Fort Hood

Remove all ads!

I've waited for someone to start this, and no one has, so I'll give in to the temptation. I think all of us know what happened at Fort Hood. I just read this article by a Canadian columnist and I think what he has to say is reasonable, though not politically correct. I particularly liked this line

for obvious reasons. The guy who did the shooting, I hope that all the virgins he receives in heaven are virgin porcupines -- have fun boinking THEM!

 

I generally don't like profiling, as it leads to abuses of the system, such as the cliche "driving while black", but this is one case where it may have worked.

 

I don't believe that at all. Profiling is a very important tool that law enforcement is not allowed to use, becuase it hurts some people's feelings. The Volvo full of white kids in a poor neighborhood at midnight should always be pulled over. They are obviously not there on a sight-seeing trip.

The fact that everyone basically has to go through hell to get on an airplane is ridiculous. There should be an express lane for people who do not fit the profile of terrorists and then a different lane for people who do fit the profile. Would it suck to be an innocent person in the "profile line", yes it would, but why does everyone else have to suffer?

As to Fort Hood, the military is screwed. The more we learn, the more we find out that this guy should have been thrown out of the Army quite some time ago. However, nobody did anything as they didnt' want to be labeled a "racist" (my opinion).

Clearly, people in our armed forces who may have allegiances with our enemies need to be held to a higher standard. I know that this will be hard on the innocent, but it needs to be done.

 

What Snook says is totally politically incorrect. Yet it is really, truly worth thinking about. I'd rather be politically incorrect and alive than blind to the obvious and dead.

 

Snook, that's quite a post, kudos!

Profiling has it's pros and cons. America needs to figure out where the line is drawn over what is more important, our individual freedoms or our safety. Very touchy subject.

When it pertains to the Military, it should be a no-brainer. If we are putting automatic firearms in your hands, explosives at your disposal, you need to be, as well as your superiors, 100% sure that you are carrying that gun to protect Americans. If there is the slightest doubt, they need to pull that gun away, asap.

Profiling at the airports is a whole different matter altogether. Different lines is not the answer. At application for the ticket is when the subjectivity should start. Then the rest of us won't have to wait. If you are possibly a terrorists, why do we wait to the last minute to check? We need a better solution.

 

It's more than politically incorrect, it's complete . And, as the son of a retired cop, Aldeth is completely correct. Before my dad worked in the courts, he was a patrolman, and he and his partners used to "profile" minorities all the time, mostly because they enjoyed doing it. They didn't do anything serious, like take them downtown, arrest them, beat them up, or anything. But they liked just jacking with minorities, especially hispanics, just because "this is Texas." And, as most everyone here "knows" most of them are here "illegally" anyway.

As Aldeth points out, it opens the door for abuse.

Which "profile" did Timothy McVeigh fit, Snook?

 

Well, I agree that a car full of white teenagers aren't going sight-seeing, because teenagers don't go sight-seeing. But why should they be pulled over for being in a poor neighborhood at night?

 

I think Snook was contrasting that with a car full of black kids in a rich neighborhood, or a car full of Jewish kids in a Palestinian neighborhood.

 

I'm waiting for this one too.

If anyone should, Jewish people should be opposed to "profiling" for historical reasons.

 

OK, but why should they be pulled over if they are just driving through the neighborhood? I'm white, and I've driven through poor areas of Baltimore at night (not when I was a teenager, although I did not necessarily think that was the critical point of Snook's post).

I suppose you can argue that the group of white kids driving through a poor neighborhood could get car-jacked, but chances are they'll get car-jacked because of the car, not becaues they're white. If it's night time you probably wouldn't be able to tell prior to car-jacking them that they were white to begin with.

And I still fail to see how pulling them over is going to help anything. If anything, you'll draw attention to them.

 

It's not that simple when dealing with profiling. It reminds me of the use of force by law enforcement. There are lots of grey areas. It's ok to use it, but only under these circumstances. That is why we have courts to decide if someone steps over the line. Profiling is not always wrong, it depends on it's use. Snook's example of the Volvo is a good one. Is it racial profiling? To an extent, I guess..... But used in a good way. The Police are our neighborhood guardians. If they think a car is there to purchase drugs, should they not stop them and ask questions. If they get answers that make sense, the Volvo goes on it's way. No harm, no foul. If there is apparent reason to question them further, so be it. How do they do their jobs otherwise? Just sit and watch until a crime is commited? Then act? That sure doesn't make me feel safe.


Tell me, is it ok to use profiling against other countries, trying to keep us safe, but to not use it to protect ourselves from our own criminals? You will have a tough time selling that line to me. We watch Islamics all the time, to see if they are plotting, to protect ourselves. So Our Feds can use it, but not our Police. IMO, that's a stupid policy.

 

He got you, Aldeth. I don't think Splunge was serious in his remark.

Yes, if you live in the old Soviet Union. America is still sort of a free country, I guess. If I want to drive through most any neighborhood, just because, that is my business, as long as I'm not bothering anyone.

 

I am constantly amazed at Snook's ability to be discriminatory, given his ancestry.

Well, I was being half serious, in that I think Snook used white kids as an intentional replacement for black kids. Although I'm not really sure what his point was.

 

And that's what I'm really waiting for an answer to. I honestly don't understand why white kids driving a Volvo in a poor area of a city at night merits getting pulled over simply on the basis that there's a bunch of white kids in a Volvo in a poor area at night.

 

Unfortunately, they are there usually after a crime has been committed. It is really more on the community itself. For instance, I'm a part of the neighborhood watch in my community, so I notice and record strange cars or people in the community. I've spoken with the police at some length, because we know who some of the bad guys are, since they are in and out of our neighborhood at all times during the day, and as the police point out, everyone has a right to drive down a public road, so there is not much they can do. But if someone stops in front of a house, or a driveway, and just sits there, that's something different. But that's not profiling.

 

I know where your coming from Chandos, I hate to get pulled over, even at DUI check points when I haven't been drinking, which is the case 99.9% of the time. Having to stop just plain sucks. I was pulled over while driving my 1985, mint conditioned, Monte Carlo SS. I was working for my family, during my college years, dropping off an expensive pool cue to a good, long-time customer, though he lived in a terrible neighborhood. Customer Service! It was in West Philly. The cop, a black man, pulled me over and asked what I was doing in the vicinity. I wasn't pissed and even remotely mad at the cop for doing so. I was making a delivery and understood he was looking out for my safety, as the area was full of rugged types. I'm a short white guy and though in my early twenties, I probably looked like a teeneager. I have a baby face. It's an area where white kids/teenagers just don't go very often, unless they are looking for trouble or drugs. Was that profiling? Without a doubt, but in a good way. Yes, profiling can be abused, but so can every other tool the police have on hand. That's why I think when it comes into question, let a jury decide if it was abused, don't ban it because it "can" be abused.

I think, though I could be wrong, you'll have to hear from Snook to be positive, Snook's example of the Volvo was covering something like my own experience. Not the negative side of profiling.

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 37 seconds later... ----------

Exactly. The police officers have brains and can use them. If they pull someone over who is driving down the street for the 1st time, not stopping or doing odd things, they shouldn't stop them.

The environment that you are in should be part of the decision making process for the police when profiling. Obviously stopping a man in a suit, carrying a briefcase on Wall Street is probably going to lead nowhere. Most likely he belongs there. But that same guy walking down a street in the middle of a drug neighborhood at 2 am should get stopped. I'm not saying arrested, but questions are definitely in order. Common sense would dictate that he has no reason to be there and most likely there to buy drugs, since that is what happens on that street during the night.

 

Blades - But that's not really profiling, at least I don't think it is. If a cop is looking out because you may be a victim then he is doing his job well and doing you a favor. However, if just because you are white, he believes you might be doing something you shouldn't, that's profiling - assuming guilt because of your race or age or whatever. But I understand your point, and it's a good one that we too often forget, that there are good police officers who are just looking out for citizens by doing their job well.


Added:

At the Woodlands Mall, a lady came out to the parking lot and found she had a flat tire. A clean cut guy in a suit and tie, carrying a brief case approached her. Seeing her flat, he offered to help her fix it. She agreed and she opened her trunk to let him have the spare. Just then the security came out from the doors (they probably saw it on their cameras), and said they would help. The man left quickly and forget his briefcase (probably because he left so fast). When the security looked inside they found the only contents were a large knife, some duct tape and rope. Never assume anything about the way a person looks.

 

That story would make a great scene in a movie!

But I disagree, to a point. This area is so sensitive when it comes down to if your civil liberties are being violated. The law should not be one way or the other. These types of cases, profiling that is, should be handled individually. Of course it will be abused by some officers, there is always a few bad apples. When it is abused, it should be brought to light. But something tells me there is a major difference between how much wrong is done compared to how much good is accomplished using this system. Only the issues of abuse are brought to light, not all of the good things that are done, the crimes prevented, the people/property saved.

 

He didn't fit any profile. The world isn't that simple and no fix will solve all problems. I'm fairly certain without much effort a hole can be poked in any plan. What I'm looking for is the most effective method that causes the least amount of disruption and cost. Is there a better way then profiling? to accomplish this? If so, I can't think of it.

I apoligize, I didn't realize that SP was full of a bunch of goodie two shoes. When I grew up a car full of white kids in chinatown were there to buy fireworks, and a car full of white kids in Roxbury (a black neighborhood of Boston) were there to buy drugs. Yes, I did use that as an example to counter your "driving while black" point to show that profiling isn't just used on minorities.

I never thought I had shock value.

---------- Added 0 hours, 0 minutes and 42 seconds later... ----------

or a great article on Snopes.

 

Racial profiling happens all the time whether it is legal or not. My dad is a customs officer and a Romani or a Somalian going through customs are about 2000% more likely to be pulled over for inspection than a white family with children. This is because during years of experience they have learnt what kind of people are more likely to carry drugs. I have no problem with "unofficial" profiling as it is common sense. The guy who looks like a stoner is probably more likely to carry weed than the old granny.

I am however strongly opposed to any sort of official system of profiling as it is bound to be misused and abused. I don't think the checks in the airports are all that troublesome, mostly common sense except the liquid thing. That is just plain silly and I think the airport stores have a part to play in forcing us to buy 5$ bottles of water instead of bringin outside drinks.

An official must be allowed to use his experience and common sense in looking for culprits but he must not let prejudice blind him and this is a very very thin line to walk. We just have to trust our officials and stomp down on abuse harshly.

As for the Fort Hood dude, from what I can understand he had shown psychotic tendencies for a long time and should have been given a medical discharge a year ago. The fact that he was of middle eastern ancestry and his psychosis to the form of it took is quite irrelevent. Anyone with that kind of mental disorder is not fit for military duty and a danger to society until treated. I once worked at a mental institute and there was a guy who bashed in an old man's head with a stone cause MTV told him to. Not catching and treating these people when they are in the military is a disgrace and leads to tragedy for everyone involved. Any sign of mental problems and you should not be allowed to have any access to firearms no matter your ethnicity.