[Dragon]

So yes, supporting racial profiling makes you a racist, sorry for that.

You're jumping to conclusions here. There is a huge difference between arbitrary prejudice based on, say, skin color, and very much nonarbitrary one based on one's past experiences with a group. If a correlation between race/ethnicity and, say, violent tendencies exists, then it would be foolish to ignore. This says nothing about whether is's a casual relationship, some sort of common cause or simply bad luck on their part, but the fact that this sort of correlation exists can not be denied.

Think about it, just how do you know that fire is hot and burns? It is precisely because you experienced it. A theoretical physicist might explain why, but even if you're in the middle of the desert with no scientist in sight, that doesn't change the fact fire burns. A caveman would be clueless as to why, and will not be able to explain it like you did (he could create a myth about it, though). Same thing with racial profiling. You know that Black/Arabs/whoever is dangerous, because you've seen them being dangerous (at least, as far as their districts go). Now, if you're into that kind of thing, you might want to find out why is that so. There is a very good explanation for why both of those groups are the way they are (I won't delve into psychological portraits here, but it's likely been explained by psychology experts somewhere). It is important to remember that and not attempt one's own explanation, as a myth arising might be very harmful in such situations, and will lead actual racism when people start making predictions based on it.

Of course, as with all "soft" sciences, exceptions are plenty. A well educated Arab student at an Israeli university is unlikely to be actually dangerous to anyone, and in fact will likely be appalled at how the average lower-class Arab acts towards Jews. There's much more to profiling than race. Here, we're mostly talking young, generally lower-class people. In general, in this group, black people are disproportionately represented among criminals. In a similar vein, black people also seem overrepresented in the American lower class in general, which is where most petty criminals come from. As such, when encountering a young black man dressed in a hoodie, I'd definitely be vary of him, even though I don't have anything against black people in general.

This kind of profiling is not entirely unjustified in many cases, but using only race as a criterion would be racist. Using it alongside other criteria (class, age, sex, etc.) is reasonable. I certainly haven't heard of any incidents involving an old black woman, for example.

[Scotty]

So yes, supporting racial profiling makes you a racist, sorry for that.

You're jumping to conclusions here. There is a huge difference between arbitrary prejudice based on, say, skin color, and very much nonarbitrary one based on one's past experiences with a group.

No there's not.  It's racial profiling, and it's disgusting to even contemplate that the color of someone's skin should lead to suspension of the concept of innocence until proven guilt.  This is literally the exact same concept that is even the problem in this situation, and which continually leads to misconception that someone who's skin is a darker color than another's is more likely to commit a crime.

[Hellzed]

There is a huge difference between arbitrary prejudice based on, say, skin color, and very much nonarbitrary one based on one's past experiences with a group.

There will be no difference for the people you are going to discriminate based on what you understand as their group.

Let's imagine you're in the USA, and you get mugged by a group of white people.
Whether you are black or white, are you going to start discriminating (or only get prejudiced) against white people in general ? Probably not, because in most areas white people are a majority, with economic and political power (I'm saying not that all white people have money and power, I'm saying the ratio is statistically in favour of white people), so you can't afford to discriminate.
That makes white people privileged.
The only reason you would start discriminating against black people after being mugged by black people is not the "bad experience" in itself, rather, it's because you can afford it : they are a minority group, and socially, it will not cost you nothing to do so.
Of course, you can only do it because you believe in race representations, so that makes black people "wholly other", different from yourself at a fundamental level.
Again, this is racism.

If a correlation between race/ethnicity and, say, violent tendencies exists, then it would be foolish to ignore. This says nothing about whether it's a casual relationship, some sort of common cause or simply bad luck on their part, but the fact that this sort of correlation exists can not be denied.

That would be a job for social scientists. I don't think your average Joe (or even some random policeman) can safely use these notions in real life without huge risks for minority groups.
Social scientists are trained to avoid some of the worst bias, and don't always succeed. I wouldn't trust random people with this, especially if it's a part of the decision of using force in a tense situation (or not), or even doing some "stop and search".

There is a very good explanation for why both of those groups are the way they are (I won't delve into psychological portraits here, but it's likely been explained by psychology experts somewhere). It is important to remember that and not attempt one's own explanation, as a myth arising might be very harmful in such situations, and will lead actual racism when people start making predictions based on it.

Precisely, this. Racial profiling is a tool. But a very bad one. In a racist system, it can only be used in harmful ways, and that will only make racism stronger because people don't understand statistics, that's a fact, and will jump to conclusions about individuals. People will make up their own myths of racial superiority from the numbers, it's unavoidable.
My point is that it shouldn't be a part of profiling at all.

This kind of profiling is not entirely unjustified in many cases, but using only race as a criterion would be racist. Using it alongside other criteria (class, age, sex, etc.) is reasonable. I certainly haven't heard of any incidents involving an old black woman, for example.

Good for old black women. Tough luck for young black men.

[Grizzly]

Sandwich, I think you are making a big mistake comparing your experiences in Israel to the situation in America. Israel has been in a war along religious and ethnic lines over who controlls the entire region ever since it first came into being. As such, there is an argument to be made of a person of *other ethnicity* to be a symphatiser for that cause. I personally think it completely sucks (because of reasons outlined by Hellzed and Scotty), but I get why people would feel that way.

The situation in the US is not even remotely comparable. The US has always been very extreme in it's racial profiling (would Israel round up everyone of palestinian descent when they are at war with Gaza? Because the US did exactly that with the Japanese), and the situation of blacks is not the result of a pointless war, but simply of a nation hanging on to it's slavery and racial discrimination for far too long (You are still required to fill in your "race" on official documents, interracial marriage was not allowed until 1967, that sorta thing).

[666maslo666]

Whether racial profiling is good or bad depends entirely what action are we talking about. Police officer being more wary around blacks, lower class people or young males? That is justified. Completely ignoring statistical differences between groups of people is dumb.

Police officer being more inclined to shoot at blacks because they are black? Not justified. Because actually shooting at someone needs a concrete reason that does not directly depend on ones race (altough it may correlate, too).

Anyway, I feel like racial aspect of this tends to be overstated. The techdirt article says that indictments against police officers are very rare, while indictments against ordinary people are extremely common. Thats where the huge difference lies. There are lots of white victims of police brutality that did not get justice. Remember Kelly Thomas?

Police corruption and justice system corruption is the main problem.

[karajorma]

Can you really not see how being more wary around black people pretty much automatically leads to being more inclined to shoot black people?

Of course these are all divisive cases. I don't think the cops are bad people, so I'm sure they both killed Wilson and this young boy without true malice. Why do you think it being "divisive" is relevant anyway? The problem here is militarization and trigger happiness.

The fact that it is divisive is very important if you want to keep the discussion on track. If you really the focus of this discussion to be police militarisation and institutional racism there are certain subjects you should really, really avoid mentioning. You complained about the fact that people were not discussing the subjects you consider to be important and then threw a conversational hand grenade into the conversation. That could very easily have gone off into a tangent about whether the Rice shooting was justified or not.

Basically if you're going to complain about people discussing the effects and not the cause, don't bring up another effect.

[Hellzed]

@666maslo666 : So, would you be ready to have policemen stop and search you on a weekly or monthly basis, because of your ethnic group ?

[666maslo666]

@666maslo666 : So, would you be ready to have policemen stop and search you on a weekly or monthly basis, because of your ethnic group ?

Dont the police need some reason to stop and search someone?

Would I be ready to be regarded with more waryness than women or old people? Yes I would. Extrapolating from that, I would be OK even if it was based on my ethnicity.

Can you really not see how being more wary around black people pretty much automatically leads to being more inclined to shoot black people?

It may be so in some cases, but it doesnt change the fact that it is still reasonable to be more wary. The line should be drawn somewhere in-between, ignoring race completely means ignoring a factor that does exist statistically.

[Hellzed]

Dont the police need some reason to stop and search someone?

Yes they do. But these reasons are usually wide enough so that they can stop and search anybody, at any time. Stop and search abuse cases are pretty much never investigated, because it is seen as a minor issue.

Would I be ready to be regarded with more waryness than women or old people? Yes I would. Extrapolating from that, I would be OK even if it was based on my ethnicity.

You may understand that this will not only be with the police :
- some employers will not want their image to be associated with people that have high chances of being searched
- same issue with landlords
- people on the street won't know if you are being searched or arrested : if you wouldn't feel humiliated by a group of strangers watching you as if you were a criminal, good for you.

It may be so in some cases, but it doesnt change the fact that it is still reasonable to be more wary. The line should be drawn somewhere in-between, ignoring race completely means ignoring a factor that does exist statistically.

As someone already stated in this thread, being innocent until proven guilty is one of the basics of the rule of law, and not being discriminated against is one of the most fundamental human rights.
We are individuals and we do not bear responsibility for what other people of the same group may do, especially if this group is defined on arbitrary criteria such as "ethnicity" or "skin colour".

That's also a good reason for "racial statistics" to be used only in universities to try and understand social issues, but never by police forces that can (most of the time) only work on a variety of individual cases.

You obviously have a very hard time identifying with people of colour and minority groups (and that's understandable if you're from a very ethnically homogeneous country), so I think you have no clue what it is to be discriminated against on a daily basis.
A simple example of white people being discriminated against for ethnic reasons would be central/eastern Europeans in western Europe.

[Sandwich]

Whether racial profiling is good or bad depends entirely what action are we talking about. Police officer being more wary around blacks, lower class people or young males? That is justified. Completely ignoring statistical differences between groups of people is dumb.

Police officer being more inclined to shoot at blacks because they are black? Not justified. Because actually shooting at someone needs a concrete reason that does not directly depend on ones race (altough it may correlate, too).

This.

Also, I think I was fairly clear in my post, but perhaps not - I'm on my phone and can't check easily right now - I was talking about what constitutes racism, which is not to be confused with racial profiling. In my mind, racism is bias against someone for no other reason than their race. However, if past experiences have proven that a certain demographic are significantly more likely to behave currently, and I can tell if a person is part of that demographic from afar, then ignoring that factoid and not being more wary around them is insanity.

I'm not saying that such things should be put into law. I'm saying that they already are simple common sense. And yes, it sucks if you're a law-abiding member of that demographic, I can't deny that.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that I can sympathize with those people who risk their lives on a daily basis dealing with exactly this situation - do they do some internal demographic profiling and listen to common sense telling them to be way around certain people, or do they stand steadfast against any kind of racial profiling and treat each person as equal until proven otherwise?

I guess when put that way, it comes down to if statistical probabilities can be used, not to prove someone guilty for heaven's sake, but to inform law enforcement officer's levels of caution. Ideally, said caution would never transfer over to offensive measures (shooting), but would only enhance defensive measures. Not sure how that could work out in reality though.

[Luis Dias]

Can you really not see how being more wary around black people pretty much automatically leads to being more inclined to shoot black people?

Of course these are all divisive cases. I don't think the cops are bad people, so I'm sure they both killed Wilson and this young boy without true malice. Why do you think it being "divisive" is relevant anyway? The problem here is militarization and trigger happiness.

The fact that it is divisive is very important if you want to keep the discussion on track. If you really the focus of this discussion to be police militarisation and institutional racism there are certain subjects you should really, really avoid mentioning. You complained about the fact that people were not discussing the subjects you consider to be important and then threw a conversational hand grenade into the conversation. That could very easily have gone off into a tangent about whether the Rice shooting was justified or not.

Basically if you're going to complain about people discussing the effects and not the cause, don't bring up another effect.

My point is that people will tend to discuss divisive cases precisely because they highlight the differences of opinions regarding cultures and values between people. Clear and shut cases are clear and shut, and they don't advance any discussion. My point about trigger happiness and the 12 year old case is that in a much lesser trigger happy society this would never happen. It's not about how the kid was being an idiot or an asshole by scaring people off with what appeared as being a true gun. When I say that it "doesn't matter" if it's divisive or not who was "in the right" or not, is not to dismiss any particular case, but to say that the discussion of whether the policemen were in the right or not is absolutely irrelevant. In either case, two needless deaths occurred. That's the only thing we should focus. How to remedy that, I don't know. Body cameras? More gun control? Condemnation of a gun culture? Having the police sell all military equipment? Have a good discussion on why the black community is so prone to violence? IDK, you tell me.

[666maslo666]

You may understand that this will not only be with the police :
- some employers will not want their image to be associated with people that have high chances of being searched
- same issue with landlords
- people on the street won't know if you are being searched or arrested : if you wouldn't feel humiliated by a group of strangers watching you as if you were a criminal, good for you.

I dont agree with landlords or employees discriminating against people due to these factors, thats quite serious. But I also dont mind being a target of increased waryness compared to other groups when on the streets. As long as it is not over the top. Assuming there is a statistical reason, I wouldnt blame them.

It may be so in some cases, but it doesnt change the fact that it is still reasonable to be more wary. The line should be drawn somewhere in-between, ignoring race completely means ignoring a factor that does exist statistically.

As someone already stated in this thread, being innocent until proven guilty is one of the basics of the rule of law, and not being discriminated against is one of the most fundamental human rights.
We are individuals and we do not bear responsibility for what other people of the same group may do, especially if this group is defined on arbitrary criteria such as "ethnicity" or "skin colour".

That's also a good reason for "racial statistics" to be used only in universities to try and understand social issues, but never by police forces that can (most of the time) only work on a variety of individual cases.

You obviously have a very hard time identifying with people of colour and minority groups (and that's understandable if you're from a very ethnically homogeneous country), so I think you have no clue what it is to be discriminated against on a daily basis.
A simple example of white people being discriminated against for ethnic reasons would be central/eastern Europeans in western Europe.

I dont consider being a target of increased police interest to be discrimination unless there is also some police misconduct, not if it is statistically sound. If there is a misconduct motivated by ethnicity, then that is another matter entirely and I am strongly against that. There are lots of gypsies in my country so it is not too homogenous, and similar logic applies to them.

As for eastern europeans in western europe, with the possible exception of eastern gypsies they may not really be more likely to be criminals. Thats one of those prejudices that may not hold up to scrutiny. But assuming it did, then I wouldnt blame the police for more waryness around them.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/3674251/Immigration_and_crime_the_real_results/

In conclusion, all I am saying is that it is unreasonable for ethnic differences to be completely ignored, if they have a statistical basis. If it is a correlate of crime then the police should take in into account on the streets. But actual police interventions should always be based on objective reasons, not ethnicity.

[Hellzed]

"Fun" fact : gypsy or not, in western Europe, all eastern Europeans are often considered to be the same group. Why would you insist on a "gypsy exception" ? There's a common geographical origin, and to most western police officers (who don't know any Slavic language, same for Hungarian and Romani), the different accents will sound just the same.
It makes a perfectly valid group.


Also, "stop and search" is already a police intervention.

[Phantom Hoover]

Whether racial profiling is good or bad depends entirely what action are we talking about. Police officer being more wary around blacks, lower class people or young males? That is justified. Completely ignoring statistical differences between groups of people is dumb.

Police officer being more inclined to shoot at blacks because they are black? Not justified. Because actually shooting at someone needs a concrete reason that does not directly depend on ones race (altough it may correlate, too).

These things are not separable. Racial biases run very deep, they can't just be switched off when they're unjustified.

[The E]

I dont consider being a target of increased police interest to be discrimination unless there is also some police misconduct, not if it is statistically sound. If there is a misconduct motivated by ethnicity, then that is another matter entirely and I am strongly against that. There are lots of gypsies in my country so it is not too homogenous, and similar logic applies to them.

You seem to operate under the assumption that the police is a mostly benign force for order, with racist asshats being the exception to the rule.

This may not be as accurate a mental image as you may believe.

Racial profiling doesn't tell you anything important. Putting the behaviour of the profiled under a microscope, regardless of whether or not they have ever or will ever commit a crime gives you a distorted view of reality; Criminals from social groups you are not profiling will more often than not be seen as exceptions to a rule that only exists in the minds of the observers (and, vice versa, Criminals from the profilled group will appear to justify continued surveillance).

As for eastern europeans in western europe, with the possible exception of eastern gypsies they may not really be more likely to be criminals. Thats one of those prejudices that may not hold up to scrutiny. But assuming it did, then I wouldnt blame the police for more waryness around them.

Think it through: The police puts {ethnic group} under extra surveillance. The surveillance reveals {x} crimes being committed by members of {ethnic group}. {Ethnic group} is then seen as harbouring a larger-than-average number of criminals.

There's a logical error in that progression. See if you can spot it.

[666maslo666]

"Fun" fact : gypsy or not, in western Europe, all eastern Europeans are often considered to be the same group. Why would you insist on a "gypsy exception" ? There's a common geographical origin, and to most western police officers (who don't know any Slavic language, same for Hungarian and Romani), the different accents will sound just the same.
It makes a perfectly valid group.

I highly doubt that they are considered the same group, since gypsies dont look like white Slavs at all (more like people from India). And white Slavs look almost exactly like western Europeans. You might have a point about the same language (altrough I know that gypsies often use their own language), but I think that looks is far more relevant when it comes to street police profiling than language.

[666maslo666]

Think it through: The police puts {ethnic group} under extra surveillance. The surveillance reveals {x} crimes being committed by members of {ethnic group}. {Ethnic group} is then seen as harbouring a larger-than-average number of criminals.

There's a logical error in that progression. See if you can spot it.

I am aware of that. This kind of bias may account for some differences in crime rates among ethnicities. Does it account for all of it, or even most of it? I dont think so.

There are also victimization studies (asking participants whether they have been victims of a crime in the past x months and to describe the offenders - regardless if the crime was reported or offenders caught) that take police bias entirely out of the equation. These can be used to find societal correlates of crime to guide the police profiling without the fear of such distorting feedback loop. AFAIK, such studies are mostly in line with the statistics from arrests or convictions.

[Hellzed]

At crowded bus stops or metro stations, you often hear people before seeing them, and accents are a very good way to distinguish people in a very diverse environment. As racial profiling is forbidden by the French Constitution (but that would be the same in Belgium and UK...), police has to use language and nationality instead of race.

I can sense you disagree with being considered as part of the same group as Romani people ? Well, that's my point : you don't make the rules, and they are highly dependent on how you are seen by the majority group in your country of residence. You have no voice, no power over this process, and when it has a direct impact over your own quality of life, of course it will look wrong to you.

And yes, it sucks if you're a law-abiding member of that demographic, I can't deny that.

Yes, it sucks. And I'm never going to accept the status quo : every single racist society should accept change, or be burnt to the ground.

These categories don't reflect anything else than what the dominant group considers as relevant (often what they fear, like violence, associated with what what they consider as "other", like skin color, accent, cultural habits...).
You can then be as scientific as you want, and fill up these categories with exact, verifiable numbers, it will always tell you more about how the dominant group shaped their society than violence amongst minority groups. Statistics 101.

If you are still not convinced, take a look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_people#Definitions_by_country
(hint : nobody agrees on what an "asian" is)

In a modern, diverse, society racial profiling tells you nothing, except that you live in a racist society.

[Ghostavo]

However, if past experiences have proven that a certain demographic are significantly more likely to behave currently, and I can tell if a person is part of that demographic from afar, then ignoring that factoid and not being more wary around them is insanity.

Factoid is not synonymous with "little fact", it means (and I quote from wikipedia) "a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact".

/pet peeve

[Scotty]

I'm going to be a massive hypocrite for this post and go line-by-line because I think this is one of the very few instances where it's actually warranted.

Whether racial profiling is good or bad depends entirely what action are we talking about. Police officer being more wary around blacks, lower class people or young males? That is justified. Completely ignoring statistical differences between groups of people is dumb.

Police officer being more inclined to shoot at blacks because they are black? Not justified. Because actually shooting at someone needs a concrete reason that does not directly depend on ones race (altough it may correlate, too).

This.

Also, I think I was fairly clear in my post, but perhaps not - I'm on my phone and can't check easily right now - I was talking about what constitutes racism, which is not to be confused with racial profiling. In my mind, racism is bias against someone for no other reason than their race.

This is literally what you're talking about though.  Profiling an entire group of people based on their race in order to seek out higher incidences of criminal behavior.  You can dress it up however you want, but it's still racism.

However, if past experiences have proven that a certain demographic are significantly more likely to behave currently, and I can tell if a person is part of that demographic from afar, then ignoring that factoid and not being more wary around them is insanity.

No.  Ignoring that fact and not being more wary about some random stranger you see on the street is basic civilization.  Rule of law is a significant part of what makes modern society function.  Suspecting that a person who is young and black is more likely to commit a crime while you're watching is an easy out into automatically assuming that a nervous young black person has committed a crime because they're acting suspicious - when the real reason they're nervous is because they're being stared down by law enforcement for no ****ing reason.  It's the worst brand of circular logic, and it's disgusting.

I'm not saying that such things should be put into law. I'm saying that they already are simple common sense. And yes, it sucks if you're a law-abiding member of that demographic, I can't deny that.

Then don't ****ing do it.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that I can sympathize with those people who risk their lives on a daily basis dealing with exactly this situation - do they do some internal demographic profiling and listen to common sense telling them to be way around certain people, or do they stand steadfast against any kind of racial profiling and treat each person as equal until proven otherwise?

They do it the latter way, because the former is institutionalized racism.

I guess when put that way, it comes down to if statistical probabilities can be used, not to prove someone guilty for heaven's sake, but to inform law enforcement officer's levels of caution. Ideally, said caution would never transfer over to offensive measures (shooting), but would only enhance defensive measures. Not sure how that could work out in reality though.

Generally it works out to ethnic group x being discriminated against by police for the simple reason that they are part of ethnic group x.  I don't know how much more clear I can make this.  This attitude is a very significant part of the problem over in Gaza/West Bank.  If you demonstrate that you don't think an entire race of people are inherently more likely to attack you than anyone else (as opposed to a government), those people are not going to like you.  No ****.