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

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

Yes!  That's it exactly.  If there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion then it isn't profiling because the race or religion or whatever of the person is irrelevant!

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

If it's a justifiable Terry stop, then what do those percentages matter? 
 

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Now, I'm definitely open to arguments that profiling ought to be proportional.  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. 

I never said that.  I think you and LeSellers both are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

 

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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"

What do yuo want me to say?  Freedom of association is a thing.

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Yes!  That's it exactly.  If there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion then it isn't profiling because the race or religion or whatever of the person is irrelevant!

. . .

If it's a justifiable Terry stop, then what do those percentages matter? 

Well, I think that kind of brings us back to the Cruz proposal--what makes cops decide to operate in a particular area?  How do cops decide which bystanders to initiate consensual encounters with?  Does a cop--can a cop, practically speaking--do a Terry stop on every single jaywalker or busted taillight he sees; and if not, how does he decide which ones to pursue?

Quote

I never said that.  I think you and LeSellers both are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

I apologize for misstating your position.  I took you as arguing against all profiling, which--I think--would necessitate the sort of result I described.

Quote

What do yuo want me to say?  Freedom of association is a thing.

I suppose it depends on the course of action you're actually advocating here.  So far, you seem to have suggested that those who exercise their right of free association to disassociate themselves from viewpoints/individuals they find abhorrent, are actually violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the Bill of Rights.

Is that what you meant to suggest?

Edited March 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[unixknight]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, I think that kind of brings us back to the Cruz proposal--what makes cops decide to operate in a particular area?  How do cops decide which bystanders to initiate consensual encounters with?  Does a cop--can a cop, practically speaking--do a Terry stop on every single jaywalker or busted taillight he sees; and if not, how does he decide which ones to pursue?

That's where it gets sticky, I suppose.  Jaywalking and busted tail lights are justifiable reasons to stop, but I could see the ACLU looking to get involved if a certain demographic are disproportionately targeted.  (Or if it appears they are.)  I agree with greater attention to communities known to be sympathetic to terrorism, but at the same time it has to be done in a way to avoid victimizing the innocent as well as maintaining the superior moral position.

 

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I apologize for misstating your position.  I took you as arguing against all profiling, which--I think--would necessitate the sort of result I described.

I suppose it depends on the course of action you're actually advocating here.  So far, you seem to have suggested that those who exercise their right of free association to disassociate themselves from viewpoints/individuals they find abhorrent, are actually violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the Bill of Rights.

Is that what you meant to suggest?

Not at all.  I just mean that I'm not okay with people using their non-Government authority to arbitrarily silence those they don't agree with.  I won't delete posts on my club message board for expressing beliefs I don't share.  One can certainly choose not to read such posts.  (I have to, since I'm also one of the mods there, but I chose a co-moderator who is a Liberal so that we'd balance each other.) People have a right to say what they want but I also have a right to walk away (or argue, if I prefer, which I usually do )  

It's one thing to disassociate yourself.  It's another thing entirely to try and silence someone.

Edited March 29, 2016 by unixknight