 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-5-2010 23:12, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I guess Warp's problem is that not only the police is 'punished' but
>> the society as a whole even more.
>
> It depends on whether you believe you caught the right person in the
> first place.
The assumption was that they caught somebody with illegal substances, so
yes they caught the right person.
> What lots of people seem to be forgetting in this thread is that by far,
> the vast majority of the population is *not* breaking the law. If there
> were no limits on the techniques the police could use to find criminals,
> then the 99% of the people who are law-abiding would be subject to the
> same problems as the people who aren't. And the 99% of people who are
> law abiding are willing to let the guy with an open bottle of beer in
> the car go, so they don't get stopped and have the police rip *their*
> car apart in order to see if maybe there's any pot in a little baggy in
> the door panel or something.
You don't have to convince me. I just tried to explain what the problem
might be. It is very common for people to not understand this (or that
sentence ;) ). Often an underlying cause is that they see police as an
abstract group outside and above the society and not realize that
everyone of them is human. (Though, I assume nobody would express it
that way).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 16:49:54 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> If the profile is "looks Mexican" and the policeman picks based on
>> "Mexican-looking guy walked past" then it's racist.
>
> In the technical sense maybe, but the policeman didn't necessarily do
> it
> with a racist mindset. Maybe he doesn't care what color, height or shoe
> size someone has, as long as the law is enforced.
>
> You can argue that profiling people like this is not the best and most
> efficient way of doing it, but why must racism always be assumed?
Because the law is crafted to require that the police discriminate based
on race and nothing else.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 17:03:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 16:22:04 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > On the contrary: I'm *not* making any distinction based on race. To
>> > me
>> > it doesn't matter what race somebody might represent.
>
>> Um, you are, if you say "90% of illegal immigrants are of Hispanic
>> origin, so we should stop people of Hispanic origin in order to ensure
>> they're here legally". That's the textbook definition of racial
>> profiling.
>
> You didn't understand me. I do not distinguish race as being any more
> or less relevant than any other feature.
So are you changing your view? Otherwise I don't understand the
statement you made earlier about "if 90% of illegal immigrants are of
Mexican descent, then you should check them more frequently" (not an
exact quote, but you did make a statement to that effect). You are in
that statement making race *specifically* the *sole* reason for stopping
someone to ask for proof of citizenship.
> If hair color can be used for some statistic, then so be it. If race
> can
> be used for some statistic, then fine. I don't care. To me it's all the
> same. I don't make any special distinction.
Similarly, you couldn't say "people with black hair should be stopped to
see if they're illegal immigrants" because the fact that they have black
hair has no bearing on whether or not they're illegal immigrants or not.
Let's be clear here: The odds of catching someone as an illegal
immigrant are statistically low by profiling based on race, hair colour,
eye colour, or any other physical trait. It's not like 75/100 of people
of Hispanic descent in Arizona are illegal immigrants.
The law is very similar to laws enacted in WWII regarding internment of
people of Japanese descent here in the US. Or laws concerning the
identification of slaves in early US history that were based on skin
colour (because in general, if you were black, you were a slave).
> Or in other words, I'm not hypersensitive about talking about race, as
> so many other people seem to be. To me it's just as incosequential as a
> subject as hair or eye color.
>
> If the distinguishing feature of some statistic happens to be race,
> and
> you really want to call it "racial profiling", then I suppose I can't
> stop you. It's just that the term "racial profiling" is always used in a
> very negative sense, like it was a thousand times more outrageous than
> making a statistic based eg. on gender or age groups. To me it's all the
> same. I don't make any special distinction between them.
>
> I wish everybody else was like that too. I wish the world was a place
> where you can talk about human races, make statistics about them and
> whatever, freely and without any kind of worry, because it's just as
> inconsequential as gender, age or shoe size.
>
> But no. If you start talking about races, making statistics and
> profiles,
> you are immediately labeled as racist. Sheesh.
That's because making a decision about someone's guilt or innocence based
solely on the colour of their skin is a racist decision. Period, end of
story. What about that don't you understand?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:54:20 +0200, andrel wrote:
> I guess Warp's problem is that not only the police is 'punished' but the
> society as a whole even more.
That provides the police with incentive to follow the rules. What's
more, if the police don't follow the rules, not only does the bad guy
potentially get put back on the street, but the police can also be held
liable for their noncompliance with the law - so there's a societal
incentive for the police to follow the laws and there's a personal
incentive.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> The assumption was that they caught somebody with illegal substances, so
> yes they caught the right person.
Yes, but that claim is indistinguishable from not finding illegal substances
and claiming they did.
You're saying "you let crooks go free." I'm saying "you don't know they're
crooks if you let the police do this."
>> What lots of people seem to be forgetting
> You don't have to convince me.
Sure. I was addressing "lots of people." :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-5-2010 20:40, Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Btw, do you know what I find both interesting and sad?
Yes and do you know what I find interesting and sad?
That there is such a large gap between what you intend and what you
write. We have been through this several times and I really think that
you are sincere and that you are not a racist yourself. Somehow that
does not stop you from writing the most stupid things without realizing
what that means to others. Why don't you trust other people's judgement
if they say that a remark is a racist one? You might not really mean it
that way, you might not see all the consequences, you might just repeat
a convincing argument you heard in the pub, but some people here live in
societies where racism is part of everyday life. They have seen what
kind of arguments have led to what behaviour. Based on that they know
that e.g. racial profiling is bad, really bad. That has nothing to do
with being "devoted anti-racism activist" just experience and common
sense. The alternative is of course to decide that you know more than
anybody else and that you can insult every other loser here that
disagrees with you as much as you like.
> But that's the modern western culture today. Either you are a devoted
> anti-racism activist, or a white-power supremacist. There is no middle
> ground. Especially there is no "I don't care" option.
Jim, Darren, me and whoever entered this discussion are all something in
between. IMO you are the one who is forcing everybody into some box or
another. The main message is that there are things you can better not
say on internet fora because people will read them wrong. That has not
so much to do with political correctness but with not insulting people
needlessly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-5-2010 21:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:49:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue
>>> law enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks
>>> their neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do
>>> nothing about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to
>>> take action (so I understand).
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Yeah. One person put it like this: "Damned if you do, damned if you
>> don't, so you are just damned 'period'."
>
> Yep. And a cop of Hispanic descent in Tucson has actually filed a
> lawsuit over this now.
I think I would too if every time I met a colleague I had to present my
birth certificate and every time I arrested someone he could escape
while my back up tried to establish if I was legally in the state. I
guess it would distract from my work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/3/2010 12:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:49:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue
>>> law enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks
>>> their neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do
>>> nothing about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to
>>> take action (so I understand).
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Yeah. One person put it like this: "Damned if you do, damned if you
>> don't, so you are just damned 'period'."
>
> Yep. And a cop of Hispanic descent in Tucson has actually filed a
> lawsuit over this now.
>
> Jim
Well, as the same person explained it, when he said he was **not** going
to enforce the law, was, "Before this, if we found someone we felt was
likely to be illegal, we handed them over to the border patrol (I assume
this means the Mexican one), now they want me to put them in jail, waste
tax payers money figuring out if we need to do something *then* turn
them over to the same people. And, if I don't, I can be sued?"
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 15:34:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, as the same person explained it, when he said he was **not** going
> to enforce the law, was, "Before this, if we found someone we felt was
> likely to be illegal, we handed them over to the border patrol (I assume
> this means the Mexican one), now they want me to put them in jail, waste
> tax payers money figuring out if we need to do something *then* turn
> them over to the same people. And, if I don't, I can be sued?"
Handing over to border patrol would be the US Border Patrol, not the
Mexican border patrol. That's part of US Immigrations & Customs.
At least that's my understanding. But he raises a good point; the
analysis of the case I've read, though, talks about specific
constitutional violations (more than just the 4th, as I recall).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 00:30:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
> I think I would too if every time I met a colleague I had to present my
> birth certificate and every time I arrested someone he could escape
> while my back up tried to establish if I was legally in the state. I
> guess it would distract from my work.
Yeah, that could be a bit of a problem. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
