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.
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.
Last edited by BLAZER PROPHET; 10-28-2015 at 09:38 AM..
First, a disclaimer and adisclosure. I am not trying to start a race or gender debate for the sake ofdoing so. Also, so everyone knows, I have been arrested in a case of mistakenidentity and while it wrecked my evening, I held/hold no grudges against thepolice as they were only doing their job. These things do happen and always will.
So this debate has to dowith racial profiling and crime. Is it right and how far can it/should it go?
Some examples…
Example #1. In Portlandstatistics 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 thepopulation is black, yet 95% of pimps are black. A few years ago the police wantedto curb the child sex slave trade here so they started arresting andprosecuting pimps. The vast majority were black. The ACLU swept in and statedthat 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 andstopped arresting pimps. As a result the child sex slave industry continues tobloom here.
Yeah, I don't get it. I mean did they go around and arrest EVERY black person? I have to assume the answer is a resounding NO.
So, then they were likely engaged in "pimp behavior" or known to be pimps by what used to be called "informants" (who are low level, petty criminals that police often lean on to get the "word on the street").
Seems like good police work to me.
Example #2. Portland has asubstantially huge homeless population and we have specially trained transientpolice 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 policehave 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 wasstolen or how he got it. It was stolen and he was arrested. However, it wasdetermined they "profiled" him and he went free.
This one is by far the most absurd.
The police are well aware of who this person is, and that he is homeless.
I am certain he has a rap sheet and that is why the police are familiar with him.
The fact that this known to be homeless person is riding a $1500 bicycle is a big red flag.
Couple that with the fact that since they are familiar with him it is not at all unusual to be suspicious when he is suddenly riding a new expensive bicycle which he never had in all of the police interactions prior.
Again seems like common sense police work. I can't even use the term "good" here because it is so plainly obvious that the guy stole the bike or at the very least was in possession of stolen property.
Example #3. In some areasof Oregon meth manufacturing/sales and drunken driving arrests are nearly 90%hispanics. As a result, hispanics are pulled over more for very minorinfractions to see if they are possibly driving intoxicated and/or carryingmeth. It was so effective, that a lot of the meth operations moved to Yakima,WA. However, it has been determined itwas racial profiling even though it took a serious chunk of illegal drugmanufacturing and drunken driving away from that area.
This is the one where I agree.
While it seems like it was effective, this is a poor strategy to follow in general.
What you must do if you wanted to continue down this path, would be to clamp down on ALL minor infractions. Then you aren't profiling.
If you clamp down on the minor infractions only committed by Hispanics that is, by its very definition, "profiling" and it is wrong.
So this begs the questionof just how far should police be able to go to stop crime or apprehendcriminals to protect others?
I do understand thatpurists feel every single person should be treated as a total individual andall are presumed innocent and that police should only respond to known crimes…And those are great talking points.
That would be great if we lived in a Utopia, but we don't.
On the other hand, do thepolice not have the right to deter crime and to take various actions based oncredible 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 obviousexceptions of rogue policemen we can all agree on blah blah blah, and yes thereare a few dirty policemen out there and we all get that blah blah blah) and to befrank there's a reason we have sterotypes and generalizations- because theyhave 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.
I think in almost every circumstance, actual profiling is bad.
However, in two of the three examples you provided, I saw what I would call "normal police work" being labeled "profiling". This is absurd and is far beyond the "balancing point" that you referenced.
I'm sure you'll get a lot of intelligent and well-thought-out responses to this City-Data post, said nobody ever.
I see your point, but to me this is a great debate on the issues of 'search & seizure', police authority, rights people have with respect to living in a crime free society (in theory) or a crime riddled society... I mean, how many times do I hear someone say, "why don't the police do something?" and the reason why is that all too often they have to wait for a crime to be committed because to stop or deter a crime is profiling- even when it is easily accomplished and they have the facts to a pretty reasonable degree.
I was arrested in the place of a violent home invasion suspect as I had no ID and had the same name and roughly same build. I was riding my bike in his "area" and was entering my girlfriend's rear door of her house. A policeman saw me and thought it a little suspicious. I was unable to positively identify myself and was arrested. Cuffed and the whole thing. It got straightened out and I held no grudges. They were trying to deter a crime and also catch a dangerous person. Others would sue like hell over this.
I see your point, but to me this is a great debate on the issues of 'search & seizure', police authority, rights people have with respect to living in a crime free society (in theory) or a crime riddled society... I mean, how many times do I hear someone say, "why don't the police do something?" and the reason why is that all too often they have to wait for a crime to be committed because to stop or deter a crime is profiling- even when it is easily accomplished and they have the facts to a pretty reasonable degree.
I was arrested in the place of a violent home invasion suspect as I had no ID and had the same name and roughly same build. I was riding my bike in his "area" and was entering my girlfriend's rear door of her house. A policeman saw me and thought it a little suspicious. I was unable to positively identify myself and was arrested. Cuffed and the whole thing. It got straightened out and I held no grudges. They were trying to deter a crime and also catch a dangerous person. Others would sue like hell over this.
Right.
You seem smart enough to realize that it was "reasonable police work" to apprehend you it that situation.
That doesn't seem to be the case in most instances though.
Then, of course we have the low life cops that ARE dirty and/or racist. So they have skewed a few people over the years to create the necessity of a "balancing act".
IMO, police who are found to be dirty, racist, or just exercise poor judgement X number of times ought to be dismissed. They cause the hands of good policemen to be tied.
I think in almost every circumstance, actual profiling is bad.
However, in two of the three examples you provided, I saw what I would call "normal police work" being labeled "profiling". This is absurd and is far beyond the "balancing point" that you referenced.
I agree with everything you said, however...
At what point can police fight and deter crime? For me, while I agree with what you said if example #3, I have no problem with it even if it is profiling. Now, if they started going door to door... then we have an issue.
At what point can police fight and deter crime? For me, while I agree with what you said if example #3, I have no problem with it even if it is profiling. Now, if they started going door to door... then we have an issue.
Problem is what about all the Hispanic people stopped for a minor infraction that weren't drunk or transporting meth?
Their lives were interrupted simply because they were Hispanic.
Racial profiling is never right but it is a hard thing to look past. We are visual beings and when approached our minds including the subconscious make presumptions based on experience and nature. It goes back to the days when fight or flight was a life and death choice. Sometimes in some parts of America it is still like that.
At first glance we might, without even knowing it actually, racially profile someone but it is the second or even third glance that defines us as a racist or as a human.
Profiling based on stereotype is a fundamental biological impulse responsible for survival. When a fox sees a lion he runs. It should be no different with humans. Given the history and experience people have or are aware about of certain groups it is wise not to ignore it. This will govern who you will hire, rent or sell to, date, befriend and what street you walk down.
When it comes to the police of course it is normal for cops to be suspicious of certain groups more than others. But the difference between the police and the public is the public make voluntary decisions to stay away from certain people while police make decisions to approach and possibly use force against people. Cops should not be making moves on someone based on suspicions or conjecture and base their actions only on solid evidence and apply the standards uniformly. Unfortunately cops don't base their actions on solid evidence and constitutional standards and some groups get targeted more than others. However I'd say all are victims of police abuse and enforcement of abusive laws. More whites were killed by police in 2015 than blacks. Yes the population is different but so is the violent crime rate (much lower for whites). of course because of the bias and agenda in the media we hardly hear about police abuse of whites and of course whites don't protest as much.
For me it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. You can hate thugs and hate the abusive cops/the police state equally.
In 1994 as part of a class, I had to turn in a paper for how my new insurgence group would make their first hit. One of the things I suggested for the installation to be hit was that the strike team be made up of people of the same ethnics, wear the same clothes as those on the custodial staff. Why? Because when it came to the police questioning witnesses afterwards, there would be a high probability that my team would not be remembered because such people are not seen, are invisible to the common person.
Okay, so let's take a step back and not have it be a strike but rather a covert surveillance team.
Is my way of thinking, is my approach "right"?
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.
