
guilt, nor is the guard at the airport, what makes a policeman checking
someone's ID different?

> >   You make it sound like in that last case the situation is different,
> >   for
> > some reason.

> It is.  You fail to see it or understand it.

  I suppose you are right: I fail to see the difference.

> >> Based. On. Skin. Colour.
> > 
> >   Why are people so damn obsessed with skin color? Criminal profiling
> >   does
> > not have anything to do with racism. Skin color is just one feature
> > which can be used for profiling.

> Not in the US, not legally.  That's the point.

  You mean that in the US the police can construct criminal profiles on
everything else *except* skin color? Hair color is ok, as well as eye
color, the color of clothes... but not skin color?

  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but if that really is so, it seems
like a real hindrance to police work, in the name of political correctness.

> >   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
> > to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
> > the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
> > concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
> > Nobody is crying sexism because of that.

> Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.

  You mean there are people who are complaining about the police investigating
only males in rape cases?

> >   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
> > profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
> > ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
> > feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
> > toilet. Sheesh.

> You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs, 
> ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors.  Just like you can't use 
> those to make hiring decisions.

  Ok, I think we are using a different meaning of the word "profiling".
It's possible I have understood the term wrongly.

  I have heard about criminal profilers on the police force who try to
get a picture of what kind of person the criminal might be based on the
available clues, and this can include things like ethnicity (such as
for example "serial killers are typically white middle-aged males"),
but maybe that's just in TV series and movies?

  If making a criminal profile based on ethnicity is illegal, does that
mean that the police cannot say things like "serial killers are typically
white males"?

> Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly 
> to provide proof that you're here legally.  Including in the middle of 
> the night, just for safety's sake.

  I assume you are exaggerating. I have hard time believing there are
enough policemen to do that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message