TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:Looking at the race of a person in a situation is not nessscarily profiling; it is a factor in the whole picture. A guy in a girls dorm in the middle of the night doesn't belong there. A Jewish person walking in the middle of a Neo-Nazi rally doesn't belong there. An middle-aged white guy like me in the middle of a mosh pit at a punk rock concert doesn't belong there.

Bottom line, discrimination is wrong, period, but race, religion, sex, etc can all play into whether a situation is appropriate or out of bounds.

Unless we're using different definitions of profiling, which I don't think we are, you just engaged in profiling thrice. The middle-aged (age) white (race) guy who doesn't "belong" in a mosh pit just got profiled by you. I understand your trepidation in admitting that you engaged in profiling as a LEO, and attempting to attach some other word or phrase to what you did. Being found guilty of "profiling" tends to carry a stigma in most parts of this country. And that's a good thing. That's a sign of actual progress. That's a sign of admitting that just because some members of a certain group do certain things, that doesn't mean that we should assume all members of said group do as well. That this conversation is controversial is a huge sign of progress. What we are saying is that people are individuals. Different individuals will do different things, whatever their superficial characteristics are. The progress that the US has underwent on race just in the past 2 decades in enormous. That's why most of the racist banter on this very board has to take form of veiled (often thinly) suggestions and wink-wink's at the similarly minded. That's why the crudeness of days bygone has been replaced by the subtlety of Nixonian Southern Strategy and dog-whistles. As bad as today's racism is, it's always on the retreat and people engaging in it have to watch their words. This is progress.

57Coastie wrote:A racist neighborhood with both congenital racism and racist LEOs. Everything else amounts to self-serving excuses and preaching to the choir. I accuse nobody here on the forum, but I cannot understand how one can defend this without in turn being accused of racism.

In all honesty I am compelled to admit that I was tempted to engage in profiling myself after viewing the photos of the two Canoles, but I have resisted the temptation.

Jim

That was my initial impression as well, and nothing I've read since has done anything to persuade me otherwise.

matriculated wrote:

Keith B wrote:Looking at the race of a person in a situation is not necessarily profiling; it is a factor in the whole picture. A guy in a girls dorm in the middle of the night doesn't belong there. A Jewish person walking in the middle of a Neo-Nazi rally doesn't belong there. An middle-aged white guy like me in the middle of a mosh pit at a punk rock concert doesn't belong there.

Bottom line, discrimination is wrong, period, but race, religion, sex, etc can all play into whether a situation is appropriate or out of bounds.

Unless we're using different definitions of profiling, which I don't think we are, you just engaged in profiling thrice. The middle-aged (age) white (race) guy who doesn't "belong" in a mosh pit just got profiled by you. I understand your trepidation in admitting that you engaged in profiling as a LEO, and attempting to attach some other word or phrase to what you did. Being found guilty of "profiling" tends to carry a stigma in most parts of this country. And that's a good thing. That's a sign of actual progress. That's a sign of admitting that just because some members of a certain group do certain things, that doesn't mean that we should assume all members of said group do as well. That this conversation is controversial is a huge sign of progress. What we are saying is that people are individuals. Different individuals will do different things, whatever their superficial characteristics are. The progress that the US has underwent on race just in the past 2 decades in enormous. That's why most of the racist banter on this very board has to take form of veiled (often thinly) suggestions and wink-wink's at the similarly minded. That's why the crudeness of days bygone has been replaced by the subtlety of Nixonian Southern Strategy and dog-whistles. As bad as today's racism is, it's always on the retreat and people engaging in it have to watch their words. This is progress.

By your broad definition any investigation is profiling. Yes, you must look at race, sex, etc. when making a determination of the person being in a wrong place or up to no good. If I go into a men's restroom and a woman is standing there, and I determine that she shouldn't be there because she is female, then I just by your definition profiled. Sorry, that is not profiling in a manner that is bad.

Mainstream media and the liberals want to broadly place that term on any improperly conducted stop or search of a person of race, religion or national origin. The only time in my opinion it is improper to 'profile' is if that is the only factor used to associate them with something; i.e. all middle eastern men are terrorists, all blacks are criminals, or all white guys from Alabama are rednecks (Okay, maybe that last one fits. ). Still, utilizing that factor along with other pieces is NOT improperly profiling someone to make a decision based on the other included factors and reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they are up to no good.

Bottom line, the term has been way overly used and basically ostracized to become something that is associated as a bad practice.

Keith B wrote: ...the liberals want to broadly place that term on any improperly conducted stop or search of a person of race, religion or national origin....

Are you profiling liberals, Keith?

(I do trust you understand that I am using Mr. Green to reflect that this is intended to be humorous.)

Jim

b322da wrote:

Keith B wrote: ...the liberals want to broadly place that term on any improperly conducted stop or search of a person of race, religion or national origin....

Are you profiling liberals, Keith?

(I do trust you understand that I am using Mr. Green to reflect that this is intended to be humorous.)

Jim

Yes. 'Nuff said.

matriculated wrote:That was my initial impression as well, and nothing I've read since has done anything to persuade me otherwise.

You just profiled an entire neighborhood.

Pot, meet Kettle.

smoothoperator wrote:

matriculated wrote:That was my initial impression as well, and nothing I've read since has done anything to persuade me otherwise.

You just profiled an entire neighborhood.

Pot, meet Kettle.

I'm sure you think you just made a clever point. But I've already copped to my shortcomings:

matriculated wrote:To begin with, we're all prejudiced to one degree or another, against one group or another... Profiling is a fact of life, and we all do it in different contexts.

That makes you a day late and a dollar short.

BTW, there's a difference between forming an opinion about somebody based on their actions (e.g. holding innocent people at gunpoint) and something superficial (skin color).

I noticed the "racism" talk has doubled (at least) since you joined. Thanks for admitting it.

smoothoperator wrote:I noticed the "racism" talk has doubled (at least) since you joined. Thanks for admitting it.

Thanks for admitting what? Since I joined what? The forum or this thread? I've noticed that you seem to be a fly-by one-liner wunderkind, so can you please at least try to put two full sentences together and explain what you're talking about? All you do is randomly jump thread-to-thread and throw cheesy one-liners out. Focus.

I show my focus by using one sentence and plain English to make my point instead of twenty sentences.

However, for the $50 word fans, submitted for your consideration: res ipsa loquitur

http://georgiaslate.com/something-new-t ... -rage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A non racial explanation for the events that unfolded that night. Mortgage rage.

philip964 wrote:http://georgiaslate.com/something-new-t ... -rage.html

A non racial explanation for the events that unfolded that night. Mortgage rage.

I don't buy this "mortgage rage" stuff. I hope the guy in the story you just posted gets investigated. These people with a chip on their shoulder need to stop harassing other law-abiding citizens. If I'm not breaking any law, you, Mr. Redneck or whatever you fancy yourself as, have no right to tell me where I can and can't go, and what I can or can't do. These people seem a little deranged.

smoothoperator wrote:I show my focus by using one sentence and plain English to make my point instead of twenty sentences.

However, for the $50 word fans, submitted for your consideration: res ipsa loquitur

Aaaaaand, ta-da! The one-liner wunderkind strikes again. Only with 2 whole lines this time. Sorry, I still don't get you. Better luck next time.

matriculated wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:I show my focus by using one sentence and plain English to make my point instead of twenty sentences.

However, for the $50 word fans, submitted for your consideration: res ipsa loquitur

Aaaaaand, ta-da! The one-liner wunderkind strikes again. Only with 2 whole lines this time. Sorry, I still don't get you. Better luck next time.

It's a legal concept related to negligence and responsibility for it. Details here.

Excaliber wrote:

matriculated wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:I show my focus by using one sentence and plain English to make my point instead of twenty sentences.

However, for the $50 word fans, submitted for your consideration: res ipsa loquitur

Aaaaaand, ta-da! The one-liner wunderkind strikes again. Only with 2 whole lines this time. Sorry, I still don't get you. Better luck next time.

It's a legal concept related to negligence and responsibility for it. Details here.

Thanks, Excaliber, but I already googled the term and read what it meant. I still don't understand smoothoperator's application of it in this discussion.