On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:06:25 -0400, Warp wrote:

>> 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?

The fact that they're an agent of the state engaged in law enforcement.  
They're paid by the state to do that.

The clerk in the store is not employed by the state (well, in Utah liquor 
stores, they are), but a condition of purchase is that you be legal.  
Your options are to either present ID if asked or not make the purchase.  
The choice is not "present ID or *go to jail*.".  Huge 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.

Specific crime vs. assuming a crime was committed because someone looks 
hispanic.  That's the difference, and it's not about political 
correctness, it's about prosecuting *actual specific crimes*.

Look at it this way:  Someone at a border crossing spots someone of a 
specific description (or a group of a specific description - not just 
"they look Mexican", but height, weight, etc.).  Cop sees someone 
matching the description for a specific crime, that gives them reason to 
stop the person and investigate, even if they're not guilty.

Cop sees someone who is Hispanic and *assumes* they must be here 
illegally (otherwise what's their probable cause for stopping the 
person?) and asks for their papers.  That's NOT OK.  Why?  No specific 
crime was committed or reported.  The reason for the stop isn't "this 
person looks like someone who crossed the border illegally" but "this 
person looks like an illegal immigrant because all illegal immigrants are 
Hispanic" - the presumption is "they must be guilty because they're 
Hispanic" not "they match a description for a specific crime that's been 
reported".

Does that make it clearer?


>> >   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'm saying that you don't know the details of every investigation that 
has ever taken place regarding rape cases in the US.  Or you have a 
really strange hobby.  The fact that you (or I) are not aware of an 
instance of this doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

>> >   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?

You're talking about a specific crime.  The point is that there is no 
*specific* crime in the case of enforcing the AZ law.  In order to 
prosecute a crime, the prosecution must be able to state with specificity 
what crime was committed and when.

>   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"?

No, but they cannot say "I must detain and/or question all white males 
because most serial killers are white males, even though nobody has 
reported a serial killer in this area."

>> 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.

Well, the state of Arizona seems to think the cops there have the time to 
do this.  But now you are perhaps starting to see the problem.  There 
aren't enough cops to enforce this ridiculous law, and to do so the cops 
have to take time away from pursuing dangerous offenders because the law 
requires they investigate *every* *possible* instance of an illegal being 
in the state, and allows the public to sue the government if the police 
fail to investigate such violations.

Jim

Post a reply to this message