Post #4,651
8/11/01 4:04:17 PM
|
more PC BS or racism?
[link|http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/friday/news_2.html|[link|http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/friday/news_2.html|http://www.austin36.../news_2.html]]
I would think that 2 black kids in a new F150 either had dads truck or it was stolen. That is called probability. If dad had money for a new f150 they would prolly have a cooler second car to drive. Since the cop's ex is black his current SO is black his kid is half black he might have some insight into the black culture (or scene for brandy) and know that something wasnt kosher. Move to flame when ready.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #4,664
8/11/01 7:01:30 PM
|
Illegal vs "wrong"?
From what I read, he DID engage in racial profiling.
He also violated a number of rules.
Girlfriend/wife's colour doesn't matter. He evaluated the situation based on the colour of the two kids.
Now, the tricky part. Racial profiling, while "wrong" does seem to be accurate, at least in this case.
|
Post #4,669
8/11/01 7:49:11 PM
|
so you CAN racially profile without being racist ]:->
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #4,671
8/11/01 8:05:16 PM
|
Close enough..
I read it that, by quoting his own internal chatter (We All bring every past event, association to - any next event.. D'Oh!) -- this guy talked himself FROM..
"Clearly these guys were behaving suspiciously and while the backup-light wasn't a crime - I was justified in bringing it to their attention. Their fleeing my legitimate stop: was their first illegal action.. (not the bad light)"
TO:
All the above.
Foot-in-mouth disease IMhO. Not 'racial profiling' by any stretch - simply employment of one's own life experience, in a field which is always *about* human psychology (or you'd die soon). Yes too, the 'not' is aided by the fact of his er partner preferences. Data always helps when yer lookin fer loopholes or just holes.
My Solomonic Decision\ufffd
|
Post #4,741
8/12/01 12:35:00 PM
|
Think probabilities.
Yes, it is possible.
It is also possible that those kids had a legal right to that truck.
Probabilities.
If this was a single instance of such activity, that would be one thing.
If there were a series of instances similar to this....... well, you can only hit "improbable" so many times before it becomes "probable".
Just for fun, let's alter the situation slightly. Suppose it was a black cop. Would he still be "racially profiling"? Or would he be "racist"? Or would he be "age'ist profiling" ("kids don't drive vehicles like that")?
"Zero tolerance"
They forbid the use of racial profiling (even when accurate) because it has too many ties to racism.
Who said: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"?
Another core value. Which do you believe in?
The guilty escape so that the innocent do not suffer the legal system.
-or-
The innocent suffer so that we may punish more of the guilty.
|
Post #4,776
8/12/01 7:42:01 PM
|
Agreed - that is the core. I retract my above
hasty, popular but trite opinion :[
And probably, cop or non-cop - one of the prime motivating internal attitudes which underlie the usual straw-homo debates employing liberal/conservative, believer/not-so-believer - merely putative "attitudes" about
whose ox? was gored.
Surely this concept also goes to the heart of 'intentionality' (from other threads we might recall). Not impossible to elicit from a one, but.. surely ripe for obfuscation - especially when defending er rationalizing one's actions taken.. afterwards.
(I assert that we always act on the emotional content - this is the fastest! of our responses (check it out) - later.. focus upon the intellectual 'logical' component of the entire matter. Few instant-events allow the luxury of the latter *while* in-progress)
I agree that by this crucial point: the 'benefit of doubt' accrues to the kids above since, "acting suspiciously" is simply YAN variation of the loitering statutes -- now universally decommissioned, I believe (?)
Of course, in actual life situations - even this litmus cannot address the complexity of circumstances. We still have to rely upon a certain level of expected candor in testimony - as in the intentions ? v.large Question.
Ergo: we'll continue to employ the also imperfect processes of judges, lawyers and witnesses (seemingly least reliable of all!) - indefinitely. Simply because we Know from all experience since birth:
Homo-sap will lie *especially to salvage ego*, then $ and a litany of other 'reasons'.
There is no escape from what, so often 'we are'.
{sigh}
Ashton
guilty of taking the snap-judgment, just like the cop
PS - we still don't know enough of the above events to fairly 'judge' the subtleties, I trust is obvious: since this 'case' seems to be aborted by the actions of the board sans the court process. So we won't ever have an 'examined judgment' of above reported events.
|
Post #5,094
8/14/01 2:53:20 PM
|
Racial profiling vs. social profiling
There *is* such thing as a black culture (although that may not be the best name for it). Perhaps he keyed in on other "social clues" besides raw skin color.
Perhaps if those kids dressed a certain way he would not have been suspicious.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #5,210
8/14/01 10:11:13 PM
|
waal there wuz straw in the back and cowpies on their boots
so I just let them go figgering they were on a beer run.
coulda happened that way.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #4,772
8/12/01 7:02:22 PM
|
Government and prejudice
Prejudice is simple. It means, "pre-judging". For instance this is a case of prejudice, the cop judged the situation without full facts.
Our society (at least the PC parts of it) has given prejudice an extremely ugly label. There are good reasons for this, but it unfortunately obscures any attempt at honest discussion.
Prejudice is frequently ugly. I don't think I need to expand on that truism.
Prejudice is also necessary. The fact is that real people in the real world have to make a lot of judgements. We seldom have complete information. Frequently the cost of getting complete information is honestly not worth the effort of obtaining it. You don't have time to do a complete rundown on every person approaching you on the street. You can be held up quite effectively by a petite female with a gun. (Don't get on Slugbug's bad side!) A huge black bum might have a heart of gold. But if one tries to stop you on the street and ask a question of you, you would be an idiot to react the same way.
However if everyone in society reacts the same way, this leads to self-fulfilling prophecies. Blacks are distrusted consistently. So they don't get jobs. So a small portion of them strike back and turn to crime. Which gives people good reason to be wary of random blacks. And so it goes.
IMHO the proper role of government is to deal with aspects of life where people's self-interest would lead to the detriment of society as a whole. Prejudice is one such case. For instance, take this case. Was the police officer's reasoning wrong? No. But when you have police like that on the street, what happens to the black guy who legitimately makes a nice wad (which people that age sometimes do do through music, movies, etc), and buys himself the truck he always wanted? Why that kid is going to get pulled over again, and again, and again...
Is this case stupid? Yeah. It is. Totally moronic. No doubt about it.
But in the larger scheme of things I am not at all sure it is that bad.
Cheers,
Ben
ObRandomPS: Did you know that Miranda's murder was never solved? You see the prime suspect exercised his right to keep silent...
|
Post #4,779
8/12/01 8:18:36 PM
|
Heh.. in science also
we 'pre-judge' ;-) just to begin..
That is, "random fact gathering" obviously produces - huge piles of unsorted random factoids. I believe we call that, 'noise'? (or infotainment, currently)
So one begins from an extrapolation of what we suppose 'is known to date'. Usually the most interesting next question is about the what-if (previous ideas are flawed). Not much interest in measuring a new value for g in Pasadena, this year.
Induction/deduction, integration/differentiation and sideways with the true magicians. We still need a framework for hanging our work in progress. Same with the cop, only.. you can verify IF 'small-g has changed*'.
With humans, you never really Know.. in the end. Just recall Rashomon for every crime scene.
Is the above cop story just - a fable for all our times?
A.
* 'Course too - big-G may.. be changing. Why that would affect entire view of the 'expansion' of the universe! Could we determine that - from within the universe box?
|
Post #4,823
8/12/01 11:58:03 PM
|
It is sometimes unavoidable.
A few days ago, there were reports on the TV news of young men of middle eastern appearance trying to rape young women of anglo-celtic appearance. In broad daylight. Amongst other things, this teaches the community at large that youths of middle eastern appearance should be avoided, if you're a young woman of anglo-celtic appearance. It's like the black problems that someone mentioned: before too long, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fortunately, and to their credit, Lebanese and Arab community leaders have taken the initiative to try to train out of their young people some of the societal behaviour that has to stay in the Old Country. They nearly said so in the same news reports. It seems that rather than object to the "racial profiling", they've realized they have to fight the bad behaviour that engenders said profiling.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #5,167
8/14/01 5:03:43 PM
|
Seems natural
The officer spotted an incongruity based on his experience. Skin color may have been part of the pattern of incongruity.
Dress could also have been such. If you saw an unwashed person wrapped in a blanket at the wheel of a shiny sports car I think you'd be inclined to call the cops.
Pattern recognition. Thats all it is.
Legislation that requires portions of patterns to be disregarded reduce effectiveness of the technique.
Stopping them to point out a damaged light is OK. Should be done regardless of pattern. It raised a new pattern - people who refuse to stop or run are usually lawbreakers (and reflexively - become lawbreakers by refusing to stop).
PC BS - thats what it is.
|
