Why I Have Trouble Taking BLM Seriously

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2016, 11:46 PM)Beaker Wrote:  I disagree with law enforcement not being able to profile a target demographic....even if they are not a minority group.

Personally I have  big problem with police "targeting" any innocent people.

Wouldn't they be more likely to catch criminals if they just "targeted" criminals?

Do you think police should have to have warrants for searches or probable cause for stops?  Or do you think they should just be able to search anyone or anyplace they want to at any time?  Do you have any idea why the Constitution prohibits such behavior?

[Beaker]

(10-17-2016, 11:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wouldn't they be more likely to catch criminals if they just "targeted" criminals?

Sure...just check the profile and go after those individuals instead of the little old ladies you have to stop just to be "fair". Unless the little old ladies are your target demographic.

[Beaker]

(10-17-2016, 11:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

This fundamental lack of distinction goes a long way to explaining you views on the subject.

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2016, 12:01 AM)Beaker Wrote: Sure...just check the profile and go after those individuals instead of the little old ladies you have to stop just to be "fair". Unless the little old ladies are your target demographic.

No matter what "profile" you use you are going to target some innocent people.   What "target demographic" only includes criminals?  Blacks? Muslims?

My idea is to just go after people when the police actually have some evidence that they are involved in criminal activity.

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2016, 12:07 AM)Beaker Wrote: This fundamental lack of distinction goes a long way to explaining you views on the subject.

There is no lack of distinction.

I am talking about the crime of possession of illegal drugs.

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2016, 12:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: My idea is to just go after people when the police actually have some evidence that they are involved in criminal activity.

So you prefer a reactive approach over a proactive approach. 

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2016, 12:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you prefer a reactive approach over a proactive approach. 

I agree with proactive tactics that do not target individuals.  Police should be visible and patrol, but they should not interfere with any persons liberty without some evidence that the person is involved in criminal activity.


The exception is for security searches that apply to every person equally.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2016, 12:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree with proactive tactics that do not target individuals.  Police should be visible and patrol, but they should not interfere with any persons liberty without some evidence that the person is involved in criminal activity.


The exception is for security searches that apply to every person equally.  

A few years ago we had a bank robbery here. I was out on my Motorcycle and I was stopped by Police because I fit the description of the robber. Was I being profiled?

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2016, 10:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: A few years ago we had a bank robbery here. I was out on my Motorcycle and I was stopped by Police because I fit the description of the robber. Was I being profiled?

No.  You fit the specific description of a specific criminal who committed a specific crime.  

That is nothing like stopping a person without any evidence of any crime being committed.

[Aquapod770]

(10-18-2016, 10:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: A few years ago we had a bank robbery here. I was out on my Motorcycle and I was stopped by Police because I fit the description of the robber. Was I being profiled?

No. You're not black 

[Beaker]

(10-18-2016, 12:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree with proactive tactics that do not target individuals.  Police should be visible and patrol, but they should not interfere with any persons liberty without some evidence that the person is involved in criminal activity.


The exception is for security searches that apply to every person equally.  

My original question was what is so terrible about profiling? The inconvenience? I do not necessarily agree with stopping or detaining anyone randomly, like being pulled over simply for the color of your skin. But if I were stopped for another offense, such as speeding, or reckless driving, and fit the profile of a demographic of people who are the ones most likely committing a certain crime, why should I not get some extra scrutiny to make sure something is not slipping by?

[Beaker]

(10-17-2016, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But the same percentage of black people and white people use illegal drugs.  So you do disagree with targeting minorities in "stop and frisk" or motor vehicle stops, correct? 

(10-18-2016, 12:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no lack of distinction.

I am talking about the crime of possession of illegal drugs.

I don't think using and possessing are the same things. 

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2016, 05:37 PM)Beaker Wrote:  But if I were stopped for another offense, such as speeding, or reckless driving, and fit the profile of a demographic of people who are the ones most likely committing a certain crime, why should I not get some extra scrutiny to make sure something is not slipping by?

Because you might be in a hurry to pick up your kids or get to work.

I am starting to think that you are just trolling here.  You can't seriously be arguing that people are never inconvenienced or harmed when police detain them without some reasonable suspicion.  

Do you think police should be able to search your house whenever they want without a warrant?  If not then why?

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2016, 05:42 PM)Beaker Wrote: I don't think using and possessing are the same things. 

Then post the numbers to prove your point.

What group of people are you claiming possess illegal drugs but don't use them?  Whites?  Blacks?

[Beaker]

(10-19-2016, 09:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then post the numbers to prove your point.

What group of people are you claiming possess illegal drugs but don't use them?  Whites?  Blacks?

I am not arguing statistics about who uses illegal drugs. I am questioning why it is bad to direct limited resources towards demographics (and that doesn't have to mean a minority group) who may commit larger or more dangerous crimes..

You can possess with intent to distribute....drug dealer/mule...usually larger amounts of illegal drugs in their possession.
You can possess for your own personal use...usually small amounts in their possession.

My point was that if the profile for mules/dealers was a certain demographic, then why not check them out when stopped for another offense?

You said blacks and whites use equally. I don't think people should be stopped randomly because they think they may possess a joint. But if they think they may possess a couple kilos, and fit the profile of people who typically deal or carry large amounts, then I don't have a problem with them being inconvenienced for a bit.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2016, 05:44 PM)Beaker Wrote:  I don't have a problem with them being inconvenienced for a bit.

That's pretty big of you.

You know what Beaker.  You belong to the most dangerous, violent, criminal demographic in the United States.   You are a man.  The difference between the crime rate of theft and violence is larger between men and women than between any different races.

Therefore you should be searched for weapons whenever police want to "stop and frisk" you.  Your home should be subjest to search for stolen property any time the police want. How do you feel about that? 

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2016, 05:44 PM)Beaker Wrote: My point was that if the profile for mules/dealers was a certain demographic, then why not check them out when stopped for another offense?

Because you are violating the rights of innocent people.

Why do you hate our Constitution?

[*Nately120*]

(10-18-2016, 05:37 PM)Beaker Wrote: My original question was what is so terrible about profiling? The inconvenience? I do not necessarily agree with stopping or detaining anyone randomly, like being pulled over simply for the color of your skin. But if I were stopped for another offense, such as speeding, or reckless driving, and fit the profile of a demographic of people who are the ones most likely committing a certain crime, why should I not get some extra scrutiny to make sure something is not slipping by?

On the one hand, I agree that profiling is sort of handy.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you are a white male and most sex offenders are white males and I'll be damned if I'm going to risk agreeing with a sex offender.  Sorry, just playing it safe here. Also, stay the hell away from high school sporting events, you possible baby raper, you!

[Beaker]

(10-19-2016, 09:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because you are violating the rights of innocent people.

Once again, if they are already being stopped for some other violation (in which case they may not be innocent), and they fit a profile, why is it bad to check them out further? 

[Beaker]

(10-19-2016, 10:03 PM)Nately120 Wrote: On the one hand, I agree that profiling is sort of handy.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you are a white male and most sex offenders are white males and I'll be damned if I'm going to risk agreeing with a sex offender.  Sorry, just playing it safe here.  Also, stay the hell away from high school sporting events, you possible baby raper, you!

So you going with sex offender or pedophile?