Let me get this straight.
If cops know that 50% of blacks who enter a particular neighborhood rob, the cops are supposed to ignore this fact. Ignoring any facts is stupid. Downright stupid.
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyQuote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Should police use prejudice when detaining the guy with blood on his shirt? Maybe he bumped his nose in gym class. Should they catch and detain the kid who runs from the scene? Lots of school kids run. Bloody folks, runners, and unfortunately black folks as a group commit a disproportionate percentage of murders. While Liberals aren’t allowed to say this truth, that doesn’t change the facts.
Cops must use judgment to determine who was likely involved in the school shooting. If 10% of the class is black and they’re committing 50% of the shootings at the school, it's ignorant to ignore these facts.
Should police use prejudice when detaining a bloody guy at the murders scene?
"Racial Profiling" as used by police has a very specific meaning. It's not what you may think it is boilerman. It has nothing to do with sickle cells or any of your other 'examples'.
Pure and simple:
"Racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement "
Two Examples:
We have a black jogger in a wealthy white neighborhood. Looks out of place. Let's talk to him and find out what he's doing...where he's going...if he belongs.
We have four black men in an old car driving down the freeway....a freeway that is a well known drug corridor. Tags are current...but these guys look suspicious. Let's pull them over and ask them a few questions. Maybe ask if it's ok if we search the car.
Now please don't confuse these examples with 'BOLO' type stops. That's where police have been given a description to work with and the subjects match the description...Be on the Lookout. That's perfectly ok. That's not the definition of Racial Profiling.
Correct me if I'm wrong boilerman, but in your perfect world my examples are just proactive police work and you fully support those stops.
In my world they are examples of discrimination by authority, they are morally wrong, they are typically ineffective and un-American. Even if proved highly effective, it's still wrong in my humble opinion. It's better to catch a criminal later or not at all than to continually subject some of our citizens to police stops because of their race and nothing more.
Here's what Bill Clinton said about Racial Profiling:
''Racial profiling is in fact the opposite of good police work where actions are based on hard facts, not stereotypes,'' the President said. ''It is wrong, it is destructive and it must stop.''
Here's what George Bush said about Racial Profiling:
“It’s wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nation’s brave police officers. They protect us every day -- often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve"
Now before you call me a politically correct liberal democrat, I am none of the above...but to my last breath I'll defend the rights of individuals as guaranteed by our constitution....even if it means some guilty people never get caught. It's how we roll as Americans.
