Police street stops have soared in NYC, over 85% stopped are Black or Hispanic

[DelcoCouple 1]

and it's not because you are black u are statistically more likely to be a criminal, u have to determine social class, generational poverty issues, racism issues (yeah, racism is still there)..

while people think that is correct to stop more blacks or hispanics because 'statistically' they are more likely to be criminals.. civil rights are going to still being violated every single day..

Which culture/s are responsible for the majority of the ghettos and crime ridden slums again?? or is that my imagination..

It common sense. You dress like a dumb ### loser gangster you should be questioned..

As you have an affiliation with Australia which is a country founded on imported criminals I guess we should all defer to your superior expertise in these matters

[Heracles 417]

As you have an affiliation with Australia which is a country founded on imported criminals I guess we should all defer to your superior expertise in these matters

Actually a lot of the convicts where of Irish origin.. B)

[DelcoCouple 1]

As you have an affiliation with Australia which is a country founded on imported criminals I guess we should all defer to your superior expertise in these matters

Actually a lot of the convicts where of Irish origin.. B)

Yes they became the successful ones

[peejay 327]

As you have an affiliation with Australia which is a country founded on imported criminals I guess we should all defer to your superior expertise in these matters

Actually a lot of the convicts where of Irish origin.. B)

Touché!

[DelcoCouple 1]

It's statistics.

If you randomly select 1000 whites and 1000 blacks, you'll find more criminals among the blacks.

If you randomly select 1000 whites and 1000 asians, you'll find more criminals among the whites.

If you randomly select 1000 rich people and 1000 poor people, you'll find more criminals among the poor people.

What you are describing is profiling.

Profiling works better if the characteristics profiled are accurate. If erratic driving is a good indication that the driver is intoxicated, then that’s a good characteristic for a police officer to use to determine who he’s going to pull over. If furtively looking around a store or wearing a coat on a hot day is a good indication that the person is a shoplifter, then those are good characteristics for a store owner to pay attention to. But if wearing baggy trousers isn't a good indication that the person is a shoplifter, then the store owner is going to spend a lot of time paying undue attention to honest people with lousy fashion sense.

In common parlance, the term “profiling” doesn't refer to these characteristics. It refers to profiling based on characteristics like race and ethnicity, and institutionalized profiling based on those characteristics alone. During World War II, the U.S. rounded up over 100,000 people of Japanese origin who lived on the West Coast and locked them in camps (prisons, really). That was an example of profiling. Israeli border guards spend a lot more time scrutinizing Arab men than Israeli women; that’s another example of profiling. In many U.S. communities, police have been known to stop and question people of color driving around in wealthy white neighborhoods (commonly referred to as “DWB”--Driving While Black). In all of these cases you might possibly be able to argue some policing benefit, but the trade-offs are enormous: Honest people who fit the profile can get annoyed, or harassed, or arrested, when they’re assumed to be criminals.

profiling is as stated by a previous poster lazy and ineffective police work. It also has the side effect of becoming a self fulfilling prophecy if you stop 1000 black men and only 10 white men then guess what? The statistics can be produced to show that more crime was committed by blacks than whites.

[Scott & Lai 12]

But if wearing baggy trousers isn't a good indication that the person is a shoplifter, then the store owner is going to spend a lot of time paying undue attention to honest people with lousy fashion sense.

Wearing baggy trousers is often a good indicator that the person is either a gang member or has sympathies with gang members, and therefore likely engages in gang activities, i.e. crime.

Israeli border guards spend a lot more time scrutinizing Arab men than Israeli women; that’s another example of profiling.

So, which person crossing the Israeli border is more likely to be a terrorist, an Arab man or an Israeli woman??

[DelcoCouple 1]

Wearing baggy trousers is often a good indicator that the person is either a gang member or has sympathies with gang members, and therefore likely engages in gang activities, i.e. crime.

Your link to a recognised study which has supporting empirical evidence for this assertation is? Oh wait you do not have one, it is your opinion based on generalisation and your personal prejudice. The exact reason why profiling is ineffective. You may or may not have seen the movie "Monster" which was based on the life of Aileen Wuornos, a Daytona Beach prostitute who became a serial killer. The profile for a serial killer was male. Oppsie!

So, which person crossing the Israeli border is more likely to be a terrorist, an Arab man or an Israeli woman??

What does it matter? The results of succesful bombings tend to support my position that profiling is indeed lazy and ineffective. If profiling was effective there would have been none.

Edited February 5, 2007 by DelcoCouple

[Ban Hammer 14,272]

Israeli border guards spend a lot more time scrutinizing Arab men than Israeli women; that’s another example of profiling.

most would call that an example of being smart versus being dumb.

[DelcoCouple 1]

Israeli border guards spend a lot more time scrutinizing Arab men than Israeli women; that’s another example of profiling.

most would call that an example of being smart versus being dumb.

And most people would be wrong

Despite what many people think, terrorism is not confined to young Arab males. Shoe-bomber Richard Reid was British. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Here are some more examples:

In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag. The woman’s boyfriend--the father of her unborn child--had hidden the bomb.

In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman--neither of whom were Middle Eastern--posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb aboard a Korean Air flight from Baghdad to Thailand. En route to Bangkok, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

In 1999, men dressed as businessmen (and one dressed as a Catholic priest) turned out to be terrorist hijackers, who forced an Avianca flight to divert to an airstrip in Colombia, where some passengers were held as hostages for more than a year-and-half.

The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. The Chechnyan terrorists who downed the Russian planes were women. Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber were Americans. Tha Tamil Tigers are Sri Lankan.

And many Muslims are not Arabs. Even worse, almost everyone who is Arab is not a terrorist -- many people who look Arab are not even Muslims. So not only are there an large number of false negatives -- terrorists who don't meet the profile -- but there an enormous number of false positives: innocents that do meet the profile.

Edited February 5, 2007 by DelcoCouple

[Scott & Lai 12]

Wearing baggy trousers is often a good indicator that the person is either a gang member or has sympathies with gang members, and therefore likely engages in gang activities, i.e. crime.

Your link to a recognised study which has supporting empirical evidence for this assertation is? Oh wait you do not have one, it is your opinion based on generalisation and your personal prejudice. The exact reason why profiling is ineffective. You may or may not have seen the movie "Monster" which was based on the life of Aileen Wuornos, a Daytona Beach prostitute who became a serial killer. The profile for a serial killer was male. Oppsie!

So, which person crossing the Israeli border is more likely to be a terrorist, an Arab man or an Israeli woman??

What does it matter? The results of succesful bombings tend to support my position that profiling is indeed lazy and ineffective. If profiling was effective there would have been none.

So everything I post needs a link to a "recognized study"? Do you follow that standard? If you are at an ATM at night and someone approaches wearing the typical gang uniform, do you only start getting suspicious if you have just checked a recognized study?? Animals have more sense than we do sometimes....if you're a gazelle at the local watering hole, you're going to react differently if rabbit approaches than if a lion approaches.

[Heracles 417]

It's statistics.

If you randomly select 1000 whites and 1000 blacks, you'll find more criminals among the blacks.

If you randomly select 1000 whites and 1000 asians, you'll find more criminals among the whites.

If you randomly select 1000 rich people and 1000 poor people, you'll find more criminals among the poor people.

What you are describing is profiling.

Why should there not be any profiling to prevent crime? What a crazy idea of 'pro-actively' looking out or the good person..

This country has a serious crime problem which is not going to be eradicated by magic dust..

Edited February 5, 2007 by Infidel

[Jenn! 918]

Animals have more sense than we do sometimes....if you're a gazelle at the local watering hole, you're going to react differently if rabbit approaches than if a lion approaches.

What a horrible and insulting analogy.

[Ban Hammer 14,272]

Israeli border guards spend a lot more time scrutinizing Arab men than Israeli women; that’s another example of profiling.

most would call that an example of being smart versus being dumb.

And most people would be wrong

Despite what many people think, terrorism is not confined to young Arab males. Shoe-bomber Richard Reid was British. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Here are some more examples:

In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag. The woman’s boyfriend--the father of her unborn child--had hidden the bomb.

In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman--neither of whom were Middle Eastern--posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb aboard a Korean Air flight from Baghdad to Thailand. En route to Bangkok, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

In 1999, men dressed as businessmen (and one dressed as a Catholic priest) turned out to be terrorist hijackers, who forced an Avianca flight to divert to an airstrip in Colombia, where some passengers were held as hostages for more than a year-and-half.

The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. The Chechnyan terrorists who downed the Russian planes were women. Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber were Americans. Tha Tamil Tigers are Sri Lankan.

And many Muslims are not Arabs. Even worse, almost everyone who is Arab is not a terrorist -- many people who look Arab are not even Muslims. So not only are there an large number of false negatives -- terrorists who don't meet the profile -- but there an enormous number of false positives: innocents that do meet the profile.

it's so nice you try to cloud the issue with many examples that don't even apply to israel. just one of the above applied to the topic.

Edited February 5, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is such a thing as "just cause".... which is about more than resorting to simple stereotypes.

Edited February 5, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,272]

Animals have more sense than we do sometimes....if you're a gazelle at the local watering hole, you're going to react differently if rabbit approaches than if a lion approaches.

What a horrible and insulting analogy.

how so? do enlighten us.