Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   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?

> Because it's not your behavior triggering it.

> If you don't want the clerk to see your ID, pay cash or walk away.

> If you don't want your bags inspected, don't take bags on the plane, or 
> don't take a bag at all.

> How do you avoid having the policeman ask for proof of legal residence? And 
> do you get to walk away if he asks and you refuse?

> I can't believe you're not seeing the difference here.

  I think that you are seeing a difference because you are assuming a racist
motivation for the ID check in the last case. Do you deem it completely
implausible for the police to check someone's ID for other reasons than
racism?

> >> 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?

> No.  Features irrelevant to the commission of crimes aren't to be used to 
> stop people.

  "Stopping people" and "profiling" aren't the same thing.

> Note that there's a difference between profiling in the "serial killers are 
> more often white males" case than in the "pull over white males and ask if 
> they killed someone" case.  The difference is that in the first, you're 
> *reducing* the number of innocent people you bother, and in the second 
> you're *increasing* the number of innocent people you bother.

  I don't see how you are increasing the number of innocent people being
bothered when you are dropping 50% of the population from the suspects list
outright.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message