Faulty logic? Please help...

Rapidly approaching the end of a 25 year career as an LEO, all I can say is that what's kept me alive and kicking is by being cautious with EVERYONE I deal with.

I don't care what your age, color, creed, national origin, etc etc etc is. You are what you are. I am what I am. I am and will be cautious, regardless. If you cause me reason to have official dealings with you, I will be professional and courteous as long as you are with me (and probably for a great deal longer than you are with me.) I will be thorough in the performance of my duty(s.) I will listen to your stories and make a sound decision based on the facts and my perception of the facts as they concern the law, regulation, or rule. If you're on the up and up, which 99.9% of you are, we'll part company and, no offense, I'll probably have forgotten about you within a few hours. If you're not on the up and up, well, you have choices about the way the story ends. Regardless of your choice, I'm going home at the end of my shift none the worse for wear if I can help it. Regardless of your choice, I'll respect your constitutional rights or the rights conferred you by law.

Mike
 
Sgt Mike: again, you have said it all too well. WOULD YOU PLEASE RUN FOR PRESIDENT OR SOMETHING???!!!:D :p

Ok, so far there have been lots of great things said, and as much as I'd like, I can't rebutt each reply individually. (too tired!) But I do want to state some things again.

I still do not understand how some of you don't see my point. If a black man, pick a height and weight; it doesn't matter, is announced on the news as being a murder/rape suspect, are the cops going to pull over mexicans, whites, and middle easterners JUST TO RISK NOT OFFENDING anyone, or being called "Racist?" I sure hope not. As was said, "not a lot of middle eastern men are terrorists, but a lot of terrorists are middle eastern men." WHY CAN SOME OF YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT???

SURE, there are going to be outliers, exceptions to the rule. But when's the last time that a group of MEXICANS hijacked an airplane???

I'm trying so desperately to say that if we know what a group of known perpetrators look like, why are people so #$&#^$%#& afraid to scrutinize them???

And NO, I would NOT have a problem if they were looking for athletic 21 year old white males of Greek descent. I have nothing to hide. Furthermore, if one is not an idiot about it and acts with respect and dignity when being questioned by any LEO, you will greatly aid the whole process. If there are any cases of middle-easterners being horribly mistreated now, its quite likely that they are being quite uncooperative, or *gasp* perhaps they ARE hiding something that warrants further investigation!!! :eek:

Nifrand, you have made LOTS of great points. The thing that people keep forgetting is that whatever extra security measures we have to take now are FOR OUR OWN GOOD. Whether or not they are effective is a whole other debate that I don't want to start here, but regardless, the extra security is just that; EXTRA SECURITY. It occurred to me one day; what is the point of getting frustrated over the new delays and security measures? 9/11 highlighted some glaring security flaws that our country has had for decades, and if anything we should be THANKING the people who are searching us, not cursing them!!!

If you don't have anything to hide, regardless of your skin color, race, or whatever, just grin and bear it, or MOVE TO A COUNTRY WHERE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU.

Drjones
Great discussion, guys!!!
 
Mikemc: Please tell me, as I asked above, when was the last time that a group of blacks or mexicans hijacked an airplane?

And, I'll reiterate, that sure, a lot of middle-eastern men are not terrorists, but a hell of a lot of terrorists sure do seem to be middle eastern. This is a FACT that you cannot deny.

Is there a POSSIBILITY that say, a south african will be involved in some future attack? Sure. Does that mean that South Africa is harboring terrorists? Probably not. Countries that are known for a FACT to harbor, sponsor and support terrorists are PREDOMINATELY MIDDLE-EASTERN. If Greece happened to follow suit, I would be the FIRST in line telling them to keep the damn Greeks out of the country!!!

You are dancing around the issue. One more time, IN ENGLISH:

IF WE KNOW THE ORIGINS AND BASIC PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF KNOWN CRIMINALS, WHAT IS WRONG WITH SUBJECTING INDIVIDUALS WHO FIT THE (dare I say it again) PROFILE TO EXTRA SCRUTINY??? This is NOT racist, nor is such a practice violating ANYBODY'S civil rights.

And you're right, mike; I DO have a problem with discrimination against whites, because its funny how blacks can have all-black colleges, black tv channels and black churches, but when whites do that, we're called Nazis, KKK, racist, so on and so forth.

And imagine IF the terrorists were instead Italian. (White-skinned) They would be stopping EVERY SINGLE PERSON with an even remotely Italian-sounding name or physical appearance and searching the HELL out of them, and no one would say a DAMN thing about "civil liberties" because Italians have WHITE skin. But, the second skin color enters the equation, we have the NAACP and all those other people on the news and in the courts. Just funny how that works.

I am NOT justifying racial profiling against others, these are just my observations, and its really FUNNY how this society works with regard to color.

Drjones
 
drjones, you are getting way off base. White people in the organizations you mentioned came up with the names KKK, Nazi, etc. No black person made that up. As for black televeision, black history, black colleges being something special, I'm tired od hearing the this. Black History Month was founded in the 1920's by an African American professor who noted that the acccomplishments of blacks were ignored in so called mainstream history books. Black colleges were created during the nineteenth century, primarily in the South where African Americans were denied admission to "public" white schools. The fact of matter is that America has many de facto "white" insititutions. Most weren't labeled white because for most of American history, black participation was out of the question. Were black folks supposed to wait around until somebody had a change of heart and invited us? Once integration did start, are we supposed to dump all of our insititutions and traditions? As for BET, do you hate TNN or the other country music channels? I don't golf, but I don't hate the Golf Channel. If some one started a white channel, I would watch, I might learn something about people I wouldn't have known otherwise. drjones, it seems that you have issues with people of color because nothing I said warranted you going to the topics that you mentioned in your last post. Your last post showed why I am leery of profiling, it too easily to all other sorts of racial issues that are not even relevant.
 
Anthony: PLEASE let me assure you that I have NOTHING at all against ANY people of color. I apologise sincerely and wholeheartedly if I have offended you or anyone else, and if I have come across as at all bigoted or racist.

It is SO damn easy to get misunderstood and misinterpreted when communicating solely by writing. :mad: :(

I'm basically saying that no one should get upset if they are subject to search or investigation in the name of increased security. OF COURSE no one should EVER be harmed, humiliated, or have any rights infringed upon.

The problem of reverse discrimination is a complex one, and one which I do not even want to start on the internet, as it is too difficult to explain myself well. I will get misinterpreted and labeled.

Again, my deepest apologies to Anthony and anyone else. I do not hate anyone.

Thanks
Drjones
 
Being told I cannot carry a Pro-Tech 2.5" blade automatic knife on board a domestic airliner is a violation of my rights as an honest citizen. Being asked to step through a metal detector or place my baggage through an x-ray machine is not.

Cooperation with simple, quick, reasonable, minimally intrusive security procedures is part of the normal routine in any complex society. What I really resent, and I see many of us here resent, is the ultimate ineffectiveness of many of these security procedures.

We aren't arguing about profiling. We are bemoaning the danger of terrorists sneaking past our security, of whatever complexity, and hurting honest citizens. We are desperate for a cure for a cruel disease.

Please understand that these half-measures will prevent many amateur and copycat wannabees, and raise the consciousness of ordinary citizens to extraordinary effort, as the case of the (non-Arab Muslim) Richard Reid of the exploding sneakers showed.

I personally keep thinking that too many of our enemies are still alive, and that we should be going out there and leveling other people's cities first. But remembering Mark Twain's War Prayer, I'm not sure how we go about this.
 
Essav, I agree 100% about people knife carrying rights being curtailed. I think that was a classic government knee jerk reaction. As I have said before, remember that it was a very conservative administration with an extremely conservative attorney general that did this, not Diane Feinstein or Ted Kennedy. The point being that any government can be tempted by the meaningless quick fix. Personally, I had no problem with regulating blade lengths, but banning knives will not solve the highjacking problem. Stronger doors and sky marshalls are much effective than taking my Mnandi or Umfaan from me. Finally, it seems crazy to encourage people to resist highjackers will also taking anything that can be used to fight them away.
 
Anthony: Thanks. I apologise again, and I've been feeling awfully guilty. I just love this country so much because of the freedoms we enjoy, and I am the last person who would ever want to harm or offend anyone unjustly. Like I said, it is so easy to get misconstrued in writing.

Let me share a quote with you, which I've borrowed from another member here. It sums up my feelings quite well.

The Rattlesnake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America. She never begins an attack, nor once
engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage...she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.

Thank you
drjones
 
This has been a very thought provoking topic. It has made me sit back and think, and that is a good thing. I totally understand what is being put forward by each and every one of the people that has posted here.

Personally, I do not like the idea of racial profiling, but I understand why it is that Arab men are being looked at more closely than others. Being cautious is not a bad thing as long as it never infinges on a persons rights. We can not accept, just for the sake of security, that our rights and freedom in any way be taken from us. We can not accept this in the case of Arabs/Muslims or any other people. When we say that we are willing to give up some of our rights and freedoms so that we can feel more secure, we start a journey along a very rocky road. What happens if those little concessions that we accept don't work, will we be willing to give up more of our freedom? If so, what happens when we are told that even more freedom must be sacrificed in the search for ease of mind?

You mat call me an alarmist if you want, but in my opinion this kind of thing leads you down the road to a police state. If that kind of situation arises then there is going to have to be another war of independence to get your rights and freedoms back.

Do the best that can be done to protect me within the limits provided by my rights. That I can and will accept, but believe me, I would rather die allow anyone to mess with my way of life. That includes both terrorists and law makers.
 
Another poster said somehing to the effect that "I would gladly give up some freedom to let the gov't keep me and my family safe". I have never felt the following quote to be more appropriate and timely, and it rings truer now than ever before. "Those who would give up essential liberties for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Who said it? A very wise man named Benjamin Franklin, who knew a little bit about the danger of a govt with too much power. More innocent people have been killed by the "protection" of their own government, than a million terrorist attacks. Please think very carefully before you allow the govt to get their foot in this very dangerous door of "modified freedom". Its a very slippery slope that may very well lead to tyranny, and then youll wish, in vain, for things to be like they were, when a few terrorists and hijacked planes were all we had to worry about.

One more related point. I tried to explain this to my wife. I tell her that if she is ever stopped for, let's say speeding, and the officer asks to search her car, to firmly tell him no. She says, "why, I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE" (sound familiar?), "why not let him search? Maybe searching cars randomly, helps fight the war on drugs, makes our lives safer, its for the public good honey, that cant be bad". Its very simple, first they search your car because we let them, and after all, theyre just doing it for "public safety" concerns, right?, fighting the drug war, making us "safer". Then, we allow them to search certain people depending on what they look like, apparently SOME of us just don't look right, again, this is to make us safer. Pretty soon, they can search your HOUSE without the mere "formality" of a search warrant, because we let them, "hey it helps the police fight terrorism, thats important, right? Besides, i have nothing to hide" , then, they take away our guns because we let them, surely with no guns available, terrorism will go away, not to mention violent crime. And then, finally, they put you and everyone you know in a prison or concentration camp, (for the "public good of course), this time, not because we let them do it, but because we are no longer in any position to prevent it.

"They came for the poles, but i was not polish, so i didnt speak out. Then they came for the gypsies, but i was not a gypsy, so i didnt speak out. Then they came for the jews, but i was not a jew, so i didnt speak out, and then they came for me, but there was noone left to speak for me..." (paraphrased)
 
heck, anthony and esav nailed right on the point.
Criminal profiling works. Racial profiling doesn't.
We have to understand that police (in North America in general) are not the presumption of innocence type. If they think you're it, they'll dig up the dirt for it. With that new "country" (read: racial/religious) profiling crap coming in, that's probably going to be much worse. There are enough cases where people were thought to be criminals, grilled by police and put to jail despite the lack of evidence. Even if I'm not in USA I don't think in the long one people would like it. And I certainly don't want ot see it happening in anywhere in the world.
Also, the point somewhere with the hazardous goods are a good one. I have a friend who had a toy keychain gun (doesn't fire anything, only make clicking sound and looks somewhat like a revolver type) taken by customes while his whole case full of fireworks (he was 12 at the time) went past. He could've damn well kill the whole f***ing plane.
I see the new "no sharp object" deal on airplanes are a minor inconvenience and acceptable thing to do. I do not see this new "country" profiling thing as such. I see it as discrimination.
 
Originally posted by drjones
I still do not understand how some of you don't see my point. If a black man, pick a height and weight; it doesn't matter, is announced on the news as being a murder/rape suspect, are the cops going to pull over mexicans, whites, and middle easterners JUST TO RISK NOT OFFENDING anyone, or being called "Racist?" I sure hope not. As was said, "not a lot of middle eastern men are terrorists, but a lot of terrorists are middle eastern men." WHY CAN SOME OF YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT???
Click to expand...
Here's the problem. They already knew what general type of people that have DONE the crime. And frankly, then the police has every right to do so and I definately would not think they're racist. Anyone who cries foul because of that should have their throat removed anyways IMO.
However, you're suggesting for the police to discriminate against a certain type of people just because they look who they are. I think that's just plain wrong. There's no way for any of us to figure (unless we witness it) that they've commited a crime or not, and to question and scrutinize people of that type is a) not effective in putting out crime and b) it's not correct to discriminate based on their look anyways. Should they keep an closer eye than usual? Sure, no problem with that. Should they question them much more often? Heck no, that's not going to even make a difference.
Most crime are reported to the police, and an increase of police presence doesn't do much. If just the fact that they're present doesn't make a difference, then why is scrutinizing them going to make a difference? If you're going to rob the bank and the police "scrutinize" you, are you going to tell them? Do you think after they "scrutinize" you would they be able to figure out what you're going to do and which bank you'll hit?
My point is it's not going to be terribly effective in the first place. The American government could do some things that would definately turn the situation, however I do not believe that they'll do so and I do not believe that a bulk of the people here (no offence) would accept it in the first place.
As for my statement about how police is generally not the presumption of innocence type, I learnt that fact from my criminology text book, and if there's any LEOs here who are oitherwise, please don't be offended. I'm only stating what I know.
 
calyth, to support and contradict what you wrote about police not being presumption-of-innocence types ... they're not supposed to be. Police are the eyes and ears of the public when it comes to patrolling and investigating. Suspicion is their stock in trade -- but they are not judge or jury, and they only watch, question, arrest, and call in the prosecutor.

Only then does the LAW part of LAW & ORDER take over. If the prosecutor, grand jury, petit jury, and judge find you guilty, then you're guilty (whether or not you really even "did it" !!!) but all the police do is report their suspicions and you to the courts. No matter how sure they are or how they treat you, they have no authority to declare you guilty of anything. That's why they are supposed to treat even the most obvious supect with professionalism, because no one in their custody can have been legitimately, officially declared guilty -- yet.
 
This country is infested with cowardly bootlickers who will gladly do just about anything to feel safe, and it makes me absolutely sick...You know exactly who you are.

I'm done with this thread, as it makes me sick to my stomach.
 
Those with weak constitutions are no more bona fide Americans than those who desire tighter safety measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top