Cruz calls for special patrols of Muslim neighborhoods....grrr

[LeSellers]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

they're not all ISIS attacks

No, but they are all Muslim attacks, most on other Muslims, and many on the West.

ISIS is not the only threat. We've noted several others,  for instance, Boko Haran ("Western education is forbidden" or something similar). Killing hundreds of men, kidnapping women and girls to be used or sold as sex slaves.

Lehi

Edited March 26, 2016 by LeSellers

[zil]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Zil Dear? Once you left the compound, you are no longer invited to any parties. 

LOL

[Jojo Bags]

20 hours ago, LeSellers said:

No, but they are all Muslim attacks, most on other Muslims, and many on the West.

ISIS is not the only threat. We've noted several others, but not Boko Haran ("Western education is forbidden" or something similar). Killing hundreds of men, kidnapping women and girls to be used or sold as sex slaves.

Lehi

It isn't the Christians who are attacking Boko Haran, or Christians who are beheading  Muslims because they are not of their religion.  Any instances of other religious groups killing Muslims was done solely in self-defense.  It is Muslims beheading Muslims and anyone else who doesn't agree with their perverted brand of religion.

[LeSellers]

43 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

It isn't the Christians who are attacking Boko Haran, or Christians who are beheading  Muslims because they are not of their religion.  Any instances of other religious groups killing Muslims was done solely in self-defense.  It is Muslims beheading Muslims and anyone else who doesn't agree with their perverted brand of religion.

I hope you do not imagine that I said anything different.

Islam has produced a decided propensity to violence and atrocity. That so many resist, at least able to be peaceful, is the anomaly.

Lehi

Edited March 26, 2016 by LeSellers

[mirkwood]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

But yes, this does give the skewed impression that Muslims are only killing Westerners

No it doesn't.  That list is muslims attacking muslims.

[carlimac]

There was a tweet about a lovely Muslim man in Scotland who was a shop owner. He was stabbed to death by a fellow Muslim for wishing his Christian friends a Happy Easter.  

I don't think we should be so afraid of racial profiling. What is the harm in it? I have a nephew, adopted from Columbia, who has an Irish last name now. but he looks Hispanic, (because he is). He has been profiled a few times. But he isn't so defensive that he gets his feathers ruffled about his Constitutional rights. He realizes it's all part of keeping America safe. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to worry about. Why do people get so huffy about profiling? I think it's absolutely necessary if the terrorists are going to get exposed and captured. 

When we lived in the DC area this last year, there were sometimes electronic freeway signs that said "If you see something, say something." These were lit up especially if there was a threat, like around the 4th of July. So to do this as a common citizen, we have to profile. What is normal day to day activity among certain groups of people might mean something totally different among another group. For example, I wouldn't think twice about being approached by a group of young men on a darkish street near a campus if they were dressed in khakis and button downs and walking upright, smiling and laughing. But being approached by a group of young men of color in gangster attire, with hoods up would chill me to the bone. That right there is profiling. And if we don't do it we'd be way too naive and might be terribly sorry in a hurry. 

As far as  Muslim neighborhoods, when we lived in MN there were large enclaves of people from Somali in apartment complexes, but then there would be random houses they congregated in, too. We had a house like that at the end of our street and there were atypical comings and goings from that house with curious things going on there. Probably nothing nefarious, but I would have felt more comfortable with police cruising our street more often. We moved before they did so I'll never really know what they were up to. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by carlimac

[unixknight]

On 3/27/2016 at 11:40 PM, carlimac said:

I don't think we should be so afraid of racial profiling. What is the harm in it?

The problem with racial profiling is that it runs counter to the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty.  It also violates the 4th and 5th Amendments.  While it's true that simply stopping and questioning someone is a far cry from convicting them, or even accusing them of a crime, what it does do is to put an ordinary person in a position to have to prove his or her innocence by having to answer questions or submit to a search. 

And if the person does exercise their rights and refuses to answer questions or allow themselves to be searched, what then, is the point of the profiling?

[LeSellers]

6 hours ago, unixknight said:

The problem with racial profiling is that it runs counter to the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty.

It does no such thing. That's sheer PC claptrap.

What's the difference between looking for a Hispanic male and looking for someone wearing a green shirt and brown trousers as a suspect in a crime?

This aversion to even noting race is absurd: years ago, I asked a co-worker to point out "Tom Smith". The late Bill pointed to a guy in the corner wearing a green shirt, one of three in the room. He said something like, "I won't mention his race, because that would be wrong." There was exactly one black guy, "Tom", in the room.

Use the most helpful means of describing the subject. If it's his race, it's fair game.

Further, while not all Muslims are terrorists, nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Now, since "Muslim" is not a "race", it is not "racial profiling" to keep an eye out for them, as opposed to the Amish or Baptists, who are much, much less likely to be terrorists.

6 hours ago, unixknight said:

It also violates the 4th and 5th Amendments.  While it's true that simply stopping and questioning someone is a far cry from convicting them, or even accusing them of a crime, what it does do is to put an ordinary person in a position to have to prove his or her innocence by having to answer questions or submit to a search.

The IV and V apply only to government. If you, a private citizen, are alert to potential dangers, you are far from violating anyone's rights. You are not prohibited from searching or watching, as long as you do not violate property rights.

6 hours ago, unixknight said:

if the person does exercise their rights and refuses to answer questions or allow themselves to be searched, what then, is the point of the profiling?

Just to keep alert, to be aware, to notice what's going on around you.

In San Bernadino, two neighbors had noticed some strange goings on, but didn't want to notify anyone, 'cuz it would be "racist" (note disclaimer above). They were partially responsible for those deaths, too.

Lehi

Edited March 28, 2016 by LeSellers

[unixknight]

46 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

It does not such thing. That's sheer PC claptrap.

If that's to be the tone of our discussion, this ought to be interesting.

46 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

What's the difference between looking for a Hispanic male and looking for someone wearing a green shirt and brown trousers as a suspect in a crime?

This aversion to even noting race is absurd: years ago,

Who said anything about leaving out a person's race as part of the physical description of a suspect?  As much as it seems to annoy you when people put words in your mouth, I'd ask that you avoid doing so to me.    I don't have a problem with including any and all attributes about a specific individual when describing them.  That isn't what profiling is.

46 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The IV and V apply only to government. If you, a private citizen, are alert to potential dangers, you are far from violating anyone's rights. You are not prohibited from searching or watching, as long as you do not violate property rights.

People often use that approach as a way to circumvent the protections of the Bill of Rights.  It's like saying an employer who fires an employee for having a bumper sticker that supports a particular point of view and then justifies it by saying that Free Speech protections don't apply to private citizens.  While that's technically true, I find it to be a copout because it's a way of benefiting from those protections without really believing in them.  One either believes in the ideals in the Bill of Rights or they don't.

46 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Just to keep alert, to be aware, to notice what's going on around you.

In San Bernadino, two neighbors had noticed some strange goings on, but didn't want to notify anyone, 'cuz it would be "racist" (note disclaimer above). They were partially responsible for those deaths, too.

Again, that isn't profiling.  You're talking about specific individuals engaged in specific behaviors.  When people talk about racial profiling (or profiling on whatever other basis, such as religion) they're talking about broadly treating people in that category as suspects.  (For example, pulling over a black person driving down the highway for no other reason than he's black.)  There's a big difference between looking for a specific individual for a specific reason, and casting a broad net for all people of a certain description for no specific crime.  The former is not profiling, and I have no problem with it.  The latter is profiling, and it is incompatible with the ideals of the Bill of Rights.

[anatess2]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 6:53 PM, mirkwood said:

No it doesn't.  That list is muslims attacking muslims.

You completely misunderstood what I said.

I said... the BREAKING NEWS COVERAGE selection gives the impression that Muslims are only killing Westerners.

[anatess2]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 9:24 PM, LeSellers said:

No, but they are all Muslim attacks, most on other Muslims, and many on the West.

ISIS is not the only threat. We've noted several others,  for instance, Boko Haran ("Western education is forbidden" or something similar). Killing hundreds of men, kidnapping women and girls to be used or sold as sex slaves.

Lehi

Yes, but not all Muslim attacks are Breaking News.  In the same manner that not all black crimes in the US are breaking news, nor all police killing of a black person in the US is breaking news.

 

[carlimac]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, but not all Muslim attacks are Breaking News.  In the same manner that not all black crimes in the US are breaking news, nor all police killing of a black person in the US is breaking news.

 

It is these days!

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, unixknight said:

The problem with racial profiling is that it runs counter to the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty.  It also violates the 4th and 5th Amendments.  While it's true that simply stopping and questioning someone is a far cry from convicting them, or even accusing them of a crime, what it does do is to put an ordinary person in a position to have to prove his or her innocence by having to answer questions or submit to a search. 

And if the person does exercise their rights and refuses to answer questions or allow themselves to be searched, what then, is the point of the profiling?

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in the courtroom, yes.  But if it applied in investigatory processes, then all law enforcement investigations would play out as follows:
 

Quote

 

Detective 1:  Hey!  How about John Doe?

Detective 2:  Nah.  He's innocent until proven guilty, so we gotta quit looking at him.

Detective 1:  By thunder, you're right!  Okay, who else do we got?

---

Officer 1:  Hey, it's 2 AM and that car's swerving pretty bad.  Better pull him over.

Officer 2:  Can't do that, Officer.  He's innocent until proven guilty.

Officer 1:  Yeah, you're right--Constitution says he's sober.  Hey, look--a donut shop!

 

There's already pretty well-defined Fourth Amendment jurisprudence for casual conversation versus a RAS stop versus probable cause. I think it makes sense to use "profiling" insofar as it entails subjecting particular regions/demographics with disproportionate crime rates, to disproportionate scrutiny--so long as traditional constitution protections continue to apply.  And it might be helpful, in this conversation, if we take a minute to make sure we're all on the same page about what "profiling" actually entails.

As for the question of what the point is in profiling if a suspect can refuse to answer questions at any time--one could ask the same question about police work generally.  The fact is (and, as an attorney, I say this somewhat ruefully)--people looove to talk to police, and they don't invoke their 4th/5th amendment rights nearly often enough.

5 hours ago, unixknight said:

People often use that approach as a way to circumvent the protections of the Bill of Rights.  It's like saying an employer who fires an employee for having a bumper sticker that supports a particular point of view and then justifies it by saying that Free Speech protections don't apply to private citizens.  While that's technically true, I find it to be a copout because it's a way of benefiting from those protections without really believing in them.  One either believes in the ideals in the Bill of Rights or they don't.

I disagree.  The Bill of Rights wasn't implemented to decree how people should be treated by their fellow citizens, who--in their individual capacities--retain their own rights; including the right to free association (and, by implication, the right to refuse to associate).  The Bill of Rights was implemented to decree how people should be treated by a government--with guns--from which those people were powerless to disassociate.  It guarantees negative liberties, not positive liberties--the latter being, at their core, an attempt to infringe upon the former.

[LeSellers]

8 hours ago, LeSellers said:

The IV and V apply only to government. If you, a private citizen, are alert to potential dangers, you are far from violating anyone's rights. You are not prohibited from searching or watching, as long as you do not violate property rights.

7 hours ago, unixknight said:

People often use that approach as a way to circumvent the protections of the Bill of Rights.  It's like saying an employer who fires an employee for having a bumper sticker that supports a particular point of view and then justifies it by saying that Free Speech protections don't apply to private citizens.  While that's technically true, I find it to be a copout because it's a way of benefiting from those protections without really believing in them.  One either believes in the ideals in the Bill of Rights or they don't.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I disagree.  The Bill of Rights wasn't implemented to decree how people should be treated by their fellow citizens, who--in their individual capacities--retain their own rights; including the right to free association (and, by implication, the right to refuse to associate).  The Bill of Rights was implemented to decree how people should be treated by a government--with guns--from which those people were powerless to disassociate.  It guarantees negative liberties, not positive liberties--the latter being, at their core, an attempt to infringe upon the former.

Just_A_Guy is absolutely correct.

Whenever anyone wants to impose the Bill of Rights" on private citizens, we may be certain that the would be moralist does not understand the Constitution in the least. Its purpose is to limit government, not people (except in a very, very few, specific cases. Only when one sees the Constitution in its Declaration of Independence framework, that is that government do not have any "rights", ever, and only those legitimate powers explicitly granted by the people, do we have a hope of understanding what the Framers intended.

Specifically, the I says "Congress shall have no power … ." It says absolutely nothing about the people and our powers to, for instance, curtail freedom of the press by not buying a newspaper, or to disestablish a church by not attending it. The rest of the Bill of Rights is the same: always a limit on government, not on the people. In fact ,the IX says that the people retain all of their rights and powers not expressly restricted by the Document.

So, you imply that I don't "really believ[e] [the Bill of Rights]". Let's see who does, from your PoV: Would you do all of the following:

1) Invite an anti-Mormon to use your front porch to rant about the serial rapist/adulterer, Joseph Smith?

2) Allow a mob onto your front lawn to burn a cross?

3) For that same mob, to use your swimming pool for an alcohol-fueled rave?

Why does a person lose his right to freedom of assembly merely because he opens a business and hires people to serve his customers? Yes, that employers should be able to control the "speech" of anyone, especially an employee, who is on his property.

I do not get the right to force the only tire store in Pahrump, Nevada, to sell me a tire, merely because I had a blowout and have the money to pay if that tire store owner doesn't like "Mormons". I respect his property rights. I'd walk to Las Vegas and back, rolling a wheel both ways, before using the lethal power of the state to coerce him.

And I fully support this owner's choice, although I will not eat at his restaurant:

A devout Muslim immigrant obtained his U.S. citizenship and opened a Dairy Queen franchise in Houston, Texas. Though he seemed to be living the American dream, there are just some mindsets that he wouldn’t give up. He decided to implement Sharia segregation because he wanted to keep out one particular group of “infidels” from his store. http://patriotupdate.com/dairy-queen-owner-muslim-enacts-sharia-apartheid-ban-certain-people/

Lehi

Edited March 28, 2016 by LeSellers

[Blackmarch]

What about radicalized christians, lgbtq activists, environmental activists, nationalists and etc.... Why just muslims? We should have officers present at all social gatherings, for the sake of national security.

 

 

 

What possibly could go wrong?.......

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited March 29, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Trip

Lehi

Edited March 29, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

What about radicalized christians, lgbtq activists, environmental activists, nationalists and etc.... Why just muslims? We should have officers present at all social gatherings, for the sake of national security.

What possibly could go wrong?.......

So, how many terrorist attacks have "radicalized christians [sic]" done?

I agree with watching lgbtq activists: they have not done too many killings, but they are destroying freedom of speech for people who disagree with their PoV.

Same with environmental activists, although they have killed a lot of people.

Show us the terror done by "nationalists".

And, please show me where I've said that we should have "officers present at" mosques.

What I have said is that people should pay attention to those groups, especially governmental groups, who have a history of killing people, destroying freedom, and other crimes.

Lehi

[Blackmarch]

Just now, LeSellers said:

So, how many terrorist attacks have "radicalized christians [sic]" done?

I agree with watching lgbtq activists: they have not done too many killings, but they are destroying freedom of speech for people who disagree with their PoV.

Same with environmental activists, although they have killed a lot of people.

Show us the terror done by "nationalists".

And, please show me where I've said that we should have "officers present at" mosques.

What I have said is that people should pay attention to those groups, especially governmental groups, who have a history of killing people, destroying freedom, and other crimes.

Lehi

I was making a jab at a certain candidate, nor did i say mosques or churches either. Increased security comes at a price- we could be very secure; we could emulate china's and the former soviet union's policies if we have a way to motivate all the extra manpower that would be required. a certain candidate said to increase security involving a certain US civilian demographic. there are two parts to that need addressing - increased security (costs such as $$ needed as well as the loss of privacy), and the more troubling aspect of making it legal to target certain groups based only on culture or belief.
as for christian radicalists the KKK come to mind. As for nationalists there we've had groups that were pro for various nations who were very terroristic in their actions when something would happen to their nation of choice that they didn't agree with- the usual action is kidnapping and holding for ransom to get either the US to pull out or to intervene of some situation else where in the world. The world of organized crime generally covers all terror bases pretty well and often.

[Blackmarch]

Just now, LeSellers said:

So, how many terrorist attacks have "radicalized christians [sic]" done?

I agree with watching lgbtq activists: they have not done too many killings, but they are destroying freedom of speech for people who disagree with their PoV.

Same with environmental activists, although they have killed a lot of people.

Show us the terror done by "nationalists".

And, please show me where I've said that we should have "officers present at" mosques.

What I have said is that people should pay attention to those groups, especially governmental groups, who have a history of killing people, destroying freedom, and other crimes.

Lehi

I was making a jab at a certain candidate, nor did i say mosques or churches either. Increased security comes at a price- we could be very secure; we could emulate china's and the former soviet union's policies if we have a way to motivate all the extra manpower that would be required. a certain candidate said to increase security involving a certain US civilian demographic. there are two parts to that need addressing - increased security (costs such as $$ needed as well as the loss of privacy), and the more troubling aspect of making it legal to target certain groups based only on culture or belief.
as for christian radicalists the KKK come to mind. As for nationalists there we've had groups that were pro for various nations who were very terroristic in their actions when something would happen to their nation of choice that they didn't agree with- the usual action is kidnapping and holding for ransom to get either the US to pull out or to intervene of some situation else where in the world. The world of organized crime generally covers all terror bases pretty well and often.

[unixknight]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in the courtroom, yes.  But if it applied in investigatory processes, then all law enforcement investigations would play out as follows:

The problem with your examples is they have nothing to do with what I said.  I explicitly said that suspecting specific individuals of specific crimes, that isn't profiling and has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty.

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There's already pretty well-defined Fourth Amendment jurisprudence for casual conversation versus a RAS stop versus probable cause. I think it makes sense to use "profiling" insofar as it entails subjecting particular regions/demographics with disproportionate crime rates, to disproportionate scrutiny--so long as traditional constitution protections continue to apply.  And it might be helpful, in this conversation, if we take a minute to make sure we're all on the same page about what "profiling" actually entails.

As for the question of what the point is in profiling if a suspect can refuse to answer questions at any time--one could ask the same question about police work generally.  The fact is (and, as an attorney, I say this somewhat ruefully)--people looove to talk to police, and they don't invoke their 4th/5th amendment rights nearly often enough.

Sure, I don't disagree with this.  I'd add to that by saying people should be better educated on their rights and why it's a good idea to exercise them at every possible opportunity.

The trouble is, profiling doesn't end there.  Are we talking about pulling people of particular demographics over, subjecting them to the embarrassment and inconvenience of an unnecessary traffic stop?  Are we going to implement "stop and frisk" all over the country - but only for Muslims?  What about inside one of these Muslim communities?  Is it supposed to be okay there?

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I disagree.  The Bill of Rights wasn't implemented to decree how people should be treated by their fellow citizens, who--in their individual capacities--retain their own rights; including the right to free association (and, by implication, the right to refuse to associate).  The Bill of Rights was implemented to decree how people should be treated by a government--with guns--from which those people were powerless to disassociate.  It guarantees negative liberties, not positive liberties--the latter being, at their core, an attempt to infringe upon the former.

That's right, but it still represents an ideal.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

-Attributed to Voltaire

Or do you prefer

"I don't like what you have to say, so since I'm not the Government I am perfectly justified in silencing you.

-Attributed to guys who are sheltered by the First Amendment but don't really believe in what it means.

I'll take the former, thanks.

 

[unixknight]

16 hours ago, LeSellers said:

So, you imply that I don't "really believ[e] [the Bill of Rights]". Let's see who does, from your PoV: Would you do all of the following:

1) Invite an anti-Mormon to use your front porch to rant about the serial rapist/adulterer, Joseph Smith?

2) Allow a mob onto your front lawn to burn a cross?

3) For that same mob, to use your swimming pool for an alcohol-fueled rave?

Why would I need to?  Refusing to silence someone else in the name of free speech isn't the same as providing them with a venue to do it.  That being said, I run a website for my wargaming club, and some of the members of that club are pretty left-leaning and in come cases, even hostile to religion. Generally they're respectful but occasionally a political debate pops up and they speak their mind.  Not once have I ever deleted a post or banned one of them for their opinions, even though the site belongs to me and I'm its sole administrator.  If they were to become outright abusive or threatening, I'd act, but never to simply silence opinions I don't like.

I know what you want me to say, but this set of analogies misses the point entirely.

Edited March 29, 2016 by unixknight

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Refusing to silence someone else in the name of free speech isn't the same as providing them with a venue to do it.

I know what you want me to say, but this set of analogies misses the point entirely.

So, you keep accusing me and others here of wanting to silence Muslims, but I (nor do I believe, have others) ever said we want to silence them. We don't want to put officers in the mosques. We do want to watch what they do, and to know what they're advocating (which is far too often, "kill the infidels") by seeing and hearing what they're writing and saying in public.

The analogies do not miss the point. If you are willing to silence people in your own home, as I believe you should (and I'd run your wargaming site differently, precisely because the users are your guests and you should have and enforce some standards), why do you not extend that right others, like the boss who ought to have the right to mandate or outlaw certain speech that would harm him?

Again, I do not care if the Imams preach hate and intolerance in their mosques. But, when they do, we should be alert to that fact, and watch those who are influenced by their calls to arms. We need to be aware of, and alert to, the manifest danger of Muslims. That there are others who also preach the same kind of destructive concepts does not mean we should ignore the greatest potential threat in the name of "tolerance": they do not tolerate us. And, I do advocate that we watch the others, as well.

Lehi

[unixknight]

16 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

So, you keep accusing me and others here of wanting to silence Muslims,

I do?  Where?

16 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The analogies do not miss the point. If you are willing to silence people in your own home, as I believe you should (and I'd run your wargaming site differently, precisely because the users are your guests and you should have and enforce some standards), why do you not extend that right others, like the boss who ought to have the right to mandate or outlaw certain speech that would harm him?

I stay out of the way of other people's right to express themselves precisely because I demand the same in return.  I believe the only reason to silence an opinion one doesn't like is because they're afraid to hear it.  If a person wants to stand up and spout empty rhetoric then I can certainly respond by providing my own side, and have enough faith in it that my beliefs will prevail.  The people on my wargaming site know I'll respond if they want to debate something with my own arguments.  That's what open discourse is all about.

(dude, can you imagine ME keeping quiet when I hear something I think is foolish?  )

16 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Again, I do not care if the Imams preach hate and intolerance in their mosques. But, when they do, we should be alert to that fact, and watch those who are influenced by their calls to arms. We need to be aware of, and alert to, the manifest danger of Muslims. That there are others who also preach the same kind of destructive concepts does not mean we should ignore the greatest potential threat in the name of "tolerance": they do not tolerate us. And, I do advocate that we watch the others, as well.

  By all means, step up police patrols in the area.  Be open to informants.  Watch them all you want.  I'm as aware as you are where the terrorist threat is concentrated, speaking demographically.  What I"m not willing to do is compromise the Bill of Rights.  If we do that, then we lose all moral high ground.

Edited March 29, 2016 by unixknight

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

The trouble is, profiling doesn't end there.  Are we talking about pulling people of particular demographics over, subjecting them to the embarrassment and inconvenience of an unnecessary traffic stop?  Are we going to implement "stop and frisk" all over the country - but only for Muslims?  What about inside one of these Muslim communities?  Is it supposed to be okay there?

Well, hang on a sec.  Traffic stops and stop-and-frisks are not, by their definition, unnecessary--there has to be at least a reasonable, articulable suspicion on the part of the officer that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed (Terry v. Ohio).  The question of whether officers are fudging on what constitutes "reasonable, articulable suspicion" is quite independent from the issue of profiling generally.

But, as to profiling:   As I pointed out earlier, 8% of Muslims in the US think it's OK to spread their religion through violence against civilians.  If only 3% of Mormons, and 2% of Jews, and 0.5% of nonagenarians believe similarly, then yes--assuming the legal requirements for a Terry stop are being met, then I think it's perfectly acceptable to have Muslims be twice as likely as Mormons, and four times as likely as Jews, and sixteen times as likely as nonagenarians, to be subject to such a stop. 

Now, I'm definitely open to arguments that profiling ought to be proportional--the notion that stop-and-frisk should be reserved for one or two ethnic groups, for example, is enormously problematic.  But to say that profiling shouldn't exist at all, and that a seventy-year-old native-born American Christian should be just as likely to be stopped and frisked as a twenty-year-old Syrian Muslim--I'm sorry, but that's just silly.  Yeah, it stinks to be the Syrian Muslim--but, you know what?  If the Syrian guy did not, himself, believe that Syrians were more violent than native-born Americans, he'd probably have stayed in Syria--or at least, in some other Islamic country. 

Since he's already acknowledged that--generally speaking--the proximity of other Syrians/Muslims poses a statistical threat to him; and he has acted on that threat by removing himself from it--then why can't we similarly acknowledge that the proximity of other Syrians/Muslims presents a statistically elevated threat, and take reasonable steps to monitor it by the targeted use of constitutionally acceptable tactics?

Quote

That's right, but it still represents an ideal.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

-Attributed to Voltaire

Or do you prefer

"I don't like what you have to say, so since I'm not the Government I am perfectly justified in silencing you.

-Attributed to guys who are sheltered by the First Amendment but don't really believe in what it means.

I'll take the former, thanks.

How about "if someone comes at you with a gun, I'm in your corner; but until then--I find you repugnant and I want nothing to do with you"?

The Zion ideal, of course, is for everyone to learn to play nicely with each other.  But the secular-civil-society ideal is that violence is the least likely to erupt, if those of us who do not wish to associate with each other are not compelled to do so.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy