Sunday, July 28, 2013

Reflections on the Zimmerman Case

Things would be different if Trayvon was white!!

Really?  I don't think so.  Note the similarities, particularly this from the prosecutor:

“I just hope it’s not a message to this community,” she sniffed, “that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.”

What did Yogi Berra say?  Deja vu all over again.


If I had a black son, he'd look like...

This.  Oh, jeez!  Is this racist??!!  I don't care what color your son is.  What of the content of his character?  How does a parent let their kid get to a point where the kid suffers outcomes such as Trayvon Martin's?  I know my kids do not dress or behave in a manner anyone would call "suspicious".  That's because of how I sought to raise them.  Which leads me to...

Profiling is GOOD!

Way back when I was in high school, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was an event day at our school called "50's DAY".  Everyone was encouraged to dress like they did in the 1950's and the day culminated in a 50's Dance that night.  In a very uncharacteristic move for me and my chums, we all bought into this particular school spirit episode and dressed and acted the part all day long.

So there I was, Vitalis in my mop, T-shirt with a pack of Luckies twisted in the sleave and blue jeans with the cuffs pulled up (couldn't afford a leather jacket, damnit).  With mirror shades upon my face, and an unlit Lucky in my mouth, I strutted my way from class to class.  A shop teacher, who happened to also be a bishop of some Christian denomination, grabbed me, the ciggie and hauled me off to the office.  Upon my arrival, I immediately came into range of the school cop (with whom I had some contact in the past), the dean (ditto) and the principle.  Still in the clutches of the bishop, the cop said, "What do we have here?"  I said to him, "Yo, Ken!  What's the problem wit dis guy?" as I pointed to the bishop.  "You'd better watch yourself, young man!  Don't make things worse!"

It dawned on me right away that my get-up had the officer fooled.  I pulled off my shades and mussed my hair and said, "Wait a minute!  It's me!  ART!"  I could see that they then realized who I was and they began to laugh!  "OH!  It's 50's Day!"  "Yeah!"  I said.  "Just showing some school spirit, like you guys say I should!"

I was profiled.  I was dressed like a 50's greaser and they treated me like one.  Naturally I sued them and that's why I'm the rich man I am today. 

No.  I just dealt with it and realized that how one dresses and acts gives off impressions we don't always intend, and more importantly, sometimes they do.

Profiling is the learned lessons of our experiences.  To ignore those lessons can needlessly put us in jeopardy.  It isn't judging a book by its cover.  It is recognizing that the book in question very much resembles the one with which we were hit, and greater scrutiny is in order to confirm the presence of danger or eliminate the need for concern.

But the reverse is a lesson well learned also.  If I wish to deflect attention, I dress to blend in, act in a manner that does not draw attention and basically, "be good".  Those whose duty it is to stand guard against bad behavior will look away from those who do not trigger their profiling sensors.

But while dress and behavior don't guarantee criminal activity is imminent, they do naturally activate those sensors some among us insist we should ignore.   And when we do ignore them , another terrorist bomb explodes, another mass shooting occurs, another rape, another robbery, another mugging...and some actual cases of well behaved, good students of character are scrutinized, detained, arrested and sometimes killed when mistaken for someone else.  Was Trayvon one of these?  The known facts don't suggest such, but for the sake of the incident on that dark, rainy night, his dress and manner played a major role in the final outcome.  Had his parents made an issue of how he dressed, behaved and carried himself, and had he accepted those teachings, none of this would have happend.  That bishop shop teacher didn't haul everyone to the office.


48 comments:

Neil said...

Some profiling is good and completely logical. Anyone who denies it is a liar. Even Jesse Jackson copped to doing it, and he's a reverend and everything, right?! Some pizza delivery people -- some of whom were minorities themselves -- didn't want to deliver to some minority neighborhoods. Was it because they were minority neighborhoods? Not at all. It was because they were extremely dangerous neighborhoods. If my competitors are idiots and want to discriminate in hiring or in whom they serve, I'll be glad to hire the best employees and serve their customers. That's just one example of rational behavior that people can make look racist.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Because the Israelis don't have the ACLU and their ilk, they profile at airports. They don't need a TSA patting down children and grandmas, and yet they seem to never have the problems we have with the bad guys on airlines!

Profiling is just common sense.

Feodor said...

HInt: when you see someone breaking into a car, you're not profiling. You're noticing.

Big difference. No similarity.

Simpletons.

Feodor said...

You and Frank Ancona are of the same mind, Art:

"... he did say that the neighborhood watch program was not racist, and that if a Springfield resident reported seeing a white guy “up to no good” the Klan would also intervene."

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/26/missouri_ku_klux_klan_wants_you_to_join_their_neighborhood_watch/

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

I know my kids do not dress or behave in a manner anyone would call "suspicious".

So my kid, who has never been in trouble, who often wears a hoodie and sags his pants (and is white) would be considered suspicious? Should your daughter wearing a short skirt and short top be under suspicion of being a slut. Does your wife's tramp stamp make her a slut?

I was profiled.

Did it ever occur to you that you might have been stopped for having a cigarette in your mouth and not because of the way you dressed or did your makeup that day?

If I wish to deflect attention, I dress to blend in, act in a manner that does not draw attention and basically, "be good".

I thought we made it through the 60s so you wouldn't have to be an automaton to not be hassled by the man.

Marshall Art said...

"HInt: when you see someone breaking into a car, you're not profiling. You're noticing.

Big difference. No similarity."


feo likes to state the obvious and then pretend we're arguing against it.

"You and Frank Ancona are of the same mind, Art"

Someday, feo, you'll have to demonstrate just how I've acted or spoken like a racist. Saying so doesn't make it so. I know you really, really want me to be a racist, but I'm afraid I just can't help you there.

Marshall Art said...

"So my kid, who has never been in trouble, who often wears a hoodie and sags his pants (and is white) would be considered suspicious?"

Not necessarily. It depends on the crime situation in your area and whether or not he fits the profile of those the authorities believe are victimizing the neighborhood. He'd be considered by many to be an idiot, though, for wearing his pants low.

"Should your daughter wearing a short skirt and short top be under suspicion of being a slut."

None of my three daughters dress in a provocative manner. I've taught them too well and they are wise enough to understand that doing so would bring about unwanted attention. They know how to dress in a manner that is both attractive and modest. It isn't really hard to do.

"Does your wife's tramp stamp make her a slut?"

Not being a tramp, my wife has no stamp to indicate she is. No tats of any kind. But to ask the question is to insult my wife and I now invite you to look me up any time you're in the NW suburbs of Chicago. Then I can answer you question in a much more specific manner. What kind of woman refers to her tattoo as a "tramp stamp" without acknowledging that a tat might indicate the bearer is a tramp? What kind of misogynist would refer to a woman's tat as a "tramp stamp" unless he hoped the woman might be a tramp?

"Did it ever occur to you that you might have been stopped for having a cigarette in your mouth..."

Did it ever occur to you that I was referring to the reaction of the school cop and dean?

"I thought we made it through the 60s so you wouldn't have to be an automaton to not be hassled by the man."

First of all, you didn't make it out of the 60s. You're morally corrupt and politically stupid. Secondly, one does not have to dress like a punk or a whore to dress like an individual.

Jim said...

It depends on the crime situation in your area and whether or not he fits the profile of those the authorities believe are victimizing the neighborhood.

Why would anyone think that all perpetrators dress the same?

He'd be considered by many to be an idiot

I'm sure you were considered an idiot when you were young and dressed fresh, too.

They know how to dress in a manner that is both attractive and modest.

But would dressing less modestly make them sluts?

But to ask the question is to insult my wife

Only if she is as ignorant as you are and never read a People Magazine. Some of the most beautiful and monogamous women in the world have "tramp stamps". In case you didn't know, that is the common term for a tattoo on the lower back. The point was, does having such a tattoo make her a slut?

Did it ever occur to you that I was referring to the reaction of the school cop and dean?

According to your story, the cop was reacting to personal history with you. That's not profiling.

you didn't make it out of the 60s.

Oh, but I did. I may still have a paisley shirt and a pair of bell bottoms in my closet they are purely of sentimental value.

You're morally corrupt and politically stupid.

And you haven't a clue.

Marshall Art said...

"Why would anyone think that all perpetrators dress the same?"

Because the perpetrators of crime in an area might all dress the same. Get a clue.

"I'm sure you were considered an idiot when you were young and dressed fresh, too."

That may be (though I doubt it). But those same people would update their opinion based on the style common today of pants hanging low exposing underwear.

"But would dressing less modestly make them sluts?"

It would make them "slutty looking". The point here is appearance and what opinion or judgement an appearance provokes in others. Immodest dress naturally suggests an immodest person.

"Only if she is as ignorant as you are and never read a People Magazine."

We are all ignorant of something. But you are an idiot. What does "tramp stamp" mean? It means the stamp of a tramp, even if the term is meant humorously. Such tats were purposely applies to promote an erotic response if the observer. "Sexy". It requires a degree of immodesty to not only expose that area of the lower back, but draw attention to it with the tat. Thus, having such a tat does provoke the image of a tramp in the mind of the observer, which is the point of this post. It is not that a look requires that one is whatever the look implies, but only that the look implies something specific. That's what profiling is.

"According to your story, the cop was reacting to personal history with you."

Thus suggesting, if not proving, that you don't read the comments thoroughly before responding. According to my story, the cop didn't recognize me and was responding to the manner in which I was dressed. Try paying attention.

"Oh, but I did."

Oh, but you didn't. Being morally corrupt and politically stupid shows that the 60s impacted you in a seriously negative manner. You didn't escape, but are still a victim of the idiotic mentality that was the 60s. Get a clue.

Feodor said...

That's good, Marshall, just keep swallowing that poison pill.

Here are news stories of true profiling in addition to the killing of Treyvon Martin (not Marshall's screwed racist example of seeing three teenagers actually committing a crime):

1. newsone.com/2647905/roy-middleton-warrington-florida/

2. cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/08/baseballer.shot/

Jim said...

Because the perpetrators of crime in an area might all dress the same.

Why not just wear a badge that say's "I'm a criminal"? Why would criminals wear clothing that would invite profiling?

Immodest dress naturally suggests an immodest person.

Is an immodest person necessarily a slut?

Thus, having such a tat does provoke the image of a tramp in the mind of the observer

But that doesn't make one a slut any more than dressing attractively invites rape.

but only that the look implies something specific.

No, it infers something by the beholder.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Why can't a supposedly educated guy like yourself not realize that there are three threads in this post, with the first one not being on the subject of profiling? What an idiot!

As to your examples, there are two problems: In the case of the second example, we find that there is no evidence of racism in the actions of the officers, regardless of the error of their decisions:

(2) "In her ruling, Harmon (U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon) said that the Tolans' allegations that race was a factor in the events of that night were based on their "personal beliefs."

"There is simply no admissible evidence ... that either officer was motivated to act due to the race of any of the plaintiffs," she wrote.

She also found that Cotton acted reasonably and like any other officer would have when he shot Tolan.

"Sergeant Cotton misinterpreted Robbie Tolan's intended actions," she wrote, "but his firing on Robbie Tolan did not violate Robbie Tolan's constitutional rights because Sergeant Cotton feared for his life and could reasonably have believed the shooting was necessary under the totality of the factual circumstances evidenced by the summary judgment record."


The first example is apparently too recent to get any progress reports on the ongoing investigation. None that I could easily find, anyway, and I don't have the time for an intensive search to defend against the idiotic implication of your having provided these examples. Whether you like it or not, profiling is done by cops all the time, and citizens even far more often. As I said, it is the learned lessons of our experiences. There is no one who can say then NEVER profile. Everyone is prone to assumptions made by the impressions people naturally give off, due to their manner of dress, their mannerisms, and a host of other subtle factors, even their race.

But profiling for the purposes of crime prevention and crime solving is logical, rational, reasonable and what successful departments of all levels do. This is true regardless of abuses or errors. Only racists like yourself, suffering as you do from white guilt, feel otherwise. But then, who cares what you think?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Do you have any intelligent questions to ask?

"Why would criminals wear clothing that would invite profiling?"

This is in response to my answer to a previous stupid question of yours. It is part of your MO to ask a stupid question about a single speck from a mountain and think the question serves to blow holes in a solid premise. It doesn't work any better in this issue than in any other where you run this crap. This particular stupid question implies a suggestion was made that criminals have fashion meetings before committing crimes in order to co-ordinate their wardrobes. NO such suggestion was even hinted.

"Is an immodest person necessarily a slut?"

Already answered this. Asking again will not result in a different answer.

"But that doesn't make one a slut..."

Never said it did.

"...any more than dressing attractively invites rape."

But dressing attractively, more accurately, "provocatively", has indeed invited rapes and will continue to do so because such men exist in the world. The faith which you claim forms your morality preaches modest dress. Why do you think that is?

"but only that the look implies something specific.

No, it infers something by the beholder."


So you agree. Good. There's hope for you (somewhat). What the look implies is what is inferred by the beholder. If a woman dressing slutty doesn't provoke in you the thought that she might be slutty, that doesn't change the fact that in other men it does. What's more, since the woman who dresses in a slutty manner does so to attract attention to herself (and most people dress, at least part of the time, in order to give off some kind of impression), it is damned idiotic to pretend that there wouldn't be anyone who assumes something untoward about her character. And why not? She's dressing in a slutty manner!

Jim said...

What the look implies is what is inferred by the beholder.

Time to go study your dictionary.

Feodor said...

Stand your ground didn't work for her:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/17/stand-your-ground-didnt-work-for-her/?hpt=ac_t1

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"Time to go study your dictionary."

What I infer from your statement is your implication that I don't understand the meaning of the words "imply" and/or "infer". If my inference is correct, then your implication transmitted the meaning you intended. And herein is the problem YOU don't seem to understand about implications. They aren't always what was intended. Sometimes it is because the target of the implication did not infer what was intended. Other times, however, it is because the intended meaning was not properly transmitted via the words, actions or in the case of the above, the sartorial choices. Indeed, different people can infer different intentions from what was intended by the sender. All this is largely because implications, by definition, are not specific, direct or explicit statements. Thus, you may think you are dressing to impress, but instead, your choice of pants and shirt imply to others that you are the geek you are.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

I don't even have to bother with your last offering. You don't seem to realize that Stand Your Ground laws, and even self-defense decisions of any kind, do not guarantee anything for anyone. This is irrelevant. That some might still die when enacting some form of self-defense does not mean that defending one's self should never be attempted. But please, by all means, should anyone seek to beat you to death, feel free to reject any idea of defending yourself.

Feodor said...

His race was entered as a legal rationale for killing him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/opinion/condemned-to-die-because-hes-black.html?hp

Marshall Art said...

Again you present a link with no explanation for why it is relevant to anything. I know you have this irrational need to posture yourself as a superhero for racial justice, and that's just dandy, but again, why post this here? What silly point are you trying to make that is most certainly inappropriate for this discussion?

Feodor said...

If he were black he'd be in the hospital, jail, or the morgue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-stopped-for-speeding-in-texas-20130731,0,6618089.story

Marshall Art said...

You couldn't support that proposition if your life depended upon it. But while you carry on with your racist attitudes about whites killing blacks, you ignore the actual stats to which people like Selwyn Duke refer in his article.

Marshall Art said...

You couldn't support that proposition if your life depended upon it. But while you carry on with your racist attitudes about whites killing blacks, you ignore the actual stats to which people like Selwyn Duke refer in his article.

Feodor said...

"Obama foes at one point sang, 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' a derogatory reference to the president's skin color, while protesters like Deanne Bartram raised a sign saying, "impeach the Half-White Muslim!'"

Marshall: "Had his parents made an issue of how he dressed, behaved and carried himself, and had he accepted those teachings, none of this would have happend [sic]."

Bullshit.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/obama-protesters-arizona_n_3719050.html

Marshall Art said...

Is there any point at which you might draw a line between your links and any of the above posts?

Can you confirm with anything other than HuffPost's speculation, that the protestors were referring to Obama's skin color by the choice of that song? I'm not suggesting they weren't, but only that, in typical lib fashion, there's no evidence for it presented in the article. I mean, for one supposedly highly educated, are you aware of any other meanings for the term "black sheep" beside your fervent hope of racist connotations by Obama protesters?

Perhaps you can also explain your opposition to my statement you highlighted? Are you suggesting that solid parenting would have had no impact on the episode that resulted in Martin's death? Are you suggesting that he was incapable of being a better person, that his school suspension, had he not been serving it at the time of his death, would have taken place for the same reasons no matter the parental skills of his parents? Interesting.

Also interesting, on a side note, is Geoffrey's insistence that you and I are alike. Funny, really, in a typically pathetic kind of way. You guys are like clones.

Feodor said...

"On Feb. 2 2012, the narcotics team focused on Mr. Graham as he walked through the Wakefield neighborhood with two friends. Something about how he moved his hands near his waist led the officers to suspect he might be armed, and as the surveillance progressed, two officers said over the radio that they had seen the butt of a gun."

Well, of course, Mr. Graham was black and, of course, the shooting officer was white. Guess what happened. The unarmed 14 year old was killed in his grandmother's bathroom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/nyregion/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-officer-in-death-of-unarmed-youth.html?ref=nyregion

Feodor said...

Geoffrey ended up lying because he painted himself into a cheap ideological corner. He over thought. He is fooling himself. A penny wise and a pound foolish.

You deceive because you under think. No, I'm wrong. Rather, you use thought in only instrumental ways. It's why throughout your life you'll always end up with what you were looking for.

Marshall Art said...

"Well, of course, Mr. Graham was black and, of course, the shooting officer was white. Guess what happened. The unarmed 14 year old was killed in his grandmother's bathroom."

Well, of course, feo believes he can know the mind of the cops involved and, of course, there can be no other alternative but that they were eager not to waste an opportunity to shoot a black dude. Of course. What other possible explanation can there be?

You're a racist.

I don't know that I'd say that Geoffrey was necessarily lying, but only that, like you above, he really believes the stupid things he says. Like you, he believes himself to be incredibly insightful while not being so in the least, expecting his credentials to be the evidence to himself, more than to others, that he is.

"...throughout your life you'll always end up with what you were looking for."

I should be so lucky.

But the truth is that I do not, like you, pretend to be something I am not, only to have someone like me demonstrate with ease the reality. My thought process is not, unlike you and Geoffrey, fouled by an incredibly huge (but unjustifiably so) ego.

But unlike Neil, who has a limit to how much pretentious crap from people like you he'll suffer, Geoffrey deletes out of fear, knowing that his pretentious crap isn't as easily swallowed as he assumes it will be.

Feodor said...

"Can you confirm with anything other than HuffPost's speculation..."

The reporting came from the Arizona Republic, the state's largest newspaper, owned by Gannett.

Here's more virulent racism from Republican politicians:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/steve-lonegan-campaign-tweet_n_3731864.html

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Once in a while you get an idiot Republican who is racist. But the Demokrat party is THE party of racism, and has been throughout its history. So what? What does that have to do with the Zimmerman case?

So many red herrings in this comment string.

Marshall Art said...

As long as Dems support Affirmative Action and racial quotas and altering hiring standards when black applicants fail fire department tests, a right-winger can feel pretty confident he is not of the more racist side of the political divide. But we already know this to be the case. We don't need anyone telling us if we are or aren't racist, and don't waste time playing the race card when race has no bearing on a given issue. We don't have pundits proclaiming more and more words are "code words" for latent racism. We don't suffer from white guilt because people like feo and Geoffrey believe all white people bear some responsibility to the black race. All that crap comes from the racism of the left.

Feodor said...

As long as there are Republicans like Marshall and doofus who think people of color are stupid, we'll dominate the White House for a long time.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So I'm an idiot for saying the Demokrats are the party of racism? How about some facts:

http://scogginsnoggin2.blogspot.com/2011/10/they-said-it-i-didnt.html

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Try to pay attention and display a bit of honesty in your commentary. The right, in general, does not hold that people of color are stupid or that they might be simply because of their race. Indeed, people like Sowell, Williams, Thomas and so many others show that intelligence comes in all colors. But ANYONE who supports idiots like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and the Dem Party & "progressive" policies are stupid regardless of their color. This has been our position from the start despite leftist attempts to frame every little bit of opposition in terms of racism.

But of course, any black person who thinks that a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton or a Barry Obama are good people to have as leaders has to be stupid. Not all black people look to these idiots to represent them. Thus, they are intelligent.

Feodor said...

Fact: 90% of black voters vote Democrat.

Fact: 70% of Hispanic voters vote Democrat. And rising.

Fact: 60% of Asians voters vote Democrat. And rising.

Rising because Republicsn candidates cannot cover up their biased and racist private lives.

Rising because most of the Tea Party does not want to cover up their biased and racist private lives.

Rising because idiots like yourselves don't realize that you think the vast majority of people of color don't know what they know.

So, let me say: Thank you.

Marshall Art said...

If those numbers are rising, it is because of a perception of bias and racism, not because either actually exists on the right. This perception is nurtured and perpetuated by race baiting deceivers, much like yourself, who cannot prove any such charge, but depict rational, reasonable and beneficial positions of the right as racist.

For example, leftist liars accuse the right of hating Mexicans and foreigners from anywhere because the right opposes idiotic and harmful "comprehensive immigration reform", because the right wants the borders secured and those who enter illegally sent back.

So, yeah, those people of color who buy into such bullshit leftist rhetoric in fact do NOT know "what they know".

It has always been far easier for the left to accuse the right of all sorts of nastiness rather than to defend their stupid and damaging policy proposals.

Feodor said...

"... it is because of a perception of bias and racism, not because either actually exists on the right."

"Profiling is GOOD!"

Rising because idiots like yourselves don't realize that you think the vast majority of people of color don't know what they know.

I love it.

Marshall Art said...

And still you do nothing to prove your point, only assert it. This is because you have no point other than to disparage those with whom you disagree in order to attain and maintain power. Your highlighting of "profiling is good" is an example of the very thing to which I refer. Profiling does not make assumptions based on merely one factor, such as skin color. It never did except by Democrats of the past, but also by Dems of the present as they continue to fight for race based privileges and benefits for those they believe are incapable of overcoming what racism might still exist in our culture. The right knows they are capable to the extent that they want to be, just like anyone else, and just like people like Sowell, Thomas, Williams and a host of other blacks who have succeeded despite the left's negative perception of their abilities.

"I love it."

Of course you do. It serves your purpose to perpetuate the stereotype of the average right-winger in order to attain and maintain power through the votes of those you have hoodwinked by assuring them the biases they hold against the right-wing are justified. This is how they "know what they know". The fact is that far too many in the various minority groups who support Democratic candidates don't know that "what they know" is not the truth and that this self-deception perpetuates their own suffering. Why you love this is a testament to the fact of your low character.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ignorant people voting Demokrat are rising in numbers because of all the entitlements promised by the Demokrats. THAT is the real fact.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Are the Democrats THE party of racism?
More evidence:
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2013/07/02/two-centuries-of-racism--brought-to-you-by-the-democrat-party-n1632012/page/full

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2012/08/the-democratic-party-is-a-party-of-racism.html

Feodor said...

Profiling is not being scared of where crimes are high. This is where Neil cannot be more ignorant. Malcolm X was a great community organizer for Harlem. But when his home was bombed he raced back to it where his wife and daughters were - in Queens. He did not live in Harlem. He did not want that danger for his family. He wanted safety and good education for everyone who lived in Harlem and he knew that a racist economy and bad education was keeping the people in Harlem poor and vulnerable to bad messages and crime as an alternative way of having some money.

This is not Profiling. Profiling is marking someone not because of who they are but because of what one assumes they because of the way they look.

Profiling is also not something one can avoid when one is in costume and - as soon as one is recognized for who they are - the profiling stops. This is where Marshall is an idiot as well.

Profiling is so clearly not because of costume or one's context. If you live in Brownsville Brooklyn you know better than I how dangerous it is. And we are both scared.

Profiling is simply a belief that anyone with that skin is more than likely a problem. My daughter in a hood is not seen as a problem. One of my students in a hood is always seen as a potential problem.

Because of skin. Because of skin, I can find online reporting every day of some incident. I can find one every day because there are hundreds and thousands each day and at least one is surely to be reported. Profiling is when my wife, who makes mid-six figures, is followed in department stores in the midwest. But not in Brooklyn.

Millions of Americans are solidly Democrats not because the Democratic Party is not racist. Of course it has racist elements. It's American. And that is a deeply ingrained part of American identity.

Millions of Americans of color are Democrats because the Republican Party is far more racist, sexist, and cares far less for the poor. The poor who are so much like the families where so many of us came from.

This is why all my comments are apropos.

When someone says profiling is good, when Marshall says it and defends it, he proves he doesn't know what he's talking about. And the vast majority of people of color know it. And they don't care that Glenn thinks these millions of Americans are stupid. When Glenn expounds, it's like a baby calling the color brown blue. He's so confused.

Marshall Art said...

I don't know why, but I'm still fascinated that you can say what you do and still dare to refer to others as confused, ignorant or idiots.

Profiling is the act or process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies. In law enforcement, it goes well beyond something as superficial as mere skin color, though skin color may be one of many factors considered for a specific profile. For the average individual, it may, unfortunately, be the main factor and usually as a result of a traumatic experience involving someone of a given race or ethnicity. These are two different things, though to someone as intent on smearing those on the right, people like feodor are more than happy to muddy the distinction and call it all racism.

When law enforcement profiles, they may be forced to consider a specific race or ethnicity as an important factor, as when so many terrorist acts have been shown to have been perpetrated by young men of Arabic ethnicity. In such a case, feo would agree that it makes perfect sense to ignore young Arabic men as possible suspects in future acts of terror. Indeed, he likely sees nothing illogical about searching an old white woman in a wheel chair for explosive devices at airports. Could an old white woman in a wheel chair actually be harboring an explosive device? Well, of course. But does she fit the profile of a terrorist? No. Thus, the likelihood of such a person carrying a bomb is quite low and to search such a person in hopes of detecting a terrorist plot is likely a waste of time and resources. Proper profiling helps law enforcement make sound decisions in prevent or solving crimes. Profiling is good.

What feo fears is the misuse of profiling, which is actual racism. I am in agreement that such is wrong. It is not profiling, however. But feo likes to make them synonymous for some racist reason of his own.

"Millions of Americans of color are Democrats because the Republican Party is far more racist, sexist, and cares far less for the poor."

These people have been deceived by the very people (Dems) who have been historically most damaging to race relations in this country. I have posted a list like this one many times in the past, and people like feo will ignore these historical facts and continue to accuse the right of racism and bigotry. He would call articles like this one to be revisionist without supplying real evidence that says otherwise. Racism is a deeply ingrained part of Democratic identity.

"Profiling is also not something one can avoid when one is in costume and - as soon as one is recognized for who they are - the profiling stops. This is where Marshall is an idiot as well."

Yet it happened to me, and more importantly, it happens in actual profiling, when the appearance is shown to be only a superficial aspect of a given suspect: "Yeah, he looked like the guy, dressed like him, but it wasn't him."

more....

Marshall Art said...

"My daughter in a hood is not seen as a problem."

Because she is not a dude in a hood, she is more likely to be assumed to NOT be a suspect, whereas a young black in a hood, with his pants hangin' down, maybe tatted up, in an area where people who look like him aren't common and where a crime has just been committed...such a person might draw attention and raise suspicions, which is too bad for a kid who chooses to dress like a gang-banger.

Just as a woman who dresses like a street walker might be regarded by some men as...you know...a street walker, some people are profiled as criminals because of their look as well. It's not only a great law enforcement protocol, it's freakin' human nature and helps keep us safe. Indeed, it would be far worse if the low character people decided to blend in. We'd be less likely to know who they are and thus be more vulnerable to them.

Feodor said...

Marshall: "Had his parents made an issue of how he dressed, behaved and carried himself, and had he accepted those teachings, none of this would have happend [sic]."

Bullshit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/11/obama-rodeo-clown_n_3741218.html

Feodor said...

"... so many terrorist acts have been shown to have been perpetrated by young men of Arabic ethnicity."

Let's see.

1980 bombing of the Statue of Liberty? No.
1981 Federal Reserve kidnapping? No.
1983 US Senate bombing? Nope.
1984 first bio-terrorism in US? No.
1984 killing of Alan Berg? No.
1985 religious bombing of Alex Odeh? No.

The Unabomber? (killed 3 injured 23) Nope. Nope. Nope.

1989 bombing of the Riverdale Press? Yes! That's one, Marshall. Good for you.

1993 First World Trade Center Bombing? Yes! That's two!

1993 CIA shooting killing 3? No.
1993 and on, bombing and assassination of 8 parenthood clinic workers and multiple bombings? No. No. No. No. (More likely people like you, Marshall, as long as we are racially profiling.)

1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Killed 168 people. 19 were children.

Thought to be Arab. Turned out to be two white men. NO and NO.

1996 Atlanta Olympic Park bombing? Nope.

1997 Empire State Building shooting? Yes! That's three, Marshall, but trailing badly.

September 11, 2001. Yes. That's four.

2001 anthrax attacks? No.
2002 LAX shooting? No.
2002 DC Beltway snipers? No.
2003 Ohio highway sniper? Nope.

2006 UNC auto injures 6. Yes!

2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting? Nope.
2008 torching of Washington homes and bombing of biologists homes? Nope.

2009 Ft. Hood shooting? Yes! That's 6.

2009 LIttle Rock recruiting shooting? Nope.
2010 Pentagon shooting? Nope.
1010 Discovery Communications hostage crisis? Nope.
2012 Aurora theater shooting? No.
2012 Wisconsin Sikh shooting? Nope.
2012 Sandy Hook shooting? No.
1013 Boston Marathon Bombings? Nope.
2013 Ricin Letters? Nope.


So, that would make a rough review...

25 to 6 NON Arab.

See what happens when you racial profile, Marshall? You prove you don't know what the hell you're talking about. And you defame a whole ethnic group.

Shame on you, deceiver, lover of deceit.

Marshall Art said...

My gosh, it's like I'm talking to someone who is brain damaged! Let's first look at your comment of Aug 12 9:30AM. How can you possibly disagree with my statement? Let's review:

"Had his parents made an issue of how he dressed, behaved and carried himself, and had he accepted those teachings, none of this would have happened."

Get some help so you can really pull your head out of your ass so you can think clearly. How would the incident ever have happened if he had not been suspended from school and not living with his mother at the time? Can you explain this? OR, are you saying that dressed like a nice young man respectful of his self and others, walking directly home, he would still have drawn Zimmerman's attention? OR, are you saying that had he not been a hard-ass and not tried to play tough guy with Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have shot him anyway? Are you really suggesting such a thing after pretending so hard to be schooled in the Christian faith? I'm not surprised.

As to your second comment, with the list, you go wrong in a number of ways. Here's the first:

"(More likely people like you, Marshall, as long as we are racially profiling.)"

First of all, people "like me" don't bomb or assassinate people. Secondly, and you really need to pay attention here, we're NOT talking about RACIAL profiling. I was not talking about RACIAL profiling in the post. I was talking about only profiling which may include race as a factor of a given profile. Do you understand this clear point?

This point is critical in understanding why your list is idiotic. For one thing, you fail to understand that what provided was a general idea of how profiling terrorist acts might work. Your list contains incidents that are not necessarily acts of terror in the common usage of the word. For example, the 2010 Pentagon shooting was committed by a dude with mental problems. The Unabomber could also easily be categorized as a serial killing as opposed to the common understanding of what constitutes an act of terrorism.

Also, you fail to understand that when I suggested terrorist acts being committed by young Arabic men, that is only two of the criteria law enforcement actually might use. The Boston Marathon jerks were young and muslim, though not Arabic. So what? That doesn't make the profile law enforcement uses wrong. Nor does the perp of the 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. It only means that the profile might have to be adjusted for future situations.

However, and here is the irony, you racially profile yourself assuming racism merely because someone is white. OR merely because someone wore an Obama mask and mocked him and flipped the lips of the mask. What about those who wore Bush, Nixon or Reagan masks in mocking them? Were they racist for doing so?

You're an idiot because you think you are defending a race of people who need someone smarter working on their behalf than the likes of you. A false priest daring to accuse another of deceit. Typical.

Ingeborg said...

This is gorgeous!

Marshall Art said...

Ingeborg,

Could you elaborate, please?