Tell Me Why Profiling is WRONG and a BAD Law Enforcement Policy???

[thereisnospoon]

I know the PC response, not all black people are criminals, not all Hispanics are illegals, not all Muslims are terrorists etc. and they have some legitimacy, but it's doesn't defute the fact that profiling is necessary.

For instances, ask any Chicago Cop, if he sees a car full of white kids near Humbolt Park, he pulls them over immediately, because they are on their way to purchase drugs or have purchased drugs.

I talked to a cop buddy of mine who works in a bad part of the city. Nearly all black. Whites get pulled over immediately (doesn't matter how many in the car). A car full of blacks gets pulled over, because in his experience, 9 out of 10 times, he finds things above weed possession.

Now take a black youth in a white neighborhood looking like a thug, why wouldn't a cop or NEIGHBORHOOD watch personal view this person as suspicious. They don't need to arrest him, but they could question him. Heck even a thuggish or drug addict looking white person should be questioned!

Profiling is done for serial killers. First thing they profile is a middle aged white guy and then go from there.

Sorry Muslims, but you are the majority of terrorists in the WORLD at the moment, you should be viewed with extra scrutiny in terrorist cases and vulnerable areas.

Profiling isn't without it's victims, but it's a necessary evil in protecting one's community and law enforcement!

It's not a "PC" response..it's a Citizen response.

No American Citizen should be automatically suspected of criminal activity based on what they look like.

It's a violation of our civil liberties.

When people talk about institutional racism, this is a prime example of it.

Of course not to all of your points.
The problem arises when the profiling is turned into a buzz word for institutional racism.
If the police were prohibited from creating a profile as a means to an investigation, then there literally would have to be a cop on every street corner. The only way a cop could make an arrest is if they witnessed every violation of the law for which they made an arrest. That's not practical.

 

[thereisnospoon]

My biggest problem is that profiling always leads to the harassment of innocent citizens.

Cops need probable cause and skin color, bumper stickers, wardrobe choices etc are not probable cause

Can you expand on that..
Because I will let you know that how one treats or decorates their vehicle is fair game. So is the type of vehicle.
Let's use the bumper sticker.
If I am a police officer and I am trailing a car with bumper sticker that has a pot leaf and advocates the legalization of MJ. The car is weaving across the center line. Or stops at green lights. You absolutely bet oyur last dollar I am going to focus on the sticker. It tells me that this person is more likely to be under the influence of MJ. He gets pulled over. No court in the land will rule that stop was due to an illegal profiling of the suspect.
Or this.....I see a vehicle full of white kids in a known drug neighborhood abruptly pull away from the curb but not in pulling off break any traffic laws. Those kids do not belong there. They are more likely than not have just purchased narcotics. I am stopping that vehicle.
Or this...it's dark. I am working a low income neighborhood that has had problems with home invasions. I see a vehicle on a residential street moving very slowly, well under the speed limit. In my mind the people are casing the homes for a possible break in. I am stopping that vehicle to ask questions. any violation caught as a result of that stop is legal.
One of the occupants of the vehicle files a civil rights complaint claiming the vehicle was stopped "just because' the occupants were ( name of minority group)....The complainant loses that case.

So answer this...Is there a hard and fast definition of 'illegal' profiling which can be applied to EVERY case?

 

[Flopper]

Illegal profiling or bias based profiling is simply counterproductive. It's not good police work. Law enforcement is quite aware of this and for the most part strictly adheres to the guidelines of legal profiling.

For years, police practiced biased based profiling which turned the community against them. They did this because it was easy and secondly it gave the appearance that they were actually doing something about a crime. In really, it has not been very effective but worst yet, it turned the community against the police. As police drove through black areas grabbing up young black kids off the streets for questioning, the police in the eyes of the community became no better than the criminals they pursued and effective law enforcement became all but impossible. This is starting to change but it will take years before these communities develop trust in the police.

 

[dblack]

My biggest problem is that profiling always leads to the harassment of innocent citizens.

Cops need probable cause and skin color, bumper stickers, wardrobe choices etc are not probable cause

Can you expand on that..
Because I will let you know that how one treats or decorates their vehicle is fair game. So is the type of vehicle.
Let's use the bumper sticker.
If I am a police officer and I am trailing a car with bumper sticker that has a pot leaf and advocates the legalization of MJ. The car is weaving across the center line. Or stops at green lights. You absolutely bet oyur last dollar I am going to focus on the sticker. It tells me that this person is more likely to be under the influence of MJ. He gets pulled over. No court in the land will rule that stop was due to an illegal profiling of the suspect.
Or this.....I see a vehicle full of white kids in a known drug neighborhood abruptly pull away from the curb but not in pulling off break any traffic laws. Those kids do not belong there. They are more likely than not have just purchased narcotics. I am stopping that vehicle.
Or this...it's dark. I am working a low income neighborhood that has had problems with home invasions. I see a vehicle on a residential street moving very slowly, well under the speed limit. In my mind the people are casing the homes for a possible break in. I am stopping that vehicle to ask questions. any violation caught as a result of that stop is legal.
One of the occupants of the vehicle files a civil rights complaint claiming the vehicle was stopped "just because' the occupants were ( name of minority group)....The complainant loses that case.

So answer this...Is there a hard and fast definition of 'illegal' profiling which can be applied to EVERY case?

I don't know all the technical ins-and-outs of the actual laws pertaining to this, but in my view each case you describe above was justified because there were actual reasons to suspect a crime had been committed or was being planned. What I would hope would be considered illegal profiling are the situations where the officer is using stereotypes as the sole or primary justification for searching or detaining someone in lieu of actual evidence.

This all comes down to a simple respect for the principle of presumed innocence. Unfortunately, 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' seems to new premise of government.

 

[Flopper]

My biggest problem is that profiling always leads to the harassment of innocent citizens.

Cops need probable cause and skin color, bumper stickers, wardrobe choices etc are not probable cause

Can you expand on that..
Because I will let you know that how one treats or decorates their vehicle is fair game. So is the type of vehicle.
Let's use the bumper sticker.
If I am a police officer and I am trailing a car with bumper sticker that has a pot leaf and advocates the legalization of MJ. The car is weaving across the center line. Or stops at green lights. You absolutely bet oyur last dollar I am going to focus on the sticker. It tells me that this person is more likely to be under the influence of MJ. He gets pulled over. No court in the land will rule that stop was due to an illegal profiling of the suspect.
Or this.....I see a vehicle full of white kids in a known drug neighborhood abruptly pull away from the curb but not in pulling off break any traffic laws. Those kids do not belong there. They are more likely than not have just purchased narcotics. I am stopping that vehicle.
Or this...it's dark. I am working a low income neighborhood that has had problems with home invasions. I see a vehicle on a residential street moving very slowly, well under the speed limit. In my mind the people are casing the homes for a possible break in. I am stopping that vehicle to ask questions. any violation caught as a result of that stop is legal.
One of the occupants of the vehicle files a civil rights complaint claiming the vehicle was stopped "just because' the occupants were ( name of minority group)....The complainant loses that case.

So answer this...Is there a hard and fast definition of 'illegal' profiling which can be applied to EVERY case?

I don't know all the technical ins-and-outs of the actual laws pertaining to this, but in my view each case you describe above was justified because there were actual reasons to suspect a crime had been committed or was being planned. What I would hope would be considered illegal profiling are the situations where the officer is using stereotypes as the sole or primary justification for searching or detaining someone in lieu of actual evidence.

This all comes down to a simple respect for the principle of presumed innocence. Unfortunately, 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' seems to new premise of government.

Definitely the 1st and 3rd example are legal profiling. The 2nd is questionable because the reason you are stopping them is because they are white. However, if the issue is simply to warn them about the neighborhood, that want be a problem. However, if the reason is to make a drug bust, you will probably need better justification. I doubt that the courts would consider a white person being in a black neighborhood suspicious behavior but I guess that depends on the court and the circumstances.

Yes, their are guidelines. I don't remember them exactly but basically, you can not stop a person based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin. There must be another reason such as suspicious behavior, the description of a perp and no just being black is not sufficient, or any other real evidence that would be reasonable justification for a stop. Whenever a police office makes an arrest, he has to be ready to supply a legal reason to the prosecutor for the stop.

Studies show that police officers who follow the guidelines for legal profiling may end up with less arrests but will have more convictions and in the long run, and that's what counts.

 

[bucs90]

So, you'd rather cops just roust anyone they don't like 'cause they don't like the way they look? (Isn't this fun? We can both play the strawman game!)

If you'd like to address what I actually said, that would be cool.

No, I wouldnt rather have that. I'd rather they do the following:

Abide by Terry vs Ohio, which says a cop must have a minimum of "reasonable suspicion" that crime MAY have been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, and the person MAY be involved......based on facts and circumstances that would make a "reasonable person" feel or think the same way.......in order to conduct a "Terry Stop", a legal detention of a person based on the above, even if it is determined that the crime had, in fact, not occurred, or this person was not involved. Thats why sometimes, circumstances cause innocent people to get stopped for a few minutes.

Then abide by Graham vs Connor with regards to reasonable an necessary force based on facts or circumstances an officer knows or should know.

Then apply those through the Broken Windows Theory, a tried and true theory of law enforcement which has helped crime reach all time lows over the past 20 years.



See? Thats what me, with 8 years of experience working some of Atlanta's worst areas, can tell you, who has absolutely no experience with this topic, about how real police work happens to keep your ass safe at night while you type on USMB about how cops "should" or "could" do their jobs.

You do realize the Terry Case gave police officers a TON more lattitude on stopping individuals!

Yep. Notice the drastic drop in crime since then? Theres a reason.

So what does "Terry" mean to me? Simple.

1997, South Atlanta area I patrolled was having a streak of armed robberies of gas stations. Reports were always similar, 2 black males driving a navy sedan, maybe a Caddy. I was patrolling. Saw a Navy blue Caddy just kinda roaming a parking lot near a gas station, 2 black male drivers. They backed into a parking spot, cut their lights, and just watched.

REASONABLE SUSPICION? Yep. According to Terry v. Ohio, it gave me a right to go check it out. I did. Found two guns, two ski masks, and 1 of the 2 guys got convicted of 5 of the past robberies. One of my best "catches" in 8 years.

All thanks to "Terry", because without it, I had absolutely no other legal way to stop that car.

But for every 1 great catch like that, there are 100 other stops for something that looks suspicious, but ends up being nothing.

People want that 1 caught.
But they wont tolerate the 100 inconvenienced.

You cant have one without the other. Get over it.

 

[bucs90]

Cops who racially profile are just lazy cops.

Cops have all the tools in the world, legally and physically, to use Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause to catch the bad guys. Lazy cops profile. Great cops read the crime log, put circumstances together, develop articulable reasonable suspicion or PC, and make the arrests.

Its the difference between picking the right rod and reel, the right bait, the right water, right time, right everything...........vs just dropping dynamite in the pond and picking out what you get.

 

[dblack]

Yes, their are guidelines. I don't remember them exactly but basically, you can not stop a person based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin. There must be another reason such as suspicious behavior, the description of a perp and no just being black is not sufficient, or any other real evidence that would be reasonable justification for a stop. Whenever a police office makes an arrest, he has to be ready to supply a legal reason to the prosecutor for the stop.

Is it really limited to the 'protected classes' nonsense? (race, color, religion, sex,*etc ...) If so, that's horrible in its own right. A cop should be required to have a reason to suspect something is actually happening, not just a hunch based on preconceived notions about certain 'types' of people. All of us should have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure - not just protected classes.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, their are guidelines. I don't remember them exactly but basically, you can not stop a person based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin. There must be another reason such as suspicious behavior, the description of a perp and no just being black is not sufficient, or any other real evidence that would be reasonable justification for a stop. Whenever a police office makes an arrest, he has to be ready to supply a legal reason to the prosecutor for the stop.

Is it really limited to the 'protected classes' nonsense? (race, color, religion, sex,*etc ...) If so, that's horrible in its own right. A cop should be required to have a reason to suspect something is actually happening, not just a hunch based on preconceived notions about certain 'types' of people. All of us should have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure - not just protected classes.

No. In addition to obeying civil rights laws, the police are also limited by your constitutional rights.

Civil rights protection provided by the civil rights act and other laws require equal treatment under the law without regard to race, religion, or national origin. In some instances sex is also included in this "special group". Keep in mind that everyone is a member of these "special groups" and is afforded the protection of these laws.

Police always have the power to approach persons and ask them questions. If the officer interferes with your liberty to move about, he or she should first have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a crime. The officer would need to support this suspicion later (should the matter wind up in court) by referring to specific facts that prompted the suspicion. This protection comes from the 4th amendment. Now if the officer's suspicions on which he acted is based solely on the person's race then he is not only in violation of the 4th amendment but also civil rights laws.

 

[dblack]

Yes, their are guidelines. I don't remember them exactly but basically, you can not stop a person based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin. There must be another reason such as suspicious behavior, the description of a perp and no just being black is not sufficient, or any other real evidence that would be reasonable justification for a stop. Whenever a police office makes an arrest, he has to be ready to supply a legal reason to the prosecutor for the stop.

Is it really limited to the 'protected classes' nonsense? (race, color, religion, sex,*etc ...) If so, that's horrible in its own right. A cop should be required to have a reason to suspect something is actually happening, not just a hunch based on preconceived notions about certain 'types' of people. All of us should have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure - not just protected classes.

No. In addition to obeying civil rights laws, the police are also limited by your constitutional rights.

Civil rights protection provided by the civil rights act and other laws require equal treatment under the law without regard to race, religion, or national origin. In some instances sex is also included in this "special group". Keep in mind that everyone is a member of these "special groups" and is afforded the protection of these laws.

Police always have the power to approach persons and ask them questions. If the officer interferes with your liberty to move about, he or she should first have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a crime. The officer would need to support this suspicion later (should the matter wind up in court) by referring to specific facts that prompted the suspicion. This protection comes from the 4th amendment. Now if the officer's suspicions on which he acted is based solely on the person's race then he is not only in violation of the 4th amendment but also civil rights laws.

Thanks for the clarification. The civil rights stipulations seem superfluous then, but that's a whole 'nother debate ....

 

[Flopper]

Is it really limited to the 'protected classes' nonsense? (race, color, religion, sex,*etc ...) If so, that's horrible in its own right. A cop should be required to have a reason to suspect something is actually happening, not just a hunch based on preconceived notions about certain 'types' of people. All of us should have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure - not just protected classes.

No. In addition to obeying civil rights laws, the police are also limited by your constitutional rights.

Civil rights protection provided by the civil rights act and other laws require equal treatment under the law without regard to race, religion, or national origin. In some instances sex is also included in this "special group". Keep in mind that everyone is a member of these "special groups" and is afforded the protection of these laws.

Police always have the power to approach persons and ask them questions. If the officer interferes with your liberty to move about, he or she should first have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a crime. The officer would need to support this suspicion later (should the matter wind up in court) by referring to specific facts that prompted the suspicion. This protection comes from the 4th amendment. Now if the officer's suspicions on which he acted is based solely on the person's race then he is not only in violation of the 4th amendment but also civil rights laws.

Thanks for the clarification. The civil rights stipulations seem superfluous then, but that's a whole 'nother debate ....

They certainly should be superfluous.

 

[BobPlumb]

No. In addition to obeying civil rights laws, the police are also limited by your constitutional rights.

Civil rights protection provided by the civil rights act and other laws require equal treatment under the law without regard to race, religion, or national origin. In some instances sex is also included in this "special group". Keep in mind that everyone is a member of these "special groups" and is afforded the protection of these laws.

Police always have the power to approach persons and ask them questions. If the officer interferes with your liberty to move about, he or she should first have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a crime. The officer would need to support this suspicion later (should the matter wind up in court) by referring to specific facts that prompted the suspicion. This protection comes from the 4th amendment. Now if the officer's suspicions on which he acted is based solely on the person's race then he is not only in violation of the 4th amendment but also civil rights laws.

Thanks for the clarification. The civil rights stipulations seem superfluous then, but that's a whole 'nother debate ....

They certainly should be superfluous.

Do private citizens also have the right to approach people and ask them questions?

 

[Flopper]

Thanks for the clarification. The civil rights stipulations seem superfluous then, but that's a whole 'nother debate ....

They certainly should be superfluous.

Do private citizens also have the right to approach people and ask them questions?

They have the freedom to do so.

 

[Meathead]

They certainly should be superfluous.

Do private citizens also have the right to approach people and ask them questions?

They have the freedom to do so.

Martin's right to swing his fist ended where Zimmerman's nose began. He didn't stop there and now the punk is now dead and it's his fault.

 

[Flopper]

Do private citizens also have the right to approach people and ask them questions?

They have the freedom to do so.

Martin's right to swing his fist ended where Zimmerman's nose began. He didn't stop there and now the punk is now dead and it's his fault.

Just swinging your fist at someone is considered an assault which is crime.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thanks for the clarification. The civil rights stipulations seem superfluous then, but that's a whole 'nother debate ....

They certainly should be superfluous.

Do private citizens also have the right to approach people and ask them questions?

What do you think?

 

[Flopper]

They certainly should be superfluous.

Do private citizens also have the right to approach people and ask them questions?

What do you think?

Yes, 1st amendment
You have the right to ask anybody, any question you choose and they the right to ignore you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Profiling is yet another example of our general shift away from equal rights and presumption of innocence, toward a police state where people are monitored and controlled as a matter of course; not because there is evidence of wrongdoing, but simply to 'keep an eye' on them.

So you'd rather cops put on a blindfold, and ONLY act when the crime has already occurred?

So, you'd rather cops just roust anyone they don't like 'cause they don't like the way they look? (Isn't this fun? We can both play the strawman game!)

If you'd like to address what I actually said, that would be cool.

The all or nothing straw man argument is not going to fly here. Stow it.
Use a little fucking common sense before issuing knee jerk replies.
You know God damned well what Bucs 90 is referring to. And your ignorance of police work and subsequent reply to his post is offensive to the intelligence of most normal people.

 

[dblack]

So you'd rather cops put on a blindfold, and ONLY act when the crime has already occurred?

So, you'd rather cops just roust anyone they don't like 'cause they don't like the way they look? (Isn't this fun? We can both play the strawman game!)

If you'd like to address what I actually said, that would be cool.

The all or nothing straw man argument is not going to fly here. Stow it.
Use a little fucking common sense before issuing knee jerk replies.

I was mocking the all-or-nothing strawman argument. You really didn't get that?

 

[AlexanderIV]

Yes, profiling is a necessary and important tool for law enforcement to utilize to do their jobs; however, there is no hard evidence to say that it is effective, justified, or fair to base it on race. Israel trains its personnel to profile individuals based on outward behavioral indicators (nervousness,faulty stories, etc.), a technique the TSA has tried to adopt, in order to spot would-be criminals in public. With extensive training, this can be a very effective way to productively profile a person and determine if further investigation is required.

Racial profiling is anything but effective. Crime rates and drug levels (both using and selling) are roughly equal between all races; however, the dangerous stereotype of the "black criminal" continues with disastrous consequences. This bias has resulted in a hyperfocus of unjustified law enforcement activity around African Americans (such as pretext stops by cops, unnecessary stop and frisk laws, etc. ) and a massive racial disparity in incarceration levels (if you have any doubts, look to Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow). Racial profiling hasn't made us any safer, but it has had a tremendously negative effective on African American communities.