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

[bucs90]

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?

 

[bucs90]

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[bucs90]

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.

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).

 

[bucs90]

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

 

[WillowTree]

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

because they like to say someone is white even when they aren't..

 

[VaYank5150]

From your article, concerning the language of the law:

The legislation, Senate Bill 1670, defines racial profiling as law enforcement agents “relying, to any degree, on race ... in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities,” such as traffic stops or interviews.

Your case scenario:

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".

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.

 

[bucs90]

From your article, concerning the language of the law:

The legislation, Senate Bill 1670, defines racial profiling as law enforcement agents “relying, to any degree, on race ... in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities,” such as traffic stops or interviews.

Your case scenario:

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".

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.

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.

 

[ducks102]

with whites around anything is possible where they call the police

 

[bucs90]

with whites around anything is possible where they call the police

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.

 

[buckeye45_73]

does it include, adults with binkies, combs in their hair, footed pjs? What about gold teeth, tatoos, ect?When you look like a hood, people will treat you like one, how hard is this to understand?IT doesnt matter how many reeducation classes liberals put people in a spade is a spade!

 

[bucs90]

does it include, adults with binkies, combs in their hair, footed pjs? What about gold teeth, tatoos, ect?When you look like a hood, people will treat you like one, how hard is this to understand?IT doesnt matter how many reeducation classes liberals put people in a spade is a spade!

Once they make it illegal for cops to consider skin color and hair type in searching for a suspect (even when the 911 caller provides the information) they'll move on to banning the consideration of looking for colored shirts, hats, pants, car types.

Eventually, they'll have it to wear cops have to wait for bad guys to raise their hands and say "I did it, over here!!!"

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Hold it--N Charleston went from 6 most dangerous city in the US to 3rd or 4th most dangerous city in S.C.?

Seems like the the chief has improved the city ranking, I doubt that the 4 of the 6 most dangerous cities in the US are located in South Carolina.

 

[bucs90]

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.

Hold it--N Charleston went from 6 most dangerous city in the US to 3rd or 4th most dangerous city in S.C.?

Seems like the the chief has improved the city ranking, I doubt that the 4 of the 6 most dangerous cities in the US are located in South Carolina.

Yep. He has done an outstanding job. And you're right, they aren't. South Carolina is almost always near the top 3 in violent crime rate. And North Charleston, Columbia, Charleston are almost always in the top 70-80 most dangerous cities (by rate). But North Chuck, as locals call it, got BAD in 04-07. Zumalt cleaned it up with common sense policing. Flood bad neighborhoods with aggressive cops. Crime rate plummeted. NAACP marched. And thats how the cookie crumbles.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Hold it--N Charleston went from 6 most dangerous city in the US to 3rd or 4th most dangerous city in S.C.?

Seems like the the chief has improved the city ranking, I doubt that the 4 of the 6 most dangerous cities in the US are located in South Carolina.

Yep. He has done an outstanding job. And you're right, they aren't. South Carolina is almost always near the top 3 in violent crime rate. And North Charleston, Columbia, Charleston are almost always in the top 70-80 most dangerous cities (by rate). But North Chuck, as locals call it, got BAD in 04-07. Zumalt cleaned it up with common sense policing. Flood bad neighborhoods with aggressive cops. Crime rate plummeted. NAACP marched. And thats how the cookie crumbles.

Just to keep it on topic

I don't see how you are going to catch bad guys if you do not use their race to identify them.

The issue with racial profiling has to do with race being(plus very little else) used to target someone. When you have a larger set of identifying traits and are looking for some one that committed a crime, you really can't call it "racial profiling"

It is when the set of traits used is not useful in identifying the bad guy that problem arises.

For instance, if we only used the set "Blue to green eyed Caucasian" as an identity profile of a bad guy, not considering sex. Then you are harassing virtually the entire White population of a city. Plus, you would not be able to identify the perp because that is not enough to go by.

The number of categories has to be large enough to narrow the field of suspects down. Not only does that help keep from harassing large segments of the population, it also helps catch the perp.

 

[bucs90]

Hold it--N Charleston went from 6 most dangerous city in the US to 3rd or 4th most dangerous city in S.C.?

Seems like the the chief has improved the city ranking, I doubt that the 4 of the 6 most dangerous cities in the US are located in South Carolina.

Yep. He has done an outstanding job. And you're right, they aren't. South Carolina is almost always near the top 3 in violent crime rate. And North Charleston, Columbia, Charleston are almost always in the top 70-80 most dangerous cities (by rate). But North Chuck, as locals call it, got BAD in 04-07. Zumalt cleaned it up with common sense policing. Flood bad neighborhoods with aggressive cops. Crime rate plummeted. NAACP marched. And thats how the cookie crumbles.

Just to keep it on topic

I don't see how you are going to catch bad guys if you do not use their race to identify them.

The issue with racial profiling has to do with race being(plus very little else) used to target someone. When you have a larger set of identifying traits and are looking for some one that committed a crime, you really can't call it "racial profiling"

It is when the set of traits used is not useful in identifying the bad guy that problem arises.

For instance, if we only used the set "Blue to green eyed Caucasian" as an identity profile of a bad guy, not considering sex. Then you are harassing virtually the entire White population of a city. Plus, you would not be able to identify the perp because that is not enough to go by.

The number of categories has to be large enough to narrow the field of suspects down. Not only does that help keep from harassing large segments of the population, it also helps catch the perp.

You are 100% right. And this law, if you read it literally, bans cops from using race "to ANY degree" to do their jobs. Even in "investigatory" stops. Meaning if the suspect is described as a black male with short hair and a tan shirt" they can only look for men with short hair wearing a tan shirt.

Insanity. But....read the original article, and the circumstances around that case, and the NAACP's gripe with it, and you'll conclude...insanity.

 

[dilloduck]

Yep. He has done an outstanding job. And you're right, they aren't. South Carolina is almost always near the top 3 in violent crime rate. And North Charleston, Columbia, Charleston are almost always in the top 70-80 most dangerous cities (by rate). But North Chuck, as locals call it, got BAD in 04-07. Zumalt cleaned it up with common sense policing. Flood bad neighborhoods with aggressive cops. Crime rate plummeted. NAACP marched. And thats how the cookie crumbles.

Just to keep it on topic

I don't see how you are going to catch bad guys if you do not use their race to identify them.

The issue with racial profiling has to do with race being(plus very little else) used to target someone. When you have a larger set of identifying traits and are looking for some one that committed a crime, you really can't call it "racial profiling"

It is when the set of traits used is not useful in identifying the bad guy that problem arises.

For instance, if we only used the set "Blue to green eyed Caucasian" as an identity profile of a bad guy, not considering sex. Then you are harassing virtually the entire White population of a city. Plus, you would not be able to identify the perp because that is not enough to go by.

The number of categories has to be large enough to narrow the field of suspects down. Not only does that help keep from harassing large segments of the population, it also helps catch the perp.

You are 100% right. And this law, if you read it literally, bans cops from using race "to ANY degree" to do their jobs. Even in "investigatory" stops. Meaning if the suspect is described as a black male with short hair and a tan shirt" they can only look for men with short hair wearing a tan shirt.

Insanity. But....read the original article, and the circumstances around that case, and the NAACP's gripe with it, and you'll conclude...insanity.

It's not crazy when you consider that it's purpose is to protect the guilty. May as well disband Neighborhood Watch groups. You won't even be able to use the word "suspicious" anymore.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I have a question, if it's ok to wear a hood, can it be white?

 

[amrchaos]

I have a question, if it's ok to wear a hood, can it be white?

You can wear any "hoodie" you want.

Try the "arrest everyone with a hoodie" after a Football game and see where that get you!

 

[buckeye45_73]

no need to arrest everyone after a game is there?