gut;1682115 wrote:It's a compelling theory, but I think it had more to do with more police - it's not like they ever just looked the other way on most of that stuff, there just weren't enough cops to be around to see it and arrest people.

Combination of the two. They got more cops and got the cops to, on a wider scale, stop ignoring the little things. Gladwell talks about the intersection of the two.

O-Trap;1682099 wrote:If the "suspicion" is founded on a notion stemming from the racial background of the citizen, even in an area where that racial background is predominant, sure.

In the real world cops are assigned where the crime is - how do you suggest, much less prove, that suspicion is racially biased when everyone around is black? There are clearly factors other than race that lead to one person being singled out over the other.

Profiling is selective enforcement based on race (or other factors). You can't profile a homogenous population.

gut;1682119 wrote:In the real world cops are assigned where the crime is - how do you suggest, much less prove, that suspicion is racially biased when everyone around is black? There are clearly factors other than race that lead to one person being singled out over the other.

Profiling is selective enforcement based on race (or other factors). You can't profile a homogenous population.

Most real world cops, whether or not they operate in a racially homogenous area, do have frames of reference beyond that (not necessarily professionally).

If one assumes the most sinister of intentions for technically innocuous actions, and if this is based on race, then it would fit the definition of racial profiling, even if that would be applied to most people in the area.

It's also worth noting that there exist few to nil communities that are 100% racially indistinct. I, for example, live in an area where less than 5% of the population is white. However, despite how small the white population is, it does exist all the same. If a cop were to treat myself and my black, Asian, or Latin neighbors differently for the same behavior, then that would constitute race-based profiling, would it not?

Now, as for whether or not it can be logically proven, I don't think there is much, if any, chance of doing so. Since there are no circumstances that are otherwise identical (time, place, etc.), they also leave room for doubt as to the ability to compare two circumstances.

Now, I suppose that you could look at the ratio of arrests and questionings over a period of time and compare it to the racial demographics in the area. However, that still doesn't take into account the forces from outside the community in question, and how they might play a role in the behavior of the people within it, so it's still not an iron-clad solution.

More or less, I'm suggesting that it can certainly happen, though I admit that it might not be provable.

Seriously... can't this politard stuff be taken to another place?

O-Trap;1682127 wrote: If one assumes the most sinister of intentions for technically innocuous actions, and if this is based on race, then it would fit the definition of racial profiling, even if that would be applied to most people in the area.

How do you "profile" a homogenous population? Please explain that to me.

Stop-and-frisk that targets demographics is profiling. Stop-and-frisk in a homogenous population is, however, purely a proactive enforcement decision.

ernest_t_bass;1682136 wrote:Seriously... can't this politard stuff be taken to another place?

It cannot.

gut;1682145 wrote:How do you "profile" a homogenous population? Please explain that to me.

Is the reason for action, as opposed to inaction, based on the color of the skin? If the homogenous community were to be of a different background, would the action be consistent? If not, then it's still racial profiling, because while the community might be homogenous, it's being evaluated in comparison to others not within the community. That would be how. If an officer had no other frame of reference ... if he were acting as though he was in a contextual vacuum, where he considered no other people except those within the community ... then perhaps it wouldn't be.

If the action is based on skin color in any way, then a racial comparison is taking place (this community's skin color versus the color of those outside the community).

gut;1682145 wrote:Stop-and-frisk that targets demographics is profiling. Stop-and-frisk in a homogenous population is, however, purely a proactive enforcement decision.

Communities change. My community used to be predominantly populated by people of Italian descent. Might the cops treat the people differently if they were still predominantly that way? If so, it's still racial profiling.

ernest_t_bass;1682136 wrote:Seriously... can't this politard stuff be taken to another place?

Seriously... can't this politard stuff be taken to another place

gut;1682145 wrote:How do you "profile" a homogenous population? Please explain that to me.

Stop-and-frisk that targets demographics is profiling. Stop-and-frisk in a homogenous population is, however, purely a proactive enforcement decision.

Seriously... can't this politard stuff be taken to another place

friendfromlowry;1682179 wrote:It cannot.

Seriously... can't this politard stuff be taken to another place

O-Trap;1682187 wrote:Is the reason for action, as opposed to inaction, based on the color of the skin? If the homogenous community were to be of a different background, would the action be consistent? If not, then it's still racial profiling, because while the community might be homogenous, it's being evaluated in comparison to others not within the community. That would be how. If an officer had no other frame of reference ... if he were acting as though he was in a contextual vacuum, where he considered no other people except those within the community ... then perhaps it wouldn't be.

If the action is based on skin color in any way, then a racial comparison is taking place (this community's skin color versus the color of those outside the community).



Communities change. My community used to be predominantly populated by people of Italian descent. Might the cops treat the people differently if they were still predominantly that way? If so, it's still racial profiling.

Seriously... can't this politard stuff be taken to another place

This threads original purpose is done. Why does a natural progression of a thread bother you so much?

CC was a douche. The person who supposedly outed him is a bigger douche. Thread over.

O-Trap;1682187 wrote:Is the reason for action, as opposed to inaction, based on the color of the skin?

If the action is based on skin color in any way, then a racial comparison is taking place (this community's skin color versus the color of those outside the community).

No need to answer a simple question with a novel. You can't not profile someone who isn't there.

The essence of profiling is to group people by common characteristics, which obviously can't be done with a homogenous group.

Laley23;1682228 wrote:This threads original purpose is done. Why does a natural progression of a thread bother you so much?

CC was a douche. The person who supposedly outed him is a bigger douche. Thread over.

What is the natural progression?

WebFire;1682242 wrote:What is the natural progression?

People going from one topic to the next. Naturally. No implants or human growth hormone. Just regular, good ol'-fashioned typing.

WebFire;1682242 wrote:What is the natural progression?

Imagine for a second that a thread is like initiating small talk "Hey how are you doing? Good you?" and then ended up discussing the ethics of using depleted uranium as ammunition in the Gulf War. Discussions evolve. Always way, always will, its natural.

sleeper;1682257 wrote:Imagine for a second that a thread is like initiating small talk "Hey how are you doing? Good you?" and then ended up discussing the ethics of using depleted uranium as ammunition in the Gulf War. Discussions evolve. Always way, always will, its natural.

Yes, the flow of this one seemed natural. From CC runner almost getting fired to bad cops. Makes sense.

WebFire;1682259 wrote:Yes, the flow of this one seemed natural. From CC runner almost getting fired to bad cops. Makes sense.

It was.

The original was about CC and race remarks. Which turned into his actual thoughts on the subject (behind a screen name). That led to people talking cops vs blacks. Then cameras on cops. No we are here.

There was no directive to sway the subject. No trolling. Nothing like that. The thread ran it's course and turned into what it is now, that's all I meant.

WebFire;1682259 wrote:Yes, the flow of this one seemed natural. From CC runner almost getting fired to bad cops. Makes sense.

How is that not natural progression? It smoothly transitioned from one topic to another.

gut;1682229 wrote:No need to answer a simple question with a novel. You can't not profile someone who isn't there.

The essence of profiling is to group people by common characteristics, which obviously can't be done with a homogenous group.

It wasn't a particularly long post.

If you group every person in a community based on their collective race when compared to those in other communities of different races, you can indeed.

So what do you guys want to talk about now?

friendfromlowry;1682270 wrote:So what do you guys want to talk about now?

Your mom.

WebFire;1682259 wrote:Yes, the flow of this one seemed natural. From CC runner almost getting fired to bad cops. Makes sense.

It doesn't have to. What more is there to say about CC? Even the new thread created is basically just people crying. Why so butthurt? QQ more.

sleeper;1682271 wrote:Your mom.

Reported.

BR1986FB;1680991 wrote:I'm not a "legal eagle" but if CC were to lose his job, and found out who ratted him out, would he possibly have some legal recourse against that individual?

no

sleeper;1682273 wrote:It doesn't have to. What more is there to say about CC? Even the new thread created is basically just people crying. Why so butthurt? QQ more.

I really don't care. Was just making an observation.

WebFire;1682315 wrote:I really don't care. Was just making an observation.

Shut the fuck up then if you don't care.

DeyDurkie5;1682316 wrote:Shut the fuck up then if you don't care.

Why is this a thing here? That you "must care" if you make a comment? Why can't you just be part of a discussion.

You must care.