Actually, it did.What that article doesn't say is that the Israeli profilers are well trained specialists who discern upon behaviour and body language.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Actually, it did.What that article doesn't say is that the Israeli profilers are well trained specialists who discern upon behaviour and body language.
Well I see Piggly-wigglies as generally good human beings doing a nasty job.Cops NEED training for dealing with and recognizing the mentally ill. Being harassed by pigs because you're an Aspie and talk like it shouldn't happen. Anyone familiar with the disorder can usually and easily pick up on it. Piggly-wigglies just hear a slower rate of speech with an unusual meter and suddenly you're having to prove your innocence.
ACLU, that is one opinion to consider but I am not always impressed by them.
Can't change willful ignorance either.Well we are not going to agree on anything then. I hear excessive emotional paranoia in that against what I believe to be overwhelmingly good human police officers and you probably hear a white racist position from me. Can't change emotions by debating.
Most countries have much less crime with not even a third of police spending per capita. Not by volume but by ratio. That is damning. Increased police doesn't make areas safer. Spending money we would on police on better healthcare (including mental healthcare), affordable housing, job programs and social services like child protection and civil servants does.Well what is the other side of the coin? Do you want less involved officers and more bad people getting away?
Any contact with authorities searching for criminal intentI can agree with demographic profiling based on statistical disproportions. The innocent among the profiled group have nothing to fear and will have greater safety even for themselves.
Care to show your work on that assumption? I don't think this is obvious at all.
Which lines would you select based on, and how do you account for the bias in selection criteria?
For example, would you have a problem with university educated women of colour who are evangelical Christians being given a pass at a security check if they have a median income of more than 100k?
Let's see what we have here: a straw man, a black and white, an appeal to emotion, a bait and switch and a non sequitur.Let me address the main objection to my argument: namely that criminals/terrorists will simply adjust to the profiling and use different people to carry out their acts of harm against others.
In order for this to be a valid objection to profiling, one would have to be able to demonstrate that profiling itself will change the demographics of crime so much that crime becomes completely unpredictable based on a person's demographic characteristics. In other words, you would have to affirm that profiling and investigation will cause the demographics of people who commit crimes to be completely random. This is an outrageous and indefensible claim. Do you really think that terrorists will adapt so well to profiling that a 3 year old white child from the American midwest has an equally likely probability of hiding explosives as a middle eastern man who voiced support for jihad in the past? There will NEVER be a scenario where some groups are not more likely to commit crimes than others. And as long as there is any possibility of profiling being effective, and thus saving lives, it should certainly be done.
OK, but there’s an inherent trade off between bad guys getting away and good guys getting hassled. What do you prefer if no mind reading or perfect humans or system exists?Any contact with authorities searching for criminal intent
has the risk of escalation & woe, even for the innocent.
And when the profiling is illegal, this inures government
to their own criminal behavior.
I didn’t dismiss it actually.I'm not always impressed by people who dismiss data without even interacting with it.
You are actually proving my point about excessive emotionalism.Can't change willful ignorance either.
I didn’t dismiss it actually.
And I think the main problem is lower moral behavior and social responsibility and academic performance in African American communities if we are talking statistics in the US. White And Asian statistics are closer to these other countries I’m sure.Most countries have much less crime with not even a third of police spending per capita. Not by volume but by ratio. That is damning. Increased police doesn't make areas safer. Spending money we would on police on better healthcare (including mental healthcare), affordable housing, job programs and social services like child protection and civil servants does.
The real mother of crime is poverty. Police aren't even a bandage oh, they just redirect money into already bloated money making schemes like private prisons.
Huh, is right. Not having time to read it immediately is not dismissal. Dismissal is calling it wrong without reading.Huh, that's weird. Point me to your reply to the substance of what I linked.
And I think the main problem is lower moral behavior and social responsibility and academic performance in African American communities if we are talking statistics in the US. White And Asian statistics are closer to these other countries I’m sure.
Poverty is more the result than the cause of the Black Community’s problems.
Let's see what we have here: a straw man, a black and white, an appeal to emotion, a bait and switch and a non sequitur.
That's a bingo.
Huh, is right. Not having time to read it immediately is not dismissal. Dismissal is calling it wrong without reading.