DelcoCouple

That is the point though. If a higher portion of group XYZ is committing crimes then group XYZ will need to be scrutinized more closely. Hence the successful anti-terror policing in the UK..

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FUNNIEST POST EVER

:lol: Define success. Falsifying evidence, fitting people up, state sponsored execution, murdering an unarmed electrician in a subway train, the UK hauled before the international courts and embarrassed with a disparaging judgement and award of huge damages????? You have a strange definition of success.

8/10 for the troll however, one of the best I have seen here yet

And the more interesting part of the report which adds weight to what I have been saying-

The decline is attributed to a change in state police strategy on roadside searches, spurred by a state investigation into the practice of pulling over cars and making random searches for weapons. The 1999 probe found that troopers were stopping drivers based on their skin color. State police were put under federal oversight and forced to change their tactics.

"The numbers went down because we ended the program of random interdiction as a law enforcement tool," said former Attorney General John Farmer, who helped institute the reforms. "The tactic had seen some success, but when weighed against the alienation of the minority community, it was not effective, and law enforcement had to get better."

Since the racial profiling controversy, state police have focused more on working with police in cities such as Newark, Irvington and Camden where smugglers transport guns in large numbers. Last year, authorities in those cities seized 114 firearms, up from 86 in 2005.

"The bottom line is that over the last seven years we've adopted a different playbook and different rules of engagement," State Police Superintendent Rick Fuentes said. "I would much rather go after the sources or the supply of weapons than to engage in some gut-wrenching searches for these weapons. That's the more prudent way to do it."

I think we should all help the OP out and donate via Paypal so he can straighten this whole thing out

... when you're face to face with those people you have to learn to think differently, otherwise you go around completely paranoid.

Absolutely. For example, if I took all my knowledge of Arab people from the Western media, I'd be scared to walk into the halal meats store. Arabic scripts everywhere, everyone dressed like a stereotype straight off the streets of Riyadh. A photo of a mosque on the wall with suspicious looking Arabic writing below it (damn, doesn't that look like a sword OMG) and a box to leave your money in (is that going to terrorists??? OMGOMG). If I let myself go crazy believing that ####### I'd be depriving myself of a great place to buy fresh, tasty and incredibly inexpensive meat.. not to mention baklava.

Comes with the territory when you live in a place that's as diverse as NJ.

Interesting that you mention NJ. Until recently, it was undisputed that African-American drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike stood a much greater chance than white drivers of being stopped by the State Police for a random drug search. This practice--an example of racial profiling--ended abruptly when public outrage forced the removal of the State Police Superintendent.

The outcome in New Jersey was, however, the exception rather than the rule. In fact, law enforcement agencies throughout the US commonly use tactics that subject members of certain minority groups to closer scrutiny than others. When a police officer detains and investigates a person or group of people primarily because of their race-- absent of any information linking them to criminal activity--that officer is engaged in racial profiling.

I am saddened to see members of this forum defend such tactics as an effective way to target likely lawbreakers. The absurd argument that profiling is based not on prejudice but probabilities--the statistical reality that young minority men are disproportionately likely to commit crimes. Yet they conveinently ignore the fact that those same young men are many more times more likely to be the VICTIMS of crime.

Some posters have stated that there are situations in which police must take race or ethnicity into account to do their jobs effectively. An obvious example is when skin color is part of a description of specific suspects committing specific crimes. In addition, such descriptions help police narrow the pool of potential suspects and concentrate their enforcement efforts. Let's say that a police department has knowledge that jewelry store salespeople are being robbed. The robberies occur just after the store closes when the sales personnel are leaving work. Witnesses describe the suspects as male, Hispanic adults. Police are also told that prior to past robberies, witnesses have observed several Hispanic males seated in a car that matches the description of what is later to be determined as the suspect vehicle. Based on this scenario, a police officer would be justified in investigating a vehicle containing a group of Hispanic males parked adjacent to a jewelry store at closing time.

And even though the criteria used by police to target this vehicle includes that the occupants are Hispanic, the police are not using "racial profiling." However, if police officers from this department--in an effort to stop these robberies--made it a practice to stop any and all vehicles occupied by male Hispanics, anywhere in the city, at any time, they would be engaged in racial profiling

That is not effective or even intelligent police work it is lazy, bigoted and totally ineffective policing.

The problem with racial profiling is not that it targets "dangerous people in dangerous places." It is that it targets inaccurately and in ways that breed resentment and mistrust between the police and poor communities. What we need is the right kind of targeting, based on better information about lawbreakers and closer cooperation between the police and the community.

The obvious point is that Israel practices race/sex profiling, but still cannot prevent suicide bombings.

The expectation many put forward of a defensive measure not being successful if it does not stop 100% of all attacks is silly. The point is to reduce incidents, not eliminate them. Success is defined by how much of a reduction the measure achieves relative to the cost.

And that reduction was????????????????

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.

The topic I was dealing with is the ineffectiveness of profiling - do try and keep up

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.

Agreed. Perhaps more revealing than intended.

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..

Because pro active policing and profiling are not the same thing.

Profiling is ineffective and lazy.

Proactive policing may or may not be more effective dependant upon the criteria applied to judge success and requires effort and ability.

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 successful 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.

I do try and follow the standard of posting commentary that has a basis in fact based studies rather than rhetoric, opinion and prejudice whenever possible yes.

When rabbits and lions start to dress in baggy trousers as a matter of course your hyperbolic analogy may begin to make some logical sense. Until that day I will see it for what it is a comparison of apples and oranges

You seem to have forgotten to tell me why it is profiling has not been successful in stopping suicide bombings btw I am sure it is just a small oversight on your part .

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.

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.

More doctors should run for congress because they are actually smart, unlike ###### talking lawyers.. Like whats his name, Odumbasmila..

They may even help pass a law to help cure that chip on your shoulder

I think people confuse my 'telling it like it is' approach for having a chip on my shoulder..

Tampa plaintiffs' attorney Steven Yerrid has notched a long string of seven- and eight-figure jury verdicts over the course of his 30-year career. But he'd never hit nine digits - until this fall.

Yerrid was lead trial counsel in a medical malpractice case on behalf of a man who was paralyzed when emergency room personnel misdiagnosed his stroke as a sinus infection. Not only did his client exhibit the classic signs of a stroke, Yerrid argued that the medical personnel failed to take into account the strong history of strokes in his family.

On Sept. 29 a jury in Tampa, Fla., awarded his client $116.7 million in compensatory damages, then, four days later, added $100.1 million in punitives.

The $216.8 million verdict is the largest malpractice case in Florida history and, according to Yerrid, the third largest in U.S. history.

http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/subscriber...06/C1806101.htm

Yep that doctor sure was smarter than the lawyer guy

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.

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

More doctors should run for congress because they are actually smart, unlike ###### talking lawyers.. Like whats his name, Odumbasmila..

They may even help pass a law to help cure that chip on your shoulder

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

You objected to a perceived increase in taxation. There does not need to be any increase in taxation, just a reallocation of current taxes raised. If you being unable to see there is a connection between spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money on Dubyahs Iraq folly and a lack of funds for US citizens who need an adequate health care system then I hate to break it to you but I am not the one lacking intelligent offerings here

There you go again. Your showing a total lack of intelligence again. When you have nothing to say you go back to Iraq.

If you think this will not increase taxes you either have no conception of how politics works in America or your just lying to yourself. Something as HUGE as a national health care program will dwarf any previous government program. The taxes will go sky high!

$750-800 billion would certainly fix a lot of our domestic woes....

But it wouldn't touch what we would end up paying for national health care.

And there you go again ignoring the points raised. Please answer the questions posed instead of relying on ad hominem attacks which mean nothing on an Internet forum.

Your evidence for an increase in taxes as the exclusive method of health care funding comes from which authoritative source?

You do not of course appear to understand the idiocy of your position that you will pay a cost in taxes that you do not currently bear. Let me introduce you to a quick economics for dummies lesson. The ever increasing costs of health care insurance premiums to employers are not magically paid from the fantasy land bank account. They are a sunk cost of doing business as an overhead expense and therefore passed on to the end consumer. You are paying that cost anyway. You just do not see it as visible so ignore it but hey if lala land suits you better who am I to entice you into reality?

Other than the exorbitant taxes that would be required to pay for a boondoggle like national health care my other huge problem with it is the quality would go down. I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I need and how long I have to wait for it. I like my health care just as it is.

Hint it is a lot less than the cost of the chimps folly in Iraq - Still why keep people alive and healthy for less money than it costs to kill them

Quality does not go down that is a myth. There is no compulsion to use a nationalised health service you are free to carry on choosing a private provider.

Thats the problem. If the joke of national freeloader health care ever happens then the employers will stop offering it.

I didn't know we were talking about Iraq. It seems that when you have nothing intelligent to offer you try to change the subject.

And your evidence for this being a problem is what exactly? Your intelligent offering is rhetoric yet again. Long on opinion and short on fact as usual.

What exactly is your experience of a National Health System, how it is funded, how it operates in conjunction with a private insurance based system, what do you know about the doctors who work within them? From the previous posts you have made on the subject I would stake virtually nothing. Do you think no employer in Europe offers private medical insurance schemes? Please enlighten me as to the basis you post your opinion as authorative.

You objected to a perceived increase in taxation. There does not need to be any increase in taxation, just a reallocation of current taxes raised. If you being unable to see there is a connection between spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money on Dubyahs Iraq folly and a lack of funds for US citizens who need an adequate health care system then I hate to break it to you but I am not the one lacking intelligent offerings here

Other than the exorbitant taxes that would be required to pay for a boondoggle like national health care my other huge problem with it is the quality would go down. I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I need and how long I have to wait for it. I like my health care just as it is.

Hint it is a lot less than the cost of the chimps folly in Iraq - Still why keep people alive and healthy for less money than it costs to kill them

Quality does not go down that is a myth. There is no compulsion to use a nationalised health service you are free to carry on choosing a private provider.

Somehow the two phrases "Check out Fox " and "open your mind" dont seem to be a fit

Yet I don't recall Fox News ever sending a suicide bomber into a market. hmmmm. open your mind and eyes.

AYRTS? IA?

Totally against national health care...yes, it's 'FREE' but quality will suffer. Look at the UK....D's been on a list for over a year to get a hernia operation. He finally broke down and bought private coverage.

Which will have done him no good at all as pre existing conditions are not covered by a private insurance policy

I don't remember the details but he found a policy that covered him and the pre-existing. Your response was the same as mine when I heard about it until he explained it, lol

The private medical insurers in the UK apply moratorium underwriting and the surgical procedure codes input at time of claim will automatically check with the inception date to ensure there is no pre existing condition potential. If there is the claim will go into suspense for human review. An examination of the patients GP records will confirm it is indeed a pre existing condition as he was on a NHS waiting list, thereby causing the claim to be rejected. The exception to this is a group policy where the employer in effect funds the costs on a claims paid basis but this would not result in him buying coverage at commercial rates. It would be the employer picking up the tab as a benefit in kind. There is a significant body of political opinion that wishes to have this taxed as such. Good luck to anyone in such a scheme who has major heart surgery or cancer treatment if the chancellor ever decides to cash in

Totally against national health care...yes, it's 'FREE' but quality will suffer. Look at the UK....D's been on a list for over a year to get a hernia operation. He finally broke down and bought private coverage.

Which will have done him no good at all as pre existing conditions are not covered by a private insurance policy

Somehow the two phrases "Check out Fox " and "open your mind" dont seem to be a fit

Yep, I had you right.

When I first started roaming the Internet many years ago I remember reading a post that said something along the lines of "when some people are unable to construct a reasoned response they just toss out a nonsensical one liner to avoid a question they are unable to deal with (in the rather absurd hope that none of the other readers will ever spot it as such), hidden as it is within those thousands of rhetoric inspired previous posts that are big on volume, political partisanship, alleged personal experience, opinion, soundbites and pure unadulterated rubbish which is adequately counterbalanced by a lack of empirical evidence, accepted accurate statistical analysis, any professionally recognised knowledge or expertise, an inability to engage in reasoned discourse, and an exceptionally poor comprehension of the world outside the posters limited experience of life. Such people are known as trolls, lunatics or opinionated a$$holes depending on how charitable you the reader wish to be. My advice is to play with them as long as it amuses you but remember a battle of wits with an unarmed man is unfair " .

Of course I may be wrong and I didn't read it on a message board at all. It could after all have come to me in spam mail.

Not every CEO has worked hard to get where they are. Like James Murdoch, for example.......

Nor does every CEO wastes his or his staffs time forwarding spam "globally" either. You might like to re read the original post where it is clearly stated

I am sure many of you may have seen the attached comments but a friend sent it to me

and then take a look HERE

It seems the OP hero worships spammers. Just how much credibility as a manager does a spammer have?

Oh what foresight and vision he has in his leadership skills that the best inspirational e mail for a Monday morning he can come up with is not relevant to the business, nor is it self written, or his thoughts on words of wisdom by a recognised leader in their particular field but instead a forward of spam mail? :lol:

One wonders what the staff handbook says re company policy in acceptable computer usage and spam?

Thanks to the OP for the best unintentional foot in mouth I have seen in a while

Dude you make no sense at all. He clearly stated that it was sent to him. It sounds like you can't fault what he says so you have to bash where it came from. Pretty weak of you there.

What part of he is a spammer do you have a problem understanding? :lol:

How can I fault what HE SAID when HE didnt say it, someone else did?

I am sure that IS how it sounds to YOU. Hearing and understanding the message are not always the same thing, but hey you may not be able to make sense of that particular concept

Anyway you forgot to tell us what the companies official policy is on acceptable computer use and the forwarding of spam. Please let us know TIA