Maryland Sen/NAACP propose law to ban "Profiling"; First hoodies, now hairdos.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bucs90, Apr 12, 2012.

  1. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Charleston NAACP president Dot Scott to testify in Washington on racial profiling | The Post and Courier | Charleston SC, News, Sports, Entertainment

    Senatory Ben Cardin and NAACP local leader Dot Scott (Charleston) have proposed a national ban on racial profiling, that would ban police from considering race "TO ANY DEGREE" when investigating a crime or making a stop. Meaning.....race cannot be mentioned, considered or relied on, "to any degree", by cops. The law would also open up INDIVIDUAL officers to lawsuits should they use race, "to any degree", in law enforcement.

    Meaning....say a store is robbed by a white male with dreadlocks (we've seen them). And a caller tells dispatch a white kid with dreadlocks robbed a store. And a cop sees a white kid with dreadlocks walking amongst a group of 10 black males with dreadlocks. The cop would have to stop all 11 men, and interview all of them, as he could not consider the "white" factor, "to any degree".

    What sparked this? In North Charleston, SC, which was ranked as the 6th most dangerous city in America as recently as 2006, a cop was dispatched to a predominantly black neighborhood because a large group of males were shooting at each other.

    The BLACK 911 caller said a black male with "dreadlocks" was the shooter. Cops stopped several groups of black male teens in the area. One officer saw a "black male with dreadlocks" in the immediate area, and the subject turned and began to run from him. "Reasonable suspicion"?? I think so. So the cop chases him. The teen turns around and points a gun at the cop, and the cop shoots him (wounded not killed). The mom and local NAACP, and a lawyer of course, claim the kid had no gun..........even though NCPD recovered the gun next to the kid. The family called him a "choir boy", literally, and said that the gun must have been planted because their baby didn't own a gun. Then, a facebook photo shows the kid pointing a gun, the same gun the cops recovered, at the camera. Ooops.

    So logically, the next step is the family and NAACP say the cop PROFILED their son, because he has "braids", not "dreadlocks" like the original caller reported. Nevermind the fact their "choir boy" saw a cop, ran from him, turned and pointed a gun at him. Nope. They feel their baby was profiled because the cops were looking for a "black male with dreadlocks with a gun" and their baby was a "black male with BRAIDS.....and a gun" so it must have been racist.


    Anyway, if this bill passes, good luck to everyone, because cops will basically quit policing. And I dont blame 'em.

    Oh, by the way, in the original article, the 911 caller, a black man, said he thinks the cops are in the right, that he is horrified at all the black kids selling drugs and carrying guns, and that he feels the cops do not harrass anyone but rather just respond to known crime. Oh well, what does he know about race...being an innocent black man living amongst the inner city chaos, right?
     
  2. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Oh....and to add:

    In 2007, North Charleston hired Police Chief Jon Zumalt. His job was to change the city's designation as "6th Most Dangerous City" in US. Among his first actions was to reach out to the Charleston NAACP, led by the above mentioned Dot Scott. Seeing as over 90% of N. CHars violent crime was in all black neighborhoods, it made sense.

    Scott's response to Chief Zumalt? "It's not my job to do YOUR job, chief" (True story, google it).

    So....6 years later...after "saturation patrols" in the most crime ridden neighborhoods, North Charleston is not statistically the 3rd or 4th "most dangerous" city.......in the state, behind Columbia, Myrtle Beach, Charleston, etc.

    Great job Chief. Hope the NAACP doesn't sue you guys over it.
     
  3. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    When there is surveillance cameras in use, a description of a perpetrator is never given. Not to any degree. The film is shown "asking for the public's help" capturing the criminal. The CAMERAS are racist. Facial recognition technology is racist. If the film shows, clearly shows, that the guy robbing the 7-11 is black, that film is racist because possible white perpetrators are automatically not considered.

    In England it's like this.

    https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/...s-used-to-classify-people-by-race-thankf.html

    One of our very first thoughts, upon learning that Facial Recognition image processing was actually being deployed on the streets of London, in the Borough of Newham, was that if the system had any success at all in picking out individual faces from a crowd, then it would not be difficult to use such a system to racially classify people by skin colour.
     
  4. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210

    Cameras are one thing. This pertains to the "in progress" crime. So when a caller calls and says "A black guy with a gun wearing blue jeans and a light shirt" just robbed her, cops responding can only look for "man with a gun wearing blue jeans and a light shirt", even if it happened as a local Klu Klux Klan rally and there is only 1 black guy within miles....they can't stop that 1 guy if race is a factor "to any degree". (BTW, I think it would be AWESOME if someone, of any race, robbed a KKK rally, those scumbags deserve it).
     
  5. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    I know most liberals wont read/comment on this post, though, because:

    1- It's long, and too much reading for them
    2- They hate cops anyway
    3- They think the law is a great idea
     
  6. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,117
    Thanks Received:
    10,158
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,656
    because they like to say someone is white even when they aren't..
     
  7. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    From your article, concerning the language of the law:

    Your case scenario:

    Since the store owner gave specific details about the perp, i.e., white male, dreadlocks...then the officer has EVERY right to seek out white males with dreadlocks in the immediate vicinity of the crime. This would not be considered a spontaneous nor investigatory activity.
     
  8. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    WRONG.

    The initial incident which sparked this law was the one in N Char I described, where a BLACK caller did give a specific description. Dott Scott and the family still dont buy it.

    It would be considered an "investigatory" activity, as stopping anyone who is "suspected of possibly having been involved in a crime" is covered under the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which laid the basis for reasonable suspicion "Terry Stops" by law enforcement, also called "investigative detention".

    Thus, an "investigatory" stop would include responding to a call in which a crime was reported. And that cop could not consider race "to any degree" under this law. And, if the law is applied correctly, the police dispatchers would likely have to exclude race in the on-air dispatch to street officers, meaning the cop would only be told "male" in stead of "white male" with dreadlocks.

    That is 100% how this law would apply.
     
  9. ducks102
    Offline

    ducks102 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    620
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +74
    with whites around anything is possible where they call the police
     
  10. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Except the original caller in this 911 case was a black man, asking white cops to come stop the black teens from shooting up the neighborhood.
     

Share This Page