Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Example #1. In Portland statistics show (if one believes the local paper- and that can be hard to do) we are the #1 city for promoting sex slavery of minors. About 5-7% of the population is black, yet 95% of pimps are black. A few years ago the police wanted to curb the child sex slave trade here so they started arresting and prosecuting pimps. The vast majority were black. The ACLU swept in and stated that by arresting more than 7% black pimps (keeping with the fact no more than7% of Portlanders are black) it was racial profiling and the city bowed and stopped arresting pimps. As a result the child sex slave industry continues to bloom here.
.
They need sting operations and undercover work to shut it down and to publicly announce that they are going after the johns.
We all racial profile. I do anyway. I don't go through black neighborhoods after dark. It's not because they're black but because they're dangerous. Almost all crime occurs in them. If they weren't dangerous I would go through them.
I given up going to a couple of restaurants in winter because it's dark at dinner time and they are in black neighborhoods. I've seen open drug dealing on the way to one and a black shot two cops a block away from the other.
If this is profiling so be it. Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.
It can be right and it can save lives, if you see a group of Muslim men get on a flight without luggage and looking nervous then they should be watched. We are getting too politically correct and fearful of offending people and it's endangering us and the people who want to harm us know it and try to take advantage of it.
The tone of this post is interesting. For most people, I would assume that the appeals to disparate impact noted and criticized here are obviously misguided and absurd. Is this not the case in Portland, Oregon? Are people there generally so invested in their egalitarian extremism that you would need to broach the topic in this way? Are there people who actually believe that it is wrong to make disproportionate arrests of blacks for prostitution and theft, or Hispanics for drunk driving?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET
First, a disclaimer and adisclosure. I am not trying to start a race or gender debate for the sake of doing so. Also, so everyone knows, I have been arrested in a case of mistaken identity and while it wrecked my evening, I held/hold no grudges against the police as they were only doing their job. These things do happen and always will.
So this debate has to do with racial profiling and crime. Is it right and how far can it/should it go?
Some examples…
Example #1. In Portland statistics show (if one believes the local paper- and that can be hard to do) we are the #1 city for promoting sex slavery of minors. About 5-7% of the population is black, yet 95% of pimps are black. A few years ago the police wanted to curb the child sex slave trade here so they started arresting and prosecuting pimps. The vast majority were black. The ACLU swept in and stated that by arresting more than 7% black pimps (keeping with the fact no more than7% of Portlanders are black) it was racial profiling and the city bowed and stopped arresting pimps. As a result the child sex slave industry continues to bloom here.
Example #2. Portland has a substantially huge homeless population and we have specially trained transient police to deal with crimes and other issues involving homeless. Recently, awell known homeless man (well known to the local police) was seen riding a $1,500 bicycle (bicycle theft here is considered such a problem, the police have created a special task force to deal with it- No, I am not joking) and sothey felt it was reasonable cause to stop him and inquire if the bike was stolen or how he got it. It was stolen and he was arrested. However, it was determined they "profiled" him and he went free.
Example #3. In some areas of Oregon meth manufacturing/sales and drunken driving arrests are nearly 90%hispanics. As a result, hispanics are pulled over more for very minor infractions to see if they are possibly driving intoxicated and/or carrying meth. It was so effective, that a lot of the meth operations moved to Yakima,WA. However, it has been determined it was racial profiling even though it took a serious chunk of illegal drug manufacturing and drunken driving away from that area.
So this begs the question of just how far should police be able to go to stop crime or apprehend criminals to protect others?
I do understand that purists feel every single person should be treated as a total individual and all are presumed innocent and that police should only respond to known crimes…And those are great talking points.
On the other hand, do the police not have the right to deter crime and to take various actions based on credible presumed activities to protect the innocent from harm?
Is there a balancing point?
As for me, IN GENERAL, Ihave no issues with aggressive law enforcement (except for the obvious exceptions of rogue policemen we can all agree on blah blah blah, and yes there are a few dirty policemen out there and we all get that blah blah blah) and to be frank there's a reason we have sterotypes and generalizations- because they have a lot of truth to them. So if there is a fair reason to profile a bit todeter crimes and appropriately arrest criminals then I have no issues with it.
First, a disclaimer and adisclosure. I am not trying to start a race or gender debate for the sake of doing so. Also, so everyone knows, I have been arrested in a case of mistaken identity and while it wrecked my evening, I held/hold no grudges against the police as they were only doing their job. These things do happen and always will.
So this debate has to do with racial profiling and crime. Is it right and how far can it/should it go?
Some examples…
Example #1. In Portland statistics show (if one believes the local paper- and that can be hard to do) we are the #1 city for promoting sex slavery of minors. About 5-7% of the population is black, yet 95% of pimps are black. A few years ago the police wanted to curb the child sex slave trade here so they started arresting and prosecuting pimps. The vast majority were black. The ACLU swept in and stated that by arresting more than 7% black pimps (keeping with the fact no more than7% of Portlanders are black) it was racial profiling and the city bowed and stopped arresting pimps. As a result the child sex slave industry continues to bloom here.
Example #2. Portland has a substantially huge homeless population and we have specially trained transient police to deal with crimes and other issues involving homeless. Recently, awell known homeless man (well known to the local police) was seen riding a $1,500 bicycle (bicycle theft here is considered such a problem, the police have created a special task force to deal with it- No, I am not joking) and sothey felt it was reasonable cause to stop him and inquire if the bike was stolen or how he got it. It was stolen and he was arrested. However, it was determined they "profiled" him and he went free.
Example #3. In some areas of Oregon meth manufacturing/sales and drunken driving arrests are nearly 90%hispanics. As a result, hispanics are pulled over more for very minor infractions to see if they are possibly driving intoxicated and/or carrying meth. It was so effective, that a lot of the meth operations moved to Yakima,WA. However, it has been determined it was racial profiling even though it took a serious chunk of illegal drug manufacturing and drunken driving away from that area.
So this begs the question of just how far should police be able to go to stop crime or apprehend criminals to protect others?
I do understand that purists feel every single person should be treated as a total individual and all are presumed innocent and that police should only respond to known crimes…And those are great talking points.
On the other hand, do the police not have the right to deter crime and to take various actions based on credible presumed activities to protect the innocent from harm?
Is there a balancing point?
As for me, IN GENERAL, Ihave no issues with aggressive law enforcement (except for the obvious exceptions of rogue policemen we can all agree on blah blah blah, and yes there are a few dirty policemen out there and we all get that blah blah blah) and to be frank there's a reason we have sterotypes and generalizations- because they have a lot of truth to them. So if there is a fair reason to profile a bit todeter crimes and appropriately arrest criminals then I have no issues with it.
Decades Proven technique by security forces who have to deal with considerable threats. Certainly used perhaps for generations by beat cops and detectives only codified as Policing has been turned into a science. Part and parcel of law enforcement tools such as community policing. The concept being to act proactive rather than reactively.[policing]
For some reason has acquired a poor reputation when a few law abiding persons have been subjected to its effects as in impromptu interrogation or worse.
Profiling is a good idea. Race, though, is only one part of the equation.
What needs to be discussed is what actions should be taken or not taken once the profile is detected.
Of course profiling is done all the time and reaps big dividends for law enforcement individuals who are really good at it. Clumsily done it creates more problems than it solves.
I feel like profiling is perfectly fine but shouldn't be based on race and more or less the body language and the way the person is presenting him or herself. I am much more afraid of a white guy wearing a biker vest and tats all over the place looking super pissed than I am a mild temperament black guy or middle eastern guy dressed in average clothes. I know many people say you shouldn't be profiled for the way you dress but I completely disagree. Sure not everyone who dresses a certain way is actually fulfilling whatever stereotype it's portraying but the bottom line is its trying to send some type of message and furthermore, is a choice. If you want to dress like a biker, or a gang banger, or a frat boy, or whatever, you have to live with the consequences that comes with the style and sometimes it's met with a greater amount of scrutiny.
Also I saw the same thing about cars. When people drive cars with rims, blasting music and tent so dark you can't see inside, you can't see the color of that person's skin. You might feel threatened by that vehicle creeping through your neighborhood but not because of race, but because a lot of times cars like that are involved with gang and drug activity...not always but that's the stereotype. Idc nor do I know what color the person is inside.
Well if you were looking for terrorists you need not knock on the doors of Catholic nuns for example.
Except for one thing. There are Catholic Middle Easterners. Something to think about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
