The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Actually, I think you would be the one with the problem in this scenario.steveincowtown wrote: If an LEO has preconceived perceptions before they pull me over, that is their problem, not mine.
No disrespect intended, but people, LEOs included, profile every single day. And they do it because it works. If I see a pair of tattoo-covered teens/young folk coming toward me, pants half way to their ankles, and hats on backwards, I'm jumping to high alert, considering escape routes, determining what I think I need to do next to keep myself safe. If instead the folks are a pair of well-groomed, sharply dressed (thinking suits here) folks that I would likely trust to handle my money in a bank, I'll watch them but won't cross to the other side of the street and so forth. Why? Because a disproportionately high number of (personal injury type) crimes are committed by the first group when compared to the second group, specifically. Yes, some folks wearing suits do commit murder and other mayhem. But it is much more likely to come from the gansta/wannabe than from the local stand-up professional-looking type.steveincowtown wrote:<snip>bci21984 wrote: The runners, trick riders, lane splitters, stunters, and so on, have created a negative image for you in the eyes of the police. So you get stopped, he's fishing, you get attitude as you have stated and the cycle is continued. You are now part of the group that draws the negative attention. Try this next time you get stopped, realize that you are on a sport bike and are being perceived as the negative group of the sportbike crowd, if the officer fishes, dont get your attitude. Answer the questions and engage in a pleasant conversation and prove that you are not part of the negative crowd.
Second, the statement above amounts to nothing short of profiling. If an LEO has preconceived perceptions before they pull me over, that is their problem, not mine.
<snip>
jamullinstx wrote:The real problem is that male prohibita crimes can result in someone's arrest. Only male en se crimes should hold the consequence of arrest. Our current system gives police agencies too much leverage for very minor offenses.
LikesShinyThings wrote:...totally agree with this one...when I was a cop, we didn't call it profiling, we called it paying attention and gathering all the clues about a person as you approached them to make good decisions...steveincowtown wrote:<snip>bci21984 wrote: The runners, trick riders, lane splitters, stunters, and so on, have created a negative image for you in the eyes of the police. So you get stopped, he's fishing, you get attitude as you have stated and the cycle is continued. You are now part of the group that draws the negative attention. Try this next time you get stopped, realize that you are on a sport bike and are being perceived as the negative group of the sportbike crowd, if the officer fishes, dont get your attitude. Answer the questions and engage in a pleasant conversation and prove that you are not part of the negative crowd.
Second, the statement above amounts to nothing short of profiling. If an LEO has preconceived perceptions before they pull me over, that is their problem, not mine.
<snip>
...cops get profiled CONSTANTLY...as they encounter a citizen, that citizen often judges them by the actions of those cops they've dealt with in the past...and to have a successful encounter, that cop must "live down" or overcome any negatives in prior experiences that the citizen may have had...I habitually walked into situations and immediately encountered the attitudes and expectations caused by previous officers...and I often told the citizens: "I'm not the last white cop who walked in here...now back it up and let's start this thing over!!!" more times than not, it defused the situation and we got the problems solved...profiling is just a PC word attached to paying attention to what you see and hear, and using that information to make wise decisions...we ALL "profile"...we DON'T all misjudge...
No disrespect intended, but people, LEOs included, profile every single day. And they do it because it works. If I see a pair of tattoo-covered teens/young folk coming toward me, pants half way to their ankles, and hats on backwards, I'm jumping to high alert, considering escape routes, determining what I think I need to do next to keep myself safe. If instead the folks are a pair of well-groomed, sharply dressed (thinking suits here) folks that I would likely trust to handle my money in a bank, I'll watch them but won't cross to the other side of the street and so forth. Why? Because a disproportionately high number of (personal injury type) crimes are committed by the first group when compared to the second group, specifically. Yes, some folks wearing suits do commit murder and other mayhem. But it is much more likely to come from the gansta/wannabe than from the local stand-up professional-looking type.
It's a simple question of weight ratios...a five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.jamullinstx wrote:The real problem is that male prohibita crimes can result in someone's arrest. Only male en se crimes should hold the consequence of arrest. Our current system gives police agencies too much leverage for very minor offenses.
And an ant can carry between 20-50 times its weight.................gigag04 wrote:It's a simple question of weight ratios...a five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.jamullinstx wrote:The real problem is that male prohibita crimes can result in someone's arrest. Only male en se crimes should hold the consequence of arrest. Our current system gives police agencies too much leverage for very minor offenses.
Malum prohibitum means something that is wrong only because it is prohibited by the state. Malum in se means something that is wrong in and of itself without the law.speedsix wrote:jamullinstx wrote:The real problem is that male prohibita crimes can result in someone's arrest. Only male en se crimes should hold the consequence of arrest. Our current system gives police agencies too much leverage for very minor offenses.
...would you please 'splain them two foreign language terms for those of us who ain't so eddicated???
Very good write up. Thank you.srothstein wrote:Malum prohibitum means something that is wrong only because it is prohibited by the state. Malum in se means something that is wrong in and of itself without the law.
speedsix wrote:...many thanks for that enlightenment...appreciate the time...
Thanks Steve. I didn't know that you were bilingual. 