Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

Darkness, there is a large group of people that have tried to make everything "PC" or politically correct, which has screwed up this country to hell because the act of being PC is bullshit, which at its' very core is to limit free speech. We can't call "illegals" that because it would hurt their feelings and makes them feel downtrodden or some nonsense that is spread like that. I like this term better: "Criminals".
 
Please don't equate someone that's here working their ass off with someone that's trespassing. It's not about PC. It's about human decency.
 
You are right perdition what does working hard have anything to do with it? I work hard, can I go rob a bank now please?

But seriously, do you really think cops are going to walk down the street asking people? Doubt it, they will probably enact it when they stop people who cannot produce ID, or when they raid companies suspected of employing illegals.

Not to get into the whole race thing again, but you guys are supposedly into facts right? So can you anwser a question for me? If the majority of illegals are not of hispanic origin then why doesnt the canadian border have such a problem? I guarentee the canadian border has less border patrol then the mexican border, and has twice the size border to cover. heres the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.[2] According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America;[3] 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world.[3]

So logic would dictate that you would catch more illegal immigrants by asking more hispanics for their papers rather than say asians. As long as you ask some asians, what is wrong with asking more hispanics?
 
[quote name='IRHari']coolnonsequitorbro[/QUOTE]

This just goes to show the intellectual level of this forum, I write out a whole post with statistics, facts and my opinion, and IRHari criticizes the joke part of it. Well done man, well done.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So logic would dictate that you would catch more illegal immigrants by asking more hispanics for their papers rather than say asians. As long as you ask some asians, what is wrong with asking more hispanics?[/QUOTE]

If there are 11 million illegal immigrants and 80% of those are hispanic that means there are 8.8 million hispanic illegal immigrants. There are ~47 million hispanic people in the US according to the census. If that includes the illegal immigrants then 18% of those are illegal immigrants. If it doesn't then 8.8 million out of 55.8 million would be just under 16%.

So that basically means if you picked randomly amongst those who identify as hispanic then you'd get an illegal immigrant about 16-18% of the time (i.e. you'd be wrong more than 8 times out of 10).

If there are 11 million illegal immigrants and 9% are Asian then that means there are ~990,000 illegal asian immigrants (I'll just say 1 million for simplicity). There are around 13.5 million Asian people in the US according to the census. If that includes the illegal immigrants then around 7.4% of those are illegal immigrants. If it doesn't then 1 million out of 14.5 million would be just under 7%.

So that basically means if you picked randomly amongst those who identify as Asian you'd get an illegal immigrant about 7-7.4% of the time (i.e. you'd be wrong more than 9 times out of 10).

Now the fact that they identify as one race or another doesn't necessarily mean they look like one or the other, making it a bit misleading, but whatever. The point is that it's not really a very accurate method, and that there is about 1 illegal Asian immigrant for every 2 illegal Hispanic immigrants according to their numbers vs. population.

Now you could argue of course that an illegal immigrant in Arizona is more likely to be Hispanic than Asian, but the point is that being hispanic doesn't make it likely that you're an illegal immigrant. That's backwards probability.
 
Your 'facts' come from wikipedia? You sure did a lot of digging.

And you needed wikipedia to cite the undisputed fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic?

And that certainly doesn't justify asking more hispanics (even legal ones) for their papersplz.

Just like 'most terrorists are muslims' doesn't justify strip cavity searching every muslim.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If there are 11 million illegal immigrants and 80% of those are hispanic that means there are 8.8 million hispanic illegal immigrants. There are ~47 million hispanic people in the US according to the census. If that includes the illegal immigrants then 18% of those are illegal immigrants. If it doesn't then 8.8 million out of 55.8 million would be just under 16%.

So that basically means if you picked randomly amongst those who identify as hispanic then you'd get an illegal immigrant about 16-18% of the time (i.e. you'd be wrong more than 8 times out of 10).

If there are 11 million illegal immigrants and 9% are Asian then that means there are ~990,000 illegal asian immigrants (I'll just say 1 million for simplicity). There are around 13.5 million Asian people in the US according to the census. If that includes the illegal immigrants then around 7.4% of those are illegal immigrants. If it doesn't then 1 million out of 14.5 million would be just under 7%.

So that basically means if you picked randomly amongst those who identify as Asian you'd get an illegal immigrant about 7-7.4% of the time (i.e. you'd be wrong more than 9 times out of 10).

Now the fact that they identify as one race or another doesn't necessarily mean they look like one or the other, making it a bit misleading, but whatever. The point is that it's not really a very accurate method, and that there is about 1 illegal Asian immigrant for every 2 illegal Hispanic immigrants according to their numbers vs. population.

Now you could argue of course that an illegal immigrant in Arizona is more likely to be Hispanic than Asian, but the point is that being hispanic doesn't make it likely that you're an illegal immigrant. That's backwards probability.[/QUOTE]

Your problem is that you are factoring in the rest of the population. You are actually proving how ineffective it would be to not use racial profiling. If I take randomly 1,000 illegal immigrants, and separate them into ethnicities, I am going to find 810 are of hispanics, 90 asians, 60 europeans, and 40 people from the rest of the world. So if you were out hunting for illegals, what group would you target? Its not being racist if statistically the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic.

To put it more simple, if your car was hit and the person ran, and there was orange paint on it, you got the make and model, would the cops waste their time looking for red, blue, white, green, or purple cars of that model? No they would hit the orange ones. Does that mean they hate orange cars? No, but it is logically the car that hit you.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Your 'facts' come from wikipedia? You sure did a lot of digging.

And you needed wikipedia to cite the undisputed fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic?

And that certainly doesn't justify asking more hispanics (even legal ones) for their papersplz.

Just like 'most terrorists are muslims' doesn't justify strip cavity searching every muslim.[/QUOTE]

Ouch the wikipedia bash.

You people act like racial profiling is like when they are going to flag down every hispanic.
Learn something about it before you criticize me for once, please.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your problem is that you are factoring in the rest of the population. You are actually proving how ineffective it would be to not use racial profiling. If I take randomly 1,000 illegal immigrants, and separate them into ethnicities, I am going to find 810 are of hispanics, 90 asians, 60 europeans, and 40 people from the rest of the world. So if you were out hunting for illegals, what group would you target? Its not being racist if statistically the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic.

To put it more simple, if your car was hit and the person ran, and there was orange paint on it, you got the make and model, would the cops waste their time looking for red, blue, white, green, or purple cars of that model? No they would hit the orange ones. Does that mean they hate orange cars? No, but it is logically the car that hit you.[/QUOTE]

You're using the probabilities wrong, which is what I was trying to explain. And your orange car example is nonsensical, you're acting as if you already know someone's doing something illegal. You don't know that in this case, you're looking for somebody who has done something illegal.

Here, let me try to explain another way, answer these two questions:

I have a person behind a door, they're an illegal immigrant, what ethnicity would you guess they are?

I have a person behind a door, they're hispanic, would you guess that they are here legally or illegally?
 
Ok. Explain to me how you will racially profile without flagging down every hispanic. I.e., explain to me how to distinguish a legal hispanic from an illegal immigrant hispanic.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Ok. Explain to me how you will racially profile without flagging down every hispanic. I.e., explain to me how to distinguish a legal hispanic from an illegal immigrant hispanic.[/QUOTE]


Well this goes to Spazx as well, but from my understanding of racial profiling is the process in which you have already got the polices or securities attention by doing something else. The police officer pulls you over, or takes you into custody then says, hmmm this person is hispanic, 2 in 10 hispanics are illegal which is the greatest ratio, maybe I should ask for his papers...

You guys for some reason have it stuck in your head that police in arizona are just hunting down hispanics for sport, tackling them, and yelling to see their papers. If there is any truth to this I would like to see some type of proof.

"Let's transfer this to the other forms of terrorism. Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are. Now if I get on a plane have an individual of Middle Eastern descent mumbling prayers sweating bullets, smelling like flower water and if they are male they have shaved off all facial hair, this individual is the duck. Why? Well to properly profile, you can't just profile their race but also the actions that make them a threat. The cumulative numbers of identifiers are sufficient to raise great concern,

For profiling to be done correctly it cannot be based solely on race but on actions and appearances. This is why many officers have gotten into trouble in the past, not because they have been wrong, but they have not known how to explain how they knew the individual or individuals they were questioning, stopping or even chasing was a threat outside of race. The non-race characteristics were present they just didn't know how to explain it. "

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/155399/is_racial_profiling_good_or_bad.html?cat=9
 
[quote name='Knoell']You guys for some reason have it stuck in your head that police in arizona are just hunting down hispanics for sport, tackling them, and yelling to see their papers. If there is any truth to this I would like to see some type of proof.[/QUOTE]

Another excellent strawman, but no one, including me, believes this. We think that as a result of this bill, racial profiling, although banned, will still take place. Some hispanic who is here legally will be asked for his documentation because he's suspected to be here illegally. That's wrong. The definition of reasonable suspicion is so fucking ambiguous.

I'm not knocking the AZ cops, they have been given an amazing amount of discretion because of this law. But there are gonna be a few Arpaio-bad-eggs out there that will take advantage of that.

I agree with that excerpt from that article. It should be action based, not race based.

What does a Muslim look like anyway? The underwear bomber certainly didn't look 'Middle Eastern'.
 
[quote name='Knoell']If I take randomly 1,000 illegal immigrants, and separate them into ethnicities, I am going to find 810 are of hispanics, 90 asians, 60 europeans, and 40 people from the rest of the world. So if you were out hunting for illegals, what group would you target? Its not being racist if statistically the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hispanic.
[/QUOTE]That's all around the US. If you take 1,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, you will probably find 998 of them Hispanic. But if you take 1,000 random Hispanic people you will probably find less than 100 of them are here illegally, and that's why this law is messed up.

Its also going to screw up the economy for everyone because Mexico and California and the MLB and other things have decided to boycott us.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Another excellent strawman, but no one, including me, believes this. We think that as a result of this bill, racial profiling, although banned, will still take place.[/QUOTE]

Racial profiling will take place as a result of this bill?

Did it not take place before this bill?

[quote name='darkslime']Its also going to screw up the economy for everyone because Mexico and California and the MLB and other things have decided to boycott us.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because California and Mexico's economies are something worth depending on.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Racial profiling will take place as a result of this bill?

Did it not take place before this bill?



Yeah, because California and Mexico's economies are something worth depending on.[/QUOTE]

They are. California, at least until the crisis, is actually one of the states that paid more in federal taxes than they receive back. Unlike some southern states that receive more aid than the entire state pays in taxes.
 
[quote name='Knoell']hmmm this person is hispanic, 2 in 10 hispanics are illegal which is the greatest ratio, maybe I should ask for his papers...[/QUOTE]

lol

Yes, so you'll be wrong 80% of the time, but 1 in 10 Asian people are illegal immigrants, so you should ask the Asian people too, what's the difference if you're wrong 90% of the time versus 80%? And then again, maybe 1 in 10,000 European-looking white guys (rather than hispanic white guys, which you probably wouldn't know the difference anyway) are illegal too, so you'll be wrong like 99.99% of the time or something, but whatever, fuck it.

So why not ask everybody again?

And your quote, similarly, uses the probability wrong.

"Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are."

No it doesn't. It's very very unlikely that any particular Middle Easterner is going to be a terrorist, and being Middle Eastern doesn't increase the chances that they're a terrorist - a terrorist is more likely to be Middle Eastern than some other race/ethnicity. I'm trying to explain that distinction to you, do you understand what I'm saying?
 
[quote name='SpazX']

"Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are."

No it doesn't. It's very very unlikely that any particular Middle Easterner is going to be a terrorist, and being Middle Eastern doesn't increase the chances that they're a terrorist - a terrorist is more likely to be Middle Eastern than some other race/ethnicity. I'm trying to explain that distinction to you, do you understand what I'm saying?[/QUOTE]I don't see any distinction to that in this case. It is true that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic, so being Hispanic does increase the chances that you are an illegal immigrant compared to other races, especially in Arizona where you are very close to the Mexican border.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Racial profiling will take place as a result of this bill?

Did it not take place before this bill?



Yeah, because California and Mexico's economies are something worth depending on.[/QUOTE]

Good point UncleBob, racial profiling exists in and of itself, and does not need a bill to tell it to exist.
 
[quote name='SpazX']lol

Yes, so you'll be wrong 80% of the time, but 1 in 10 Asian people are illegal immigrants, so you should ask the Asian people too, what's the difference if you're wrong 90% of the time versus 80%? And then again, maybe 1 in 10,000 European-looking white guys (rather than hispanic white guys, which you probably wouldn't know the difference anyway) are illegal too, so you'll be wrong like 99.99% of the time or something, but whatever, fuck it.

So why not ask everybody again?

And your quote, similarly, uses the probability wrong.

"Just because someone is Middle Eastern doesn't make them a terrorist, but it does increase the chances that they are."

No it doesn't. It's very very unlikely that any particular Middle Easterner is going to be a terrorist, and being Middle Eastern doesn't increase the chances that they're a terrorist - a terrorist is more likely to be Middle Eastern than some other race/ethnicity. I'm trying to explain that distinction to you, do you understand what I'm saying?[/QUOTE]

Way to take one or two lines out of my post to hammer down that it doesnt make sense, seeing as how the whole thing is put together to make one whole point.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Another excellent strawman, but no one, including me, believes this. We think that as a result of this bill, racial profiling, although banned, will still take place. Some hispanic who is here legally will be asked for his documentation because he's suspected to be here illegally. That's wrong. The definition of reasonable suspicion is so fucking ambiguous.

I'm not knocking the AZ cops, they have been given an amazing amount of discretion because of this law. But there are gonna be a few Arpaio-bad-eggs out there that will take advantage of that.

I agree with that excerpt from that article. It should be action based, not race based.

What does a Muslim look like anyway? The underwear bomber certainly didn't look 'Middle Eastern'.[/QUOTE]

Arent there going to be a few "arpaio bad-eggs" regardless of this law?

Noone seems to be talking about what racial profiling actually is, only that it will target all hispanics, which is untrue. I put a definition out there, but it was ignored, I would like to know what you think racial profiling is, when it comes to police?
 
Douchebag, read everything I wrote. I said I agree with the excerpt from the article which defines racial profiling as not only race based but action based. I agree with that.

I don't know if thats what police use when they 'racially profile.'
 
[quote name='Knoell']But seriously, do you really think cops are going to walk down the street asking people? Doubt it, they will probably enact it when they stop people who cannot produce ID, or when they raid companies suspected of employing illegals.

So logic would dictate that you would catch more illegal immigrants by asking more hispanics for their papers rather than say asians. As long as you ask some asians, what is wrong with asking more hispanics?[/QUOTE]

Actually, that is exactly what people think cops will start doing. Lawful contact would include a beat cop walking within an arm's reach of anybody.

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/02/18/are-you-required-to-produce-id-if-a-cop-demands-it/

In Texas, the guy got to walk away. In Arizona, the guy would be arrested.

As far as logic dictating a course of action, have you done any cost/benefit analysis regarding the cost of locating, detaining and deporting an average illegal alien versus the cost of the services an average illegal alien consumes?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Actually, that is exactly what people think cops will start doing. Lawful contact would include a beat cop walking within an arm's reach of anybody.

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/02/18/are-you-required-to-produce-id-if-a-cop-demands-it/

In Texas, the guy got to walk away. In Arizona, the guy would be arrested.

As far as logic dictating a course of action, have you done any cost/benefit analysis regarding the cost of locating, detaining and deporting an average illegal alien versus the cost of the services an average illegal alien consumes?[/QUOTE]

The person was standing with a video camera by himself, video taping cops after a shooting for apparently no reason. There was no commentary, he was just sitting there video taping cops, I would call that suspicious activity. I dont understand why you wouldnt give the cops the benefit of the doubt, I would not like it if some random guy was zooming in on me with the video camera.

So with your logic, if I steal $40,000 dollars from a bank, but then get caught, if the costs of prosecuting me and jailing me outweigh what I stole, I shouldnt be prosecuted?

Until they change the law to be in this country illegally is breaking the law plain and simple, if you want to be a citizen go through proper channels, noone has a problem with legal immigrants.
 
well, at least now we have the conservative folk dropping the charade that "lawful contact" is a contingency that involves having violated the law or suspicion of violated the law.

That feels better - now that that's out of the way, we can talk about whether it's ethical or constitutional for police to demand proof of citizenship or legal alien status of people who aren't violating the law.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']well, at least now we have the conservative folk dropping the charade that "lawful contact" is a contingency that involves having violated the law or suspicion of violated the law.

That feels better - now that that's out of the way, we can talk about whether it's ethical or constitutional for police to demand proof of citizenship or legal alien status of people who aren't violating the law.[/QUOTE]

The guy was standing in front of a government building after a shooting video taping cops, with no commentary or anything, just standing there with a video camera zooming in on cops. How is that not suspicious? It proves that he was indeed suspicious since people were walking around and they werent being hassled.
 
[quote name='Knoell']
Until they change the law to be in this country illegally is breaking the law plain and simple, if you want to be a citizen go through proper channels, noone has a problem with legal immigrants.[/QUOTE]The process of coming here legally can cost thousands of dollars and takes months or even years. If you can barely afford to feed your family you can't do that.
 
I like how people coming to this country to find a better life doesn't fall under a Republican's definition of freedom. That's cute.

"You came from your own shithole country, you say, to my vast glorious nation of Doubledown chuggers and two-for-Tuesday pizza rolls? Weeeeeeeeeeeeelll, fuck your shit!"
 
[quote name='Strell']I like how people coming to this country to find a better life doesn't fall under a Republican's definition of freedom. That's cute.

"You came from your own shithole country, you say, to my vast glorious nation of Doubledown chuggers and two-for-Tuesday pizza rolls? Weeeeeeeeeeeeelll, fuck your shit!"[/QUOTE]

Elian Gonzales?
 
[quote name='Strell']I like how people coming to this country to find a better life doesn't fall under a Republican's definition of freedom. That's cute.

"You came from your own shithole country, you say, to my vast glorious nation of Doubledown chuggers and two-for-Tuesday pizza rolls? Weeeeeeeeeeeeelll, fuck your shit!"[/QUOTE]

Illegally is a keyword in this debate. Noone disputes legal immigrants.
 
[quote name='darkslime']The process of coming here legally can cost thousands of dollars and takes months or even years. If you can barely afford to feed your family you can't do that.[/QUOTE]

Then reduce the cost, or make the benefits of coming here legally outweigh the illegality of coming here illegaly. We are giving them the idea that coming here illegally is just fine and in some cases better and cheaper than legally.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The person was standing with a video camera by himself, video taping cops after a shooting for apparently no reason. There was no commentary, he was just sitting there video taping cops, I would call that suspicious activity. I dont understand why you wouldnt give the cops the benefit of the doubt, I would not like it if some random guy was zooming in on me with the video camera.

So with your logic, if I steal $40,000 dollars from a bank, but then get caught, if the costs of prosecuting me and jailing me outweigh what I stole, I shouldnt be prosecuted?

Until they change the law to be in this country illegally is breaking the law plain and simple, if you want to be a citizen go through proper channels, noone has a problem with legal immigrants.[/QUOTE]

A shooting occurred. The lone shooter was caught. A man with a videocamera was filming B roll hours after the incident. That isn't suspicious. If the man had visible press credentials, it is even less suspicious. Nobody can tell from the video. I googled "gun concealed in video camera" and there aren't a bunch of stories about murderers hiding guns in video cameras.

Regarding cops, they don't get the benefit of the doubt. Sorry. It's just a personal preference.

Regarding cost/benefit, you are following my logic. If your illegal immigrant is going to take $1 million to permanently deport him versus $999,999 to allow him to stay, it makes sense to take no action unless there is some other factor involved.
 
[quote name='Strell']I like how people coming to this country to find a better life doesn't fall under a Republican's definition of freedom. That's cute.[/QUOTE]

As usual you're too blinded to see the reality here (no surprise). No one is against immigration. People are against illegal immigration. There is a key difference. Instead you spew your typical liberal lies to make yourself feel better.
 
[quote name='Nogib']As usual you're too blinded to see the reality here (no surprise). No one is against immigration. People are against illegal immigration. There is a key difference. Instead you spew your typical liberal lies to make yourself feel better.[/QUOTE]

What are your thoughts on political asylum?
 
[quote name='Knoell']The guy was standing in front of a government building after a shooting video taping cops, with no commentary or anything, just standing there with a video camera zooming in on cops. How is that not suspicious? It proves that he was indeed suspicious since people were walking around and they werent being hassled.[/QUOTE]

How is this suspicious, or even remotely illegal? This line of thought is exactly why I don't want cops profiling.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The person was standing with a video camera by himself, video taping cops after a shooting for apparently no reason. There was no commentary, he was just sitting there video taping cops, I would call that suspicious activity. I dont understand why you wouldnt give the cops the benefit of the doubt, I would not like it if some random guy was zooming in on me with the video camera.[/quote]
Because this exact situation has been litigated OVER AND OVER AND OVER and the cops lose OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Not only that, but it's happened so damn often than police training has specifically covered this instance for years if not decades, which means it is done solely to intimidate.

The person filming must materially interfere. Intentionally positioning themselves between the officers and suspects is enough to warrant arrest. Yea, the rules are broken down that low.

But yea, I could see how you would support the government's ability to arrest on suspicion of what again..? Citizen standing on a corner with a camera?
 
If no one is against immigration, why are we only worried about one of our borders? I never see any push to build a huge fence along our border in the Great White North.

Also, do you think immigrants from Eastern Europe have it easier or worse than their brethren from the Americas?
 
[quote name='depascal22']If no one is against immigration, why are we only worried about one of our borders? I never see any push to build a huge fence along our border in the Great White North.[/QUOTE]
Impracticality? Numbers?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Impracticality? Numbers?[/QUOTE]Exactly. That point was flawed because most people don't want to immigrate from Canada to here because Canada is a pretty good country, whereas a lot of parts of Mexico are a third world country and there are lots of corrupt police, drug wars, and not many jobs.
 
[quote name='docvinh']How is this suspicious, or even remotely illegal? This line of thought is exactly why I don't want cops profiling.[/QUOTE]

How does this have anything to do with profiling? I could be wrong but I didnt see the cameramans ethnicity in the article.

I think it was a case of the police being nervous. There was a shooting near a government building, the police are investigating, and there is this guy with a video camera just standing there taping the police. The cameraman is not in the known area for press, and by the sound of what he said, he knew it. He fed the other polices officers some bs lie that he was there to get information about the shooting. The first 2 minutes of the tape show nothing of the sort, he didnt approach the police or anything just stood there taping them.

I never said he should get arrested, or even detained, but in my opinion that is suspicious activity. I think the police had a right to see what he is up to. All in all this has nothing to do with racial profiling, it was a simple misunderstanding between police and a citizen. He didnt even get arrested, the biggest trouble he got was that he had to explain that he didnt have to show his id.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How does this have anything to do with profiling? I could be wrong but I didnt see the cameramans ethnicity in the article.

I think it was a case of the police being nervous. There was a shooting near a government building, the police are investigating, and there is this guy with a video camera just standing there taping the police. The cameraman is not in the known area for press, and by the sound of what he said, he knew it. He fed the other polices officers some bs lie that he was there to get information about the shooting. The first 2 minutes of the tape show nothing of the sort, he didnt approach the police or anything just stood there taping them.

I never said he should get arrested, or even detained, but in my opinion that is suspicious activity. I think the police had a right to see what he is up to. All in all this has nothing to do with racial profiling, it was a simple misunderstanding between police and a citizen. He didnt even get arrested, the biggest trouble he got was that he had to explain that he didnt have to show his id.[/QUOTE]

That's why I didn't specify racial profiling.:) What I'm saying is that the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, but I guess we can agree to disagree on what we consider suspicious behavior. This is what I mean though about not wanting police to profile; this guy wasn't even doing anything wrong and they were making a fuss about it, imagine what they could do if they were legally allowed to profile.
 
[quote name='docvinh']That's why I didn't specify racial profiling.:) What I'm saying is that the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, but I guess we can agree to disagree on what we consider suspicious behavior. This is what I mean though about not wanting police to profile; this guy wasn't even doing anything wrong and they were making a fuss about it, imagine what they could do if they were legally allowed to profile.[/QUOTE]

they are allowed to profile already, I think theres a better word for it that I cant think of right now, but they just cannot racially profile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top