 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:10:43 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:39:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I said that if the vast majority of illegal immigrants can be
>> > distinguished
>> > by how they look, it makes sense to concentrate more on those people
>> > than on people who are much less likely to be illegal immigrants.
>
>> And yet you don't think that this is racist. Amazing.
>
> I suppose you could technically call it "racism", AS I HAVE SAID MANY
> TIMES
> ALREADY.
You very specifically asked Darren "what the fuck he was talking about"
when he made this point; show me where you said it was *technically*
racism, because I certainly didn't see that.
> I fear that you are projecting your notions of how "racist people"
> behave
> and what they think on me, for the sole reason that I dared to mention
> ethnicity as something which could be used for illegal immigration
> statistics. As ironic as that may sound, I call that prejudice.
I'm not projecting anything here. You are demonstrating an extreme
degree of reading comprehension problems and engaging in nit-picking
(yeah, those things you accuse others of doing) when we try to explain to
you why it is the way it is, and what is wrong with the law.
You then proceed to throw "examples" out that are entirely different from
what we're talking about (see my recent post having to do with the
difference between a *specific* crime and general; you still don't seem
to understand that investigation of a *specific* crime - like a rape
(your example) is different than saying "hey, that person is hispanic-
looking, I should check to see if he's here legally or not". Under US
law, the former is acceptable, the latter is not. Why? Because the
former is in the investigation of a specific crime; the latter is not.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:40:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I consider myself to be the exact opposite of a racist in the sense
> that
> I *couldn't care less* about "race" or skin color or anything.
When you say "race matters", look out, you're making a distinction based
on race, whether you want to admit it or not.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Why does it matter what was used as an example? What does it matter if it
>>> was ethnicity, weight or show size? Ethnicity happened to be part of the
>>> original discussion.
>
>> All of those examples have nothing to do with whether you're in the country
>> legally.
>
> You just refuse to understand what "example" means, don't you?
>
> "If ethnicity is a distinguishing factor, then..." is an example. It's
> not making a claim about what is and isn't a distinguishing factor.
Yes. And you understand that nobody is arguing against the examples that are
*not* bogus, right? Nobody thinks it's racist to arrest someone who looks
mexican for not paying taxes, anymore than anyone thinks it's racist to
arrest a black man for driving up on the sidewalk.
>
>>> I think your problem is that you are too obsessed with ethnicity. Whenever
>>> someone talks about ethnicity, it must always be "racism".
>
>> Not at all.
>
> Then why do I get the feeling? Ethnicity really seems to be a touchy
> subject.
Because the bad examples you give are all examples of ethnicity, or other
properties irrelevant to the person committing the crime and relevant to the
group of people that person is in.
Your suggestion is you should look at the entire group of people who *do*
commit the crime, then lump in other people that share properties of that
same group to investigate. Except you've offered no examples of properties
that have anything to do with the actual commission of the crime. You
haven't offered the suggestion like "we should go look for the people who
came into the country on a six month visa six months ago." You haven't
offered the suggestion of "we should visit the families of people who
immigrated legally a couple years ago to see if they then snuck their family
into the country." None of those have anything to do with ethnicity.
>> Yet you're suggesting exactly that there are neutral and even beneficial
>> uses of the *act* of racism.
>
> Firstly, I'm not suggesting that (and I'm getting really tired of you
> claiming I do, over and over),
You are. You said "if 90% of the illegal immigrants are of mexican descent,
police should focus their attentions on that 90%." I'm sorry if you don't
recognize that as a racist suggestion, but it is. It's prejudice based on
race. Disclaiming it as a hypothetical/subjunctive assertion doesn't make
it less racist. It just implies that maybe racism is beneficial in this
respect.
> If you keep making that insinuation, I'm going to end this conversation.
> I'm not going to continue this if you keep insulting me.
I'm not insinuating you're a racist. I'm stating that many of the
suggestions you've made here are racist, namely, suggesting that ethnicity
is a reasonable distinguishing factor for catching criminals with no
evidence that any particular crime has been committed.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There is a difference between "we have a specific crime that we are
> looking for suspects for" and "we are doing random checking to see if
> someone might have committed a crime".
There is a difference, but I don't see the random checkings as being all
that abhorrent in all cases (as I have mentioned, here the police does
random checkings on drivers even without any reason to suspect them of
being drunk, and I think that's completely ok).
Of course if the police abuse their rights to perform random checking
in order to harass people they don't like, that's going over the line.
> To use your rape example, suppose instead of "we're looking for a white
> male because of this specific case we're looking into" the police started
> by collecting DNA samples from all white males just *in case* a crime
> were committed.
As a side note: Why are people so afraid of DNA databanks? Why is it
such an abhorrent idea? What kind of "invasion of privacy" is having
your DNA in a databank? Exactly how does that invade one's privacy?
Imagine that if every single citizen had to have their DNA registered,
and thanks to that the apprehension rate of rapists grows near 100%,
wouldn't that be a good thing? Not only would the rapists be all caught,
but it would also act as an effective deterrent.
How could DNA information be misused by authorities?
> That's the difference. What the Arizona law does is not tie the act of
> "being an illegal immigrant" to a specific instance of a crime.
> Does that make sense?
I suppose that that kind of law could perhaps have good intentions
behind it, but in practice it's too radical to have any chance of actually
working, even if the intentions were good. (Of course I have no way of
knowing what the actual intentions were behind that law proposal. Maybe
it *was* made by purely racist reasons.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:43:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:
> >
> >> > Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> >> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone
> >> >> to live in a Nazi state.
> >> >
> >> > I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.
> >
> >> I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread
> >> by invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.
> >
> > No. Godwin's law says: "As an online discussion grows longer, the
> > probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
> >
> > It's precisely a comparison which was not made to invoke the law, but
> > came as a result of the discussion. In fact, I think there's someone
> > else's corollary that says that a deliberate invocation of Godwin's law
> > isn't.
> Except that in Nazi Germany, this sort of thing is pretty much precisely
> what was done - racial profiling to identify those of Jewish (or other
> 'undesirable') descent.
> It's actually relevant to this discussion, not like other instances where
> a thread is Godwinned by a comparison that really is not realistic at all.
Well, that's more or less what I said above. A deliberate invocation of
Godwin's law isn't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Further, under US law,
> if they *did* find illegal substances in my car, if the traffic stop was
> not legal, they would not be able to prosecute because they would have
> lacked probable cause to pull me over in the first place.
That's one thing I have never understood.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 15:18:35 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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?
If the reason the police have stopped someone is because they "look like
an illegal", then that's a problem. And since we're talking about
Arizona SB1070 (the law in Arizona that requires police do *just this
thing*), that's the point that's being discussed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:55:10 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling
>> > based
>> > on how someone looks like?
>> >
>> > I really think this is political correctness getting in the way of
>> > criminal investigation.
>
>> No, but being brown isn't a crime. What about that do you not
>> understand?
>
> I didn't say being brown is a crime, nor did I anywhere even imply
> that.
>
> I don't understand your response.
You've said that there's nothing wrong with law enforcement asking random
people for their ID. There is in the US - in order to do so, they have
to have probable cause of the individual having committed a specific
crime. The police in the US aren't permitted to stop random people and
ask to see their ID just because they feel like it.
So in order to be stopped, the individual has to have committed a crime.
The Arizona law makes "being brown in public or private places in
Arizona" a crime.
That's unconstitutional.
You are saying there's nothing wrong with the police asking people for
ID. There is in the US under US law. So by supporting the position that
the police can stop people "just because they match the assumed profile
of illegal immigrants", and the only criteria for such a stop is their
ethnicity, you are therefore saying that being brown is a crime (whether
you say so explicitly or not), because *otherwise* what are they being
stopped for?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There is a difference between "we have a specific crime that we are
>> looking for suspects for" and "we are doing random checking to see if
>> someone might have committed a crime".
>
> There is a difference, but I don't see the random checkings as being all
> that abhorrent in all cases (as I have mentioned, here the police does
> random checkings on drivers even without any reason to suspect them of
> being drunk, and I think that's completely ok).
We do that here, too, in some places.
> Of course if the police abuse their rights to perform random checking
> in order to harass people they don't like, that's going over the line.
And that's exactly what we disallow here.
And that's exactly what this whole immigration law is designed to
circumvent, allowing (and even requiring) police to harass people they don't
like or that are disliked by those telling the police to harass them.
Also, stopping everyone on a particular stretch of road at a particular hour
is quite different than trying to stop everyone on a particular sidewalk or
in a particular store or something like that.
> As a side note: Why are people so afraid of DNA databanks? Why is it
> such an abhorrent idea? What kind of "invasion of privacy" is having
> your DNA in a databank? Exactly how does that invade one's privacy?
False positives, for one. The ability for anyone who already has your DNA to
plant it at the scene of a crime is another. The fact that the DNA database
can be hacked is a third. Not necessarily "invasion of privacy" per se.
We dislike it because it can lead to exactly the same problem as every other
"register your ethnic differences with the government" has ever led to.
> Imagine that if every single citizen had to have their DNA registered,
> and thanks to that the apprehension rate of rapists grows near 100%,
That's not how DNA fingerprinting works. You can't pick someone out of a big
bunch of people.
Think of blood typing. You can't say "Well, the murderer was A+. Go round up
everyone A+ and question them." When you have a hundred million people in
the DNA database, you're going to get tens of thousands of false positives.
And if you say "you can use it to eliminate people", that's true, but if you
eliminate a hundred million people and end up with 10,000, when the actual
suspect like might only be 20 people, how does that help compared to taking
DNA samples from the 20 people?
> wouldn't that be a good thing? Not only would the rapists be all caught,
> but it would also act as an effective deterrent.
>
> How could DNA information be misused by authorities?
Planted on the scene of a crime. Used to round up all those pesky people of
Arab descent.
DNA information is *already* misused by authorities. We call it "racism."
They just didn't collect and centralize it all yet. They actually have to go
look at you to evaluate your DNA for those purposes.
> I suppose that that kind of law could perhaps have good intentions
> behind it,
We already have the laws with good intentions behind them.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
