What's wrong with this logic?

Scenario 1: Police are aware of criminals (drug dealers?) being present within a 6 block squared radius and have vague descriptions of offenders. As such, police patrol that area and stop / question those individuals fitting the description.

Scenario 2: Police are aware of criminals (illegal immigrants) being present within a city or county and have a vague description of offenders (Hispanic). As such, police patrol said area and stop / question those individuals fitting the description.

If scenario 1 is acceptable police behavior, why is scenario 2 not? I ask because my thinking is not in line with the 'liberal mindset' regarding racial profiling and immigrant rights (as it pertains to this), but is in line on most other issues. I'm hoping to have my views challenged and figured this was the place to do so

Aren't those two situations handled differently by different enforcement outfits?

Your local PD isn't looking for illegal immigrants, right?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Just seems like different enforcement authorities will have different procedures. It would be like asking why Wendy's doesn't make their fries like McDonalds. They're both fries.

What is P(criminal | a criminal was identified as a Hispanic male, mid 20s wearing a blue t-shirt and jeans and known to be in a 6 block area) versus P(criminal | Hispanic in a city)?

Profiling is okay if it actually helps you narrow the suspects to a manageable number of possibilities.

It's not okay if it's just "hispanics" or "blacks"

The rights of non-criminals is more important than the need to catch illegals?

This isn't really about profiling, it's about priorities.

Let's just investigate everyone, we all fit some vague description. Sure its easy to stop people, hold them up about their business for some vague notion. It's a good thing just about anybody can do it however, because we will need a much larger police force to cover the entire nation.

Scenario 3: Police are aware of criminals (inside traders) being present within Wall Street and have a vague description of offenders (suits). As such, police patrol said area and stop / cavitize those individuals fitting the description.

It's all about which population group you want to stigmatize.

Scenario 4: Police are aware of criminals (rapists) being present within college fraternities and have a vague description of offenders (white jocks). As such, police patrol said area and stop / greek-glove those individuals fitting the description.

Good point, thanks.

What if IDing inside traders or rapists was as easy as seeing if they had a particular ID card...would it change your view about whether the use of these vague descriptions should be used?

BTW, don't think 'Greek gloving' is similar to asking folks for ID.

The at-risk populations in question have student ID and probably SEC paperwork. All that's necessary to profile them is present. Once they are stopped and identified, intelligence about criminal acts can be developed through interrogation. Your comment seems to assume I'm against using these vague descriptions for profiling. I'm not. I just want them used against high value targets, not guys trying to get yard work.

They are now profiling cheek clenchers:

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s...l#.UnlrahD3Ppz

Legally speaking, the difference here is probable cause. To get a warrant, you need a particular description of the people you want to search, and you need to show that it's probable that those people committed a crime. The values being invoked are things like "innocent until proven guilty" and "right to privacy" and "right to be free from unnecessary police intrusion," all of which I would guess you think are important.

How probable does it need to be to justify probable cause? In other words, in your opinion, what percent of a Hispanic population in a particular locality would need to be illegal in order to be considered 'probable' enough?

And to be honest, I'm not buying that requests for ID violate privacy rights or would be considered police intrusion. Also, asking for ID isn't an assumption of guilt in my mind anymore than a grocery store attendant asking for ID when young-appearing people attempt to buy beer. Same idea, right?

In the US, it's not a matter of being statistically 'probable'. Most people convicted of violent crimes are males 20-30, or some such. That's going to correlate very well, way better than anything to do with race and/or documentation status. None of that should matter anyways. There is supposed to be particularized cause in relation to that person in question.

It most certainly is a police intrusion. You legally need a drivers licence to operate a motor vehicle. You legally need positive ID to buy alcohol. You never need an ID to go out into our public spaces.

In fact, one of the key ways of protecting the effectiveness of mass civil disobedience is called Jail Solidarity. That's when thousands of people intentionally leave their IDs at home. If they get caught up in mass arrests, by refusing to identify themselves, and by using other forms of non-violent direct action, they can clog up the entire court system... often allowing everyone to end up walking. Been there, have been prepared to do that.

Simply asking for ID... all the way up to policies like the infamous NYPD "stop & frisk" are always police intrusions.

I love these "How racist am I allowed to be without getting called out on it?" discussions.

Well put, and I do recognize the difference in needing ID to legally drive or buy alcohol as opposed to just walking in public. And good knowledge with the ID-less disobedience bit. So we have a right to silence I know, but I thought we were obligated to ID ourselves if asked by law enforcement...guess not then.

Where we disagree is on the concept of intrusion, and perhaps if we need to start treating our Constitution differently; as the living document it was intended to be. First, I still maintain that politely asking for ID is not intruding, but agree that frisking is over the line. Whatever, to each their own when it comes to what constitutes intrusion.

More interestingly, while walking around in public is legal, it is so only for law abiding citizens. I contend that profiling like this is reasonable given the times in which we live. I think parallels can be drawn with fire arm law. What once was open and essentially deregulated is now much more controlled. I believe at a certain point, when a high percent of a demographic is known to be breaking a law, that appearance should warrant sufficient cause for ID checks at the least.

If you would agree that a 99% illegality percentage of the Hispanic population would justify profiling, then we really are debating 'how' (what illegality %) and not 'if' (whether or not we should profile in the first place).


Sent from my HTC One X using 2+2 Forums

There are two problems with profiling.

1) It drives a further wedge between the group and mainstream society which is the reverse of what we (hopefully) want to do.

2) you catch disproportionately more of that group which incorrectly makes the case for more/stronger profiling

On the plus side a disproportionate percentage of the victims of that group are usually from the same group.

This thread would be a lot better if the OP just stated the problem he wants to solve and asked if his solution was OK. This weird end run around things to try and rationalize what sounds like Arizona's loathsome immigration laws is 1- transparent 2- basically wasting time.

What is the description of 'Hispanic'?

I'm using this forum as a safe place to air what I believe to be biased views of mine re: profiling. I want to express them honestly and contend counters that I don't agree with, but am open to and desiring change.

Still mulling over legality of requiring IDs to prove citizenship. Specifically I'm stuck on why a cashier, based on appearance, can ask for ID to ensure a law isn't broken (underage drinking) but a cop can't (illegally immigrating).

Sent from my HTC One X using 2+2 Forums

NSA is already doing this.

One is a private person ensuring compliance w/ a law that regulates a privilege and the other is a representative of the state who is barred from infringing on a right w/o probable cause.

But don't things get sticky when we recognize non-citizens don't have this right and that they make up like 10% of the population at large?

Sent from my HTC One X using 2+2 Forums

Dude,

You ask for honest debate. Okay. You assume illegal = Hispanic, but there are loads of Poles, Irish, etc. who do not have papers but that you are not thinking about. They also congregate in particular neighborhoods. La Migra could start profiling bartenders at Irish pubs. But that's not who you're thinking about. This suggests to me that you have a problem with Hispanics. Why would you care about undocumented workers at all? I don't, not one bit. There are loads of laws that are not priorities, why are poor people your issue? Why not focus on people who actually hurt the economy? And do you really want to bus your own dishes when you go out to eat? You can fixate on logic puzzles and imagined legal double standards all you want, but I think your issue is race.

There is no way to determine, based upon looks alone, who is in the U.S. illegally. That would mean in order to check upon their status the authorities would have to randomly stop anybody w/o probable cause (unconstitutional) or 'profile' (as you put it) based upon unreliable criteria. IOW, not all Mexican looking ppl are in the U.S. illegally but, the way you are going about this, it seems that this is the grounds you would set for stopping them to inquire about their status.

In the US, you don't have no Constitutional right to alcohol. In fact, the 21st Amendment says explicitly that the alcohol possession is regulated at the State level ("...The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited..."). Likewise, you don't have any Constitutional, or Common Law, right to operate dangerous equipment, like planes, trains, and automobiles, in our public spaces... and it's well settled matter of law that licencing in these cases is a legal and proper role of government.

On the other hand, under the US Constitution, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and free from unreasonable arrest, search or seizure. Theft is also against the law, and unlike a person merely lacking documentation, also happens to be wrong too. Any reasonable person would say that law enforcement should prioritize theft over paperwork. So...

Can you prove that you bought all the gear you are wearing? Do you have the receipts? How about that cash you are carrying... can you prove that it wasn't stolen? Do you carry a copy of your latest pay-stub? Would you consider this kinda police activity to be intrusive? Would you feel your Constitutional rights are being respected here?

It's the same exact thing if a cop goes up to a (non-driving, alcohol purchasing) stranger and demands, like some evil USSR style henchman from the movies, that they must produce their documentation or go to the gulag.

While you're stuck... how about going into your smart-phone 'app', smarty-pants, and turning of this spam !!!1!

I have yet to be stopped and held by the NSA. I have been stopped and held by the police in several juridstictions over the years. Vague notions of wanting to find marijuana on me.

Song for the topic:

Hey, mister cop!