 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 2-5-2010 20:47, Warp wrote:
> > Maybe I'm being dense here, but I still don't get it.
> >
> > He said, effectively, that trying to stop illegal immigration by doing
> > racial profiling is wrong. Did I understand this incorrectly? If yes, then
> > exactly what did he say?
> No that is what he said. Racial profiling is not allowed for illegal
> immigration, because the profiling is not specific enough. Use of this
> blunt instrument would also likely destabilize the society. The use of
> it is therefore not only discouraged but in most places even forbidden.
And I commented to that by expressing my opinion that people (not the
writer, but people in general) are really too oversensitive on things like
skin color. Then you accused me of deliberately misunderstanding what he
wrote, or something.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> You don't want him stopping you just because you drive a
>>> particular color car, or you're wearing a particular kind of clothing,
>>> right?
>>
>> If SUV drivers were statistically more likely to drive while drunk,
>> I really wouldn't mind if the police concentrated their efforts more on
>> SUVs than on trucks.
>
> Well, it's illegal here, you see. And that's what has people annoyed. See,
> because people don't like being arrested when no crime has been committed
> because someone who shares some of the same properties they do did
> something wrong.
>
> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop
> knows a crime has been committed at all.
Where did Warp say SUV drivers should be arrested? Why do you keep mixing
"concentrate efforts" or "check ID" with "get arrested" in this discussion?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 2-5-2010 20:20, Darren New wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> It is not the enforcing but the method of enforcement. That is what
>>> whole argument is about.
>>
>> Hey, I know. We could get all the legal americans of central american
>> decent to wear something sewn to their clothing to show they're legal,
>> so the police would know not to bother them. ;-)
>
> Ah, a concealed Godwin. Well done.
Concealed?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Where did Warp say SUV drivers should be arrested? Why do you keep mixing
> "concentrate efforts" or "check ID" with "get arrested" in this discussion?
If the cop asks you for your ID, and you say "I decline to show you my ID,"
do they let you go?
Guess what? If not, you've been arrested!
That's pretty much the definition of the word: If you're not allowed to
leave, you've been at least detained if not arrested.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > What I *am* opposing is the idea that countries should enforce their
> > laws more leniently to avoid offending people.
> Nobody is suggesting that. People are objecting to your assertion that
> stopping and questioning people who look Mexican is better than stopping and
> questioning everyone.
Well, I suppose people have the right to think that. I'm just wondering
if that opinion comes from hard math or from political correctness. (I'm
not saying that my math is correct, mind you. I'm just saying that *if*
the math does indeed say so, then to me it would make sense to prioritize
according to the probabilities. Of course I also understand that this will
offend some people. You can't win.)
> >> Nobody is against catching the criminals.
> >
> > Of course they aren't against that. But at the same time they oppose
> > stricter measures which could rise the conviction rates of the criminals,
> > if doing so would offend some people.
> It's not a matter of "offend some people." The people you're at risk of
> offending are the majority of the people living where the law would be enforced.
Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.
> It's like passing a law where you are that only fair-skinned people have to
> prove before going out on a sunny day that they have permission from a
> doctor. As rational as it is, that's unlikely to be a popular law.
People often take their rights to privacy and freedom very seriously.
Sometimes even when it does them more harm than good... It's not like
I don't understand that.
> >> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
> >
> > Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
> Apparently not.
What I meant was if you oppose that law in Britain, and why.
> >> Consider driving. Do you want police randomly pulling you over because you
> >> have long hair, or you're driving a red car? After all, a majority of
> >> traffic tickets go to people in red cars.
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if the police was more likely to stop SUV's than
> > eg. trucks for random sobriety tests, purely because of statistical reasons.
> > (No, I don't know if they do, but I wouldn't be surprised if the did.)
> Not here. It's illegal. Why? Because people who drive SUVs didn't want to
> get randomly stopped just because 0.1% of the people driving SUVs might be
> intoxicated.
Is that so? Well, then that's something I don't agree with. I'm glad if
this kind of police work reduces the risk of car accidents caused by drunken
drivers. It increases my safety alongside everybody else's.
> > If truck drivers are statistically significantly less likely to drive
> > while drunk, that kind of selectiveness makes sense. Don't tell me it
> > doesn't.
> It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
Then we'll have to disagree on this particular example.
> >> No. You want the cop to wait until he sees you do something wrong before he
> >> stops you, yes?
> >
> > Cops don't need probable cause to stop cars for a sobriety test, and
> > personally I really don't mind.
> But they don't get to profile during those stops either.
I don't know if the police is allowed to make any kind of "profiling"
here, but regardless, to me it would make sense if they would.
Instead of trucks, think about buses: I'm pretty sure it *is* quite
less likely for a bus driver to be drunk than a SUV driver. Additionally,
stopping a bus is a lot more inconvenient and can potentially disturb the
traffic a lot more than stopping a SUV. Hence it only makes sense that the
police skips stopping bus drivers for sobriety tests. It reduces the amount
of resources spent on statistically improbable crimes, as well as reducing
the disturbance to traffic.
> > If SUV drivers were statistically more likely to drive while drunk,
> > I really wouldn't mind if the police concentrated their efforts more on
> > SUVs than on trucks.
> Well, it's illegal here, you see. And that's what has people annoyed. See,
> because people don't like being arrested when no crime has been committed
> because someone who shares some of the same properties they do did something
> wrong.
> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop
> knows a crime has been committed at all.
I'm not talking about arresting someone. I'm just talking about *checking*
the alcohol levels of drivers.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Where did Warp say SUV drivers should be arrested? Why do you keep mixing
> "concentrate efforts" or "check ID" with "get arrested" in this discussion?
I think he is always talking in the context of that Arizona law that
allows police officers to physically arrest people.
I would like to repeat that I'm not defending that Arizona law. I'm not
advocating arresting people like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/05/2010 8:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 2-5-2010 20:20, Darren New wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> It is not the enforcing but the method of enforcement. That is what
>>>> whole argument is about.
>>>
>>> Hey, I know. We could get all the legal americans of central american
>>> decent to wear something sewn to their clothing to show they're
>>> legal, so the police would know not to bother them. ;-)
>>
>> Ah, a concealed Godwin. Well done.
>
> Concealed?
>
A yellow star, David. Oops sorry, Darren. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Your argument against "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's
> check the mexicans" is, basically "assume that somewhere 90% of citizens
> are of mexican descent". That somehow invalidates the claim? I don't get it.
There's no reason to check mexicans *unless* the ratio of illegal immigrants
that look mexican to legal residents that look mexican is especially high,
*and* the number of residents that look mexican is especially low.
> "Pointing out"? Maybe you are, but I just can't follow your logic.
It's simple math.
It's not more efficient to check 100,000 brown people, 1% of whom are
illegal, than it is to check 10,000 brown people who are actually suspected
of being illegal.
It's not more efficient to check the race with the highest absolute number
of illegal immigrants without regard to the number of legal immigrants.
It's simple math. Your claim that disallowing profiling makes the process
less efficient is factually incorrect.
>> Yes. But that's not what you suggested. You suggested checking in the ratios
>> of illegal immigrants of different backgrounds, not legal immigrants or
>> total residents of different backgounds.
>
> I was assuming a completely hypothetical ratio of 90% of illegal immigrants
> being mexican. Hence it makes sense to devote about 90% of resources to
> catching them. I really don't understand how the coincidence of 90% of the
> legal population of some place being of mexican descent refutes that idea.
Then you're missing the basic math.
> (Sure, my suggestion of devoting x% of resources for x% of illegals is
> cold, hard, inhuman math, and there are other more humanistic sides to the
> whole issue. I'm not denying that. I'm just arguing that from a resource
> distribution point of view it would make sense.)
A percentage is a ratio between two numbers. You don't have a simple
"percentage of illegals." Percentage of *what population* are illegals?
>> If someone said "The town is 70% brown and 30% white, so that's the ratio
>> we'll check in" then nobody would complain. But you're saying the "the
>> illegals are 70% brown and 30% white, so let's check in that ratio", which
>> is a different statement.
>
> Yes, I suppose I am saying that. You confused me with having the 90% of
> population being of mexican descent immediately after I gave an example of
> 90% of illegal immigrants looking like mexicans. I still don't understand
> what is it that your argument "proves".
It proves that the percentage of illegal immigrants who look mexican vs
percentage of illegal immigrants who don't look mexican tells you *nothing*
about the population of people you should be profiling. If you want to
catch more illegal immigrants by interviewing people without cause, you
*must* know more information than simply the percentages of illegals from
each country. You *also* have to know the percentages of legals from each
country.
>> I'm simply showing the flaw in your logic. You're suggested profiling
>> *fails* to improve the efficiency, unless you use more information to tune it.
>
> Am I understanding correctly that you are arguing against my math rather
> than against the basic idea I was expressing (in other words, to distribute
> resources according to illegal immigration country of origin distribution,
> regardless of whether that's seen as "racism" by some people)?
No. I'm saying that distributing resources according to illegal immigration
country of origin distribution *is* the flawed math. Your basic idea is
flawed because it's based on math that's flawed. I'm trying to point out how
the math is flawed and hence how the results of applying that math won't
have the effect you think it will.
> Out of curiosity: What *should* a police officer do, in your opinion, if
> he asks someone for their ID (or whatever proof of citizenship) and he has
> nothing to show?
It depends why he's asking you. If he stops you while you're driving and you
have no ID, he could do a number of things. He would normally take you to
the police station, book you (i.e., record your identifying information and
issue you a summons to appear in court to prove you have a driver's
license), and then call someone to come get you.
If he's asking you because he just wants to know, and you refuse, then he
should say "have a good day."
In some states, they've decided that you're required to tell the policeman
your name, but you don't have to prove it.
Same as if he comes to your door. If he says "May I come in?" and you say
"No," then he should stand outside and talk to you. If he has to *ask*, then
you get to say no. Makes perfect sense.
> I suppose I can't deny that sounds reasonable. Basically it means that
> illegal immigrants are not actively "hunted down", but if they try to
> actually *do* something they won't be able to if they can't prove they
> have the right to (as legal citizens or immigrants).
Exactly.
> Of course this assumes that nobody employs them without asking for their
> papers and without informing the authorities... I'm assuming that's one of
> the biggest problems in the US.
Yes. And it's already illegal to employ them without asking for their papers
and informing the authorities you've done so. (I.e., paying taxes on their
salaries, etc.) But police don't enforce *that* law, because it's the
*white* people who are making money by employing them. Actually, that law
*does* get enforced, which is how we know how many illegal immigrants are
here. But not everyone gets caught, because not every employer reports them,
and the fines for not reporting them are lower than the profit you make by
exploiting illegal immigrants.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling based
>>> on how someone looks like?
>
>> No. It's not legal to profile anyone before a crime has been committed.
>
> I don't think that's the case. There are all kinds of typical profiles
> of several types of criminals. For example "a serial killer is typically
> a white middle-aged male".
Having a statistical profile isn't the same as profiling someone. That sort
of profiling is used to reduce the number of people to consider *before* you
talk to people, not to *increase* the number of people you talk to about the
crime.
You wouldn't be allowed to go around and question every white middle-aged
male simply because there's a serial killer going around whacking people.
I don't know. What do you have against police having to have a reason to
think maybe you're doing something wrong before they stop and force you to
prove you're not? It really is more efficient that way.
>> Nobody minds being asked to show proof of citizenship if a crime has been
>> committed, or even if a crime *might* have been committed. This law isn't
>> that. This law is stopping people just in case maybe a crime has been committed.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see a difference between "might
> have been" and "maybe has been"... You probably used poor wording for that.
By "might have been", I mean that if there's a reason to suspect you're
illegal and you prove you aren't, then a crime "might have been committed."
It wasn't, but there was some indication it might have been.
The second sentence is stopping people before you have any indication there
was a crime at all.
It's the difference between going door to door and questioning males if they
know anything about Mary being raped, after Mary reports being raped; vs
going door to door to ask each male to prove they haven't raped anyone. If
you want to go with your "profiling" comment.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I would like to repeat that I'm not defending that Arizona law. I'm not
> advocating arresting people like that.
Then what do you advocate, when police randomly stop someone with no reason
to believe they're illegal other than the color of their skin, and they ask
for proof of citizenship, and the person declines to show it?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
