Warp wrote:
>   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.

> 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. 

Except, as I've tried to explain, these two features are 100% intertwined 
and completely related. And we're trying to get you to understand why those 
two are intertwined and related.

> I discussed it purely on the context of "checking without probable cause"
> because that separate issue came up in a post.

Except if you have probable cause, you don't need profiling. And without 
probable cause, profiling doesn't help. So they're really quite related in 
ways that you don't seem to be understanding.

>> 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.

Except they *are* allowed to do random sobriety tests. The problem is that 
in the very same post, you went on to talk about doing profiling during 
"random" sobriety tests to improve the efficiency of those tests. At which 
point, it's no longer "random", but rather profiling.  You see where the 
confusion comes from?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message