On Wed, 05 May 2010 13:00:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In this instance, you've said over and over that you don't see why race
>> shouldn't be used to identify illegals (at least that's what you seem
>> to be saying).
> 
>   That's the problem. You only read *part* of what I write, not the
>   whole
> thing.
> 
>   Maybe if I emphasize it would help: *IF* race could be used as a trait
> to catch criminals more efficiently, *THEN* it would make sense to use
> it.
> 
>   When I write that sentence over and over, it seems that you only read
> "it makes sense to use race to catch criminals more efficiently".

Yes, but you also applied some math (which Darren tried to discuss with 
you but you wouldn't engage in that discussion).  It's not just the two 
sentences, it's the context.  You know context is important, I know that, 
because you have occasionally asserted that people take your statements 
out of context.

So that sentence on its own makes sense; in the context of trying to make 
a mathematical case for then using race as a discriminating factor in 
picking out illegals, you then said "if 90% of illegals are hispanic, 
then use that as a determining factor".  But that 90% (and I think this 
is what Darren was trying to say) is of *illegal immigrants* and not of 
the *total population*, then you may be looking at the illegal immigrant 
population being 5% of the total population.  So does it then make sense 
to pull 95% of the people in an area over because they happen to be 
hispanic when in fact we're looking for a subset of the population that's 
90% of 5% (or 0.45% of the total population)?

>   There is a difference. If you can't understand the difference, then
> I really don't know what else I can do.

See, now, here you seem to be saying "perhaps you're too stupid to 
understand the difference".  I know that you're not, but can you see how 
what you've written could be interpreted as such?

>   (Well, I have been emphasizing like that many times already, and it
>   isn't
> helping, so I'm not very hopeful it will help this time either.)

If "like that" isn't working, then you need a different angle instead of 
continuing to repeat something that you know is not being understood.

>>  I and others have tried to
>> explain, both in a cultural context and in the context of how US
>> jurisprudence is supposed to work
> 
>   Yes, and I have many, many times written sentences along the lines of
> "(but I understand why this wouldn't work in practice because eg. people
> would get angry)", but once again it doesn't seem to register. Do the
> parentheses confuse the meaning or something?

No, actually, in *that* explanation you were clear.  But of course the 
reason people get angry is the important thing to understand, not that 
they get angry.  People get angry because of something, and to get to the 
core of why something's a bad idea, you have to look at why they get 
angry.

>> and you've pretty flatly rejected
>> those explanations instead of saying something like "that's not how it
>> works here, but I can understand why people in the US might feel this
>> way given the history".
> 
>   And now you are once again putting words in my mouth. I'm sorry I have
> to say that, but it's just true.
>
>   I have never said anything even remotely resembling "that's not how it
> works here" when talking about racial profiling.

That was an example of a way to respond, not something that you've said.  
Please reread what I wrote and let me know what's not clear about it, 
because I don't know of another way to say "this type of response would 
be better".
 
>   What you are doing there is to mix two completely different contexts.
> The issue of "can a policeman check someone without probable cause?" was
> a completely different line of discussion which had nothing to do with
> racial profiling or anything. I did not discuss that in response to the
> Arizona law nor to racial profiling, nor anything relating to race. I
> discussed it purely on the context of "checking without probable cause"
> because that separate issue came up in a post.

But the two are related - the Arizona law requires cops to stop someone 
they suspect may be an illegal immigrant.  How are they to know that?  
Based on how they look (not in the law, but something that has been 
stated by people involved in writing the law).

If one makes the argument that one's race provides probable cause because 
statistically illegal immigrants are more likely of a particular race, 
then that does logically lead to a discussion of what constitutes 
probable cause.  One really can't disentangle the ideas because they are 
intimately linked together in the context of the Arizona law and the 
discussion of using race as a factor in deciding to stop someone for 
breaking any law.

Similarly, you couldn't go in and ask for DNA samples from all white 
males because a rape occurred within 5 miles of their location.  You need 
to narrow the field down by establishing more probable cause than "it was 
a white male".  Does that make sense?

>   Now you are confusing my "in Finland the police can make sobriety
>   tests
> on drivers without the need for probable cause, which is an example
> where it's sensible" with a completely different line of discussion of
> "is racial profiling to catch criminals acceptable?" They are completely
> different contexts.

Not really, I didn't think that particular example was germane to the 
discussion, so I discounted it entirely.  Here in the US, sobriety 
checkpoints are set up on certain holidays as well, but the stop isn't 
based on one's race - the troopers operating the checkpoint don't know 
anything about the demographics of the people they're stopping until 
they've been stopped, as Darren said (I believe).  So the situation is 
entirely different and not related to a discussion of the AZ law; at 
least not that I can see.

>   And yes, you are not talking about the driver sobriety test here
>   because
> you started the paragraph with "you don't see why race shouldn't be used
> to identify illegals" and then immediately proceeded in the same
> paragraph to say ''I and others have tried to explain, both in a
> cultural context and in the context of how US jurisprudence is supposed
> to work, and you've pretty flatly rejected those explanations instead of
> saying something like "that's not how it works here"...''. So you are
> mixing up two completely different things here.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.  I didn't bring 
up the driver sobriety test, I was talking about how law (in general) 
works in the US when dealing with suspects (based on my own understanding 
from having talked to lawyers, judges, and law enforcement professionals, 
that is).

>> When you do that, you come across as having an air of superiority - not
>> you personally, but culturally certainly - and it is interpreted as
>> "we're better than you".
> 
>   I don't think that "I'm surprised that the police is not allowed to do
> random sobriety tests on drivers there" shows an air of superiority.

I wasn't talking about this specific item, I honestly don't know where 
you got the idea that I was talking about this.  I was talking in more 
general terms of how you come across in your writing.

>> You need to understand and acknowledge that there is more than one way
>> to do things in the world, and the way it's done in Finland isn't the
>> way it's done in the US or other countries, and that perhaps there's
>> something you can learn from us.
> 
>   What makes you assume that racial profiling is acceptable in Finland?
> I have never said such a thing.

I didn't say that I made such an assumption.  My assumption here is that 
your experience is based on life in Finland, and when talking about the 
law (or anything), your views are coloured by your life's experiences 
(just as they are for the rest of us).  It's important to be aware that 
things (in general) are done differently in different parts of the world 
and to be aware when saying/implying/setting someone up to infer 
(intentionally or not) "our way is better" that other peoples' 
experiences will differ because their background is different.

Jim

Post a reply to this message