masterrig 1 #176 May 4, 2010 Quote >I was raised by a truck driver dad and we didn't want for much. I was raised by two teachers and we wanted for quite a few things. We weren't close to starving, but didn't have any of the stuff our neighbors had. I remember going over to a friend's house all the time because their color TV got something like 30 channels - our old black and white TV got about 5. When we finally were able to afford to move out of an apartment, my parents bought some empty land in what would later become a pretty fashionable part of Long Island. We got our house built through connections to local contractors; my parents had to cash in every one of the favors they had done over the years for their colleagues and (former) students. >If, big business hadn't gotten so greedy people would still be willing >to do 'those' jobs. People and big business both got greedy. We're not a nation willing to "go without" any more - whether you're a high school grad or a CEO. The thing is, you can't do that driving a truck, anymore! We're flat-out spoiled. When I graduated high school, I got 25 bucks. Now days, kids get a new Mustang! Our whole nation has just gotten out of whack. I'm anxious for the day illegals picket for higher wages and form unions. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #177 May 4, 2010 > I'm anxious for the day illegals picket for higher wages and form unions. Yep. And the reason that will happen is that Wal-Mart will threaten to raise prices unless politicians support that. And the voters will flock to the candidate that promises them low low prices on the season's best sales items. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #178 May 4, 2010 Quote> I'm anxious for the day illegals picket for higher wages and form unions. Yep. And the reason that will happen is that Wal-Mart will threaten to raise prices unless politicians support that. And the voters will flock to the candidate that promises them low low prices on the season's best sales items.[/repl Any way you look at it... they got us by the short hairs. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #179 May 4, 2010 QuoteThey don't - thus the need for illegals, unfortunately. The need for illegals? We went over this a little while back. Now you've come back to the same old line. Not a very progressive/liberal position.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #180 May 4, 2010 Quote Quote > I'm anxious for the day illegals picket for higher wages and form unions. Yep. And the reason that will happen is that Wal-Mart will threaten to raise prices unless politicians support that. And the voters will flock to the candidate that promises them low low prices on the season's best sales items. Any way you look at it... they got us by the short hairs. Chuck They do if we let them. The best choice is usually not the easy choice. The easy choice thinking is what led us here, it sure won't get us out. While paying people legally their fair share may cost employers/employees more initially, it also may lead to less need for some government programs.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #181 May 4, 2010 >The need for illegals? Yes. Or, if you enjoy arguing semantics, the economic reason for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #182 May 4, 2010 Quote Quote Quote They do jobs that others won't. Beef and poultry slaughterhouses are the easiest example. Legal american citizens would be more willing to do them if we weren't handing out free money so much. I can recall a time when jobs like construction, truck driving, road building and several other jobs were highly sought after. The pay was good and a man could support his family, and have a few 'extras'. Somewhere along the line, employers latched-on to the idea of hiring illegals, cut the wages and set it up to where a man couldn't 'afford' to do those jobs. Wages went down and the businesses found their profits were higher. I knew men who worked in packing plants, machine shops, lumber yards and other 'labor' jobs. I knew women who cleaned homes and took-in ironing and it helped their family. Why should a man want a job that used to pay good and now only pays minimum wage or less? But... we need illegals! Chuck if the minimum wage had kept its value then wages wouldn't have drifted down. if the minimum wage had been allowed to keep its value then american workers would be prepared to do the shitty jobs stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #183 May 4, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote They do jobs that others won't. Beef and poultry slaughterhouses are the easiest example. Legal american citizens would be more willing to do them if we weren't handing out free money so much. I can recall a time when jobs like construction, truck driving, road building and several other jobs were highly sought after. The pay was good and a man could support his family, and have a few 'extras'. Somewhere along the line, employers latched-on to the idea of hiring illegals, cut the wages and set it up to where a man couldn't 'afford' to do those jobs. Wages went down and the businesses found their profits were higher. I knew men who worked in packing plants, machine shops, lumber yards and other 'labor' jobs. I knew women who cleaned homes and took-in ironing and it helped their family. Why should a man want a job that used to pay good and now only pays minimum wage or less? But... we need illegals! Chuck if the minimum wage had kept its value then wages wouldn't have drifted down. if the minimum wage had been allowed to keep its value then american workers would be prepared to do the shitty jobs Wrong answer! The minimum wage had nothing to do with it! The fact is, some of these 'shitty' jobs paid upwards to $17 - $18 an hour... that was in the early 1970. Big business no longer wanted to pay those wages and found they could hire illegals to do the same jobs for much less. Thus making it un-favorable for folks to seek those jobs. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #184 May 4, 2010 Quote if the minimum wage had kept its value then wages wouldn't have drifted down. if the minimum wage had been allowed to keep its value then american workers would be prepared to do the shitty jobs there's your BS minimum wage crap again. whatever the minimum wage was, illegal immigrants would be prepared to take less pay than that to stay off paper.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #185 May 4, 2010 Quote>The need for illegals? Yes. Or, if you enjoy arguing semantics, the economic reason for them. Since when have you stopped arguing about semantics? It is not that I enjoy arguing semantics, but you chose to use the word "need". It is not a "need", it is just a way to keep prices and wages lower, and to ensure a permanent underclass of working poor. Not a very liberal/progressive position.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #186 May 4, 2010 Quote unwad the panties.... "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. OK, after taking some time to do some actual work the past few days, I have taken a look at the recent amendment to this law, and I have to admit that it assuages some of my concerns. According to the amendment, a lawful "contact" is no longer enough to justify an inquiry into someone's immigration status. An actual "stop, detention or arrest" is now required. And race can no longer be used as a factor in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that an individual is an illegal alien. The Hispanic crime victim in my earlier hypothetical situation could not be questioned as to his/her immigration status under the new amendment as I read it. I am still concerned with potential abuses of the law, and I would not go so far as to say that I support it, but with the amendments, the law looks a lot better to me. See, folks, I can be reasonable. The important changes are in Section 11-1051, paragraph B. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #187 May 4, 2010 Quote a lawful "contact" is no longer enough to justify an inquiry into someone's immigration status. An actual "stop, detention or arrest" is now required. And race can no longer be used as a factor What he said, for the same reasons. Just because I don't care for it doesn't make it wrong -- it's their state to vote in. My biggest concern for "contact" was what it would do to witness cooperation, and the manipulation thereof. And race will still be used as a factor -- it's inevitable . But whoever is using it will have to figure out some other reason to cover that. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #188 May 4, 2010 > It is not that I enjoy arguing semantics, but you chose to use the word > "need". It is not a "need", it is just a way to keep prices and wages lower You're arguing semantics again. Cheap unskilled labor is needed for some companies to remain competitive. Consult any economics textbook, or if you prefer real-world examples, notice whether more companies that rely heavily on unskilled labor are opening in China or the US. >Not a very liberal/progressive position. Well I guess I'm not a very liberal person then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #189 May 4, 2010 Quote And race will still be used as a factor -- it's inevitable . But whoever is using it will have to figure out some other reason to cover that. Why can't we use defining characteristics? The key word is profile. If there was a description of a robbery suspect should we now leave out: * Race to not be racist * Sex to not be sexist * Height to not offend midgets * Weight to not offend fat people * Color of clothing to not offend the colorblind * Best not even mention what they were wearing to not offend fashionistas The biggest issue here is people are getting mad at the cops for doing their job versus the criminals. Racial profiling is such a misnomer as a profile by definition is much more than one characteristic.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #190 May 4, 2010 Lemme tell you my favorite racial profiling story. I used to be a systems programmer; our group passed a beeper around in 2-week increments. this was before beepers were de rigeur for anyone over the age of 5. Three of the folks sharing the beeper were young African-American men in their 20's. I was in my mid-30's at the time. I overheard a discussion among them, where they were joking about how WHEN they were stopped by the police, and the police saw the beeper, they were immediately told to exit the car, spread 'em, and they were patted down. Did tickets ensue from this? Why no! As a white woman in my mid-30's, I was never even stopped by the police, never mind asked to exit the car because I had a beeper. None of these guys were drug dealers -- they were just young guys who had good jobs and cool cars, and the penalty they paid for being African-American at the same time was the occasional BS stop and frisking. That's racial profiling. AKA DWB (driving while black). Race (or really, skin tone -- what's the difference between a hispanic-looking person, a high yaller, and a middle-easterner?) is an absolutely valid descriptor when there is a description. And yeah, there's wiggle room. But let's not see just how far we can go. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #191 May 4, 2010 >Racial profiling is such a misnomer as a profile by definition is much >more than one characteristic. If you pull over a tall black man because the criminal you are looking for is described by witnesses as a tall black man, it's not racial profiling. If you pull over a tall black man because the criminal you are looking for is (in your mind) probably black, then that is racial profiling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #192 May 4, 2010 Quote I overheard a discussion among them, where they were joking about how WHEN they were stopped by the police, and the police saw the beeper, they were immediately told to exit the car, spread 'em, and they were patted down. Did tickets ensue from this? Why no! Were they stopped inititally for a violation? If so, then it was not racial profiling, but additional steps were taken to ensure they were not a threat once detained. Once determined they were not, they were let go with only a warning as a courtesy. They unfortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time (nice car, pager, black, etc.). Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situations. Quote As a white woman in my mid-30's, I was never even stopped by the police, never mind asked to exit the car because I had a beeper. That may be because you weren't breaking the law. If lots of white women in their 30's became drug dealers/gang members/violent criminals, possibly started shooting at cops regularly, they'd get the same initial treatment. It's simply reactionary, not racial. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #193 May 4, 2010 QuoteIf you pull over a tall black man because the criminal you are looking for is (in your mind) probably black, then that is racial profiling. If you only have two criteria to go on: tall and man, you pull over the black one, the white one, the brown one, etc.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #194 May 4, 2010 QuoteThat may be because you weren't breaking the lawTrust me, I sped regularly. I just didn't get stopped. I had the same number of actual tickets as they during that time. QuoteThey unortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time. Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situationsThat's profiling, in a nutshell. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #195 May 4, 2010 >If you only have two criteria to go on: tall and man, you pull over the >black one, the white one, the brown one, etc. Exactly. Hopefully a cop stupid enough to pull over only the black men (and thus let the actual criminal escape) won't remain a cop very long. Which, in a nutshell, is why profiling doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #196 May 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteThat may be because you weren't breaking the lawTrust me, I sped regularly. I just didn't get stopped. I had the same number of actual tickets as they during that time. QuoteThey unortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time. Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situationsThat's profiling, in a nutshell. Wendy P. You missed my edit to clarify: QuoteThey unfortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time (nice car, pager, black, etc.). Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situations. As for not getting stopped, you may have just been lucky or the police were concerned more with larger things vs. minor traffic violations.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #197 May 4, 2010 Quote>If you only have two criteria to go on: tall and man, you pull over the >black one, the white one, the brown one, etc. Exactly. Hopefully a cop stupid enough to pull over only the black men (and thus let the actual criminal escape) won't remain a cop very long. Which, in a nutshell, is why profiling doesn't work. What you described is not profiling. However, if certain criteria are unavailable and not everyone can be searched, an officer may make a judgment call based on the area they are in and the history of crime in that area, also possibly based on what the tall men around him are wearing/doing/driving. While race can be a criteria in this decision it need to be supported with reasoning for choosing it as a criteria.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 8 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
sundevil777 102 #179 May 4, 2010 QuoteThey don't - thus the need for illegals, unfortunately. The need for illegals? We went over this a little while back. Now you've come back to the same old line. Not a very progressive/liberal position.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #180 May 4, 2010 Quote Quote > I'm anxious for the day illegals picket for higher wages and form unions. Yep. And the reason that will happen is that Wal-Mart will threaten to raise prices unless politicians support that. And the voters will flock to the candidate that promises them low low prices on the season's best sales items. Any way you look at it... they got us by the short hairs. Chuck They do if we let them. The best choice is usually not the easy choice. The easy choice thinking is what led us here, it sure won't get us out. While paying people legally their fair share may cost employers/employees more initially, it also may lead to less need for some government programs.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #181 May 4, 2010 >The need for illegals? Yes. Or, if you enjoy arguing semantics, the economic reason for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #182 May 4, 2010 Quote Quote Quote They do jobs that others won't. Beef and poultry slaughterhouses are the easiest example. Legal american citizens would be more willing to do them if we weren't handing out free money so much. I can recall a time when jobs like construction, truck driving, road building and several other jobs were highly sought after. The pay was good and a man could support his family, and have a few 'extras'. Somewhere along the line, employers latched-on to the idea of hiring illegals, cut the wages and set it up to where a man couldn't 'afford' to do those jobs. Wages went down and the businesses found their profits were higher. I knew men who worked in packing plants, machine shops, lumber yards and other 'labor' jobs. I knew women who cleaned homes and took-in ironing and it helped their family. Why should a man want a job that used to pay good and now only pays minimum wage or less? But... we need illegals! Chuck if the minimum wage had kept its value then wages wouldn't have drifted down. if the minimum wage had been allowed to keep its value then american workers would be prepared to do the shitty jobs stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #183 May 4, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote They do jobs that others won't. Beef and poultry slaughterhouses are the easiest example. Legal american citizens would be more willing to do them if we weren't handing out free money so much. I can recall a time when jobs like construction, truck driving, road building and several other jobs were highly sought after. The pay was good and a man could support his family, and have a few 'extras'. Somewhere along the line, employers latched-on to the idea of hiring illegals, cut the wages and set it up to where a man couldn't 'afford' to do those jobs. Wages went down and the businesses found their profits were higher. I knew men who worked in packing plants, machine shops, lumber yards and other 'labor' jobs. I knew women who cleaned homes and took-in ironing and it helped their family. Why should a man want a job that used to pay good and now only pays minimum wage or less? But... we need illegals! Chuck if the minimum wage had kept its value then wages wouldn't have drifted down. if the minimum wage had been allowed to keep its value then american workers would be prepared to do the shitty jobs Wrong answer! The minimum wage had nothing to do with it! The fact is, some of these 'shitty' jobs paid upwards to $17 - $18 an hour... that was in the early 1970. Big business no longer wanted to pay those wages and found they could hire illegals to do the same jobs for much less. Thus making it un-favorable for folks to seek those jobs. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #184 May 4, 2010 Quote if the minimum wage had kept its value then wages wouldn't have drifted down. if the minimum wage had been allowed to keep its value then american workers would be prepared to do the shitty jobs there's your BS minimum wage crap again. whatever the minimum wage was, illegal immigrants would be prepared to take less pay than that to stay off paper.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #185 May 4, 2010 Quote>The need for illegals? Yes. Or, if you enjoy arguing semantics, the economic reason for them. Since when have you stopped arguing about semantics? It is not that I enjoy arguing semantics, but you chose to use the word "need". It is not a "need", it is just a way to keep prices and wages lower, and to ensure a permanent underclass of working poor. Not a very liberal/progressive position.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #186 May 4, 2010 Quote unwad the panties.... "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. OK, after taking some time to do some actual work the past few days, I have taken a look at the recent amendment to this law, and I have to admit that it assuages some of my concerns. According to the amendment, a lawful "contact" is no longer enough to justify an inquiry into someone's immigration status. An actual "stop, detention or arrest" is now required. And race can no longer be used as a factor in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that an individual is an illegal alien. The Hispanic crime victim in my earlier hypothetical situation could not be questioned as to his/her immigration status under the new amendment as I read it. I am still concerned with potential abuses of the law, and I would not go so far as to say that I support it, but with the amendments, the law looks a lot better to me. See, folks, I can be reasonable. The important changes are in Section 11-1051, paragraph B. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #187 May 4, 2010 Quote a lawful "contact" is no longer enough to justify an inquiry into someone's immigration status. An actual "stop, detention or arrest" is now required. And race can no longer be used as a factor What he said, for the same reasons. Just because I don't care for it doesn't make it wrong -- it's their state to vote in. My biggest concern for "contact" was what it would do to witness cooperation, and the manipulation thereof. And race will still be used as a factor -- it's inevitable . But whoever is using it will have to figure out some other reason to cover that. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #188 May 4, 2010 > It is not that I enjoy arguing semantics, but you chose to use the word > "need". It is not a "need", it is just a way to keep prices and wages lower You're arguing semantics again. Cheap unskilled labor is needed for some companies to remain competitive. Consult any economics textbook, or if you prefer real-world examples, notice whether more companies that rely heavily on unskilled labor are opening in China or the US. >Not a very liberal/progressive position. Well I guess I'm not a very liberal person then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #189 May 4, 2010 Quote And race will still be used as a factor -- it's inevitable . But whoever is using it will have to figure out some other reason to cover that. Why can't we use defining characteristics? The key word is profile. If there was a description of a robbery suspect should we now leave out: * Race to not be racist * Sex to not be sexist * Height to not offend midgets * Weight to not offend fat people * Color of clothing to not offend the colorblind * Best not even mention what they were wearing to not offend fashionistas The biggest issue here is people are getting mad at the cops for doing their job versus the criminals. Racial profiling is such a misnomer as a profile by definition is much more than one characteristic.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #190 May 4, 2010 Lemme tell you my favorite racial profiling story. I used to be a systems programmer; our group passed a beeper around in 2-week increments. this was before beepers were de rigeur for anyone over the age of 5. Three of the folks sharing the beeper were young African-American men in their 20's. I was in my mid-30's at the time. I overheard a discussion among them, where they were joking about how WHEN they were stopped by the police, and the police saw the beeper, they were immediately told to exit the car, spread 'em, and they were patted down. Did tickets ensue from this? Why no! As a white woman in my mid-30's, I was never even stopped by the police, never mind asked to exit the car because I had a beeper. None of these guys were drug dealers -- they were just young guys who had good jobs and cool cars, and the penalty they paid for being African-American at the same time was the occasional BS stop and frisking. That's racial profiling. AKA DWB (driving while black). Race (or really, skin tone -- what's the difference between a hispanic-looking person, a high yaller, and a middle-easterner?) is an absolutely valid descriptor when there is a description. And yeah, there's wiggle room. But let's not see just how far we can go. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #191 May 4, 2010 >Racial profiling is such a misnomer as a profile by definition is much >more than one characteristic. If you pull over a tall black man because the criminal you are looking for is described by witnesses as a tall black man, it's not racial profiling. If you pull over a tall black man because the criminal you are looking for is (in your mind) probably black, then that is racial profiling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #192 May 4, 2010 Quote I overheard a discussion among them, where they were joking about how WHEN they were stopped by the police, and the police saw the beeper, they were immediately told to exit the car, spread 'em, and they were patted down. Did tickets ensue from this? Why no! Were they stopped inititally for a violation? If so, then it was not racial profiling, but additional steps were taken to ensure they were not a threat once detained. Once determined they were not, they were let go with only a warning as a courtesy. They unfortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time (nice car, pager, black, etc.). Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situations. Quote As a white woman in my mid-30's, I was never even stopped by the police, never mind asked to exit the car because I had a beeper. That may be because you weren't breaking the law. If lots of white women in their 30's became drug dealers/gang members/violent criminals, possibly started shooting at cops regularly, they'd get the same initial treatment. It's simply reactionary, not racial. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #193 May 4, 2010 QuoteIf you pull over a tall black man because the criminal you are looking for is (in your mind) probably black, then that is racial profiling. If you only have two criteria to go on: tall and man, you pull over the black one, the white one, the brown one, etc.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #194 May 4, 2010 QuoteThat may be because you weren't breaking the lawTrust me, I sped regularly. I just didn't get stopped. I had the same number of actual tickets as they during that time. QuoteThey unortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time. Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situationsThat's profiling, in a nutshell. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #195 May 4, 2010 >If you only have two criteria to go on: tall and man, you pull over the >black one, the white one, the brown one, etc. Exactly. Hopefully a cop stupid enough to pull over only the black men (and thus let the actual criminal escape) won't remain a cop very long. Which, in a nutshell, is why profiling doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #196 May 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteThat may be because you weren't breaking the lawTrust me, I sped regularly. I just didn't get stopped. I had the same number of actual tickets as they during that time. QuoteThey unortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time. Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situationsThat's profiling, in a nutshell. Wendy P. You missed my edit to clarify: QuoteThey unfortunately matched the profile of a possible drug dealer/gang member/violent criminal apparently at the time (nice car, pager, black, etc.). Perhaps there had been incidents where officers were shot at in similar situations. As for not getting stopped, you may have just been lucky or the police were concerned more with larger things vs. minor traffic violations.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #197 May 4, 2010 Quote>If you only have two criteria to go on: tall and man, you pull over the >black one, the white one, the brown one, etc. Exactly. Hopefully a cop stupid enough to pull over only the black men (and thus let the actual criminal escape) won't remain a cop very long. Which, in a nutshell, is why profiling doesn't work. What you described is not profiling. However, if certain criteria are unavailable and not everyone can be searched, an officer may make a judgment call based on the area they are in and the history of crime in that area, also possibly based on what the tall men around him are wearing/doing/driving. While race can be a criteria in this decision it need to be supported with reasoning for choosing it as a criteria.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
