Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[AndyDufresne]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Not too long ago, I read a local story about an Asian-American woman driver who caused a decent sized pile-up on a roadway. She was driving next to cars, maybe looking in windows, on a regular afternoon and sunny day. Is it racist to be suspicious of other Asian-American women drivers?


--Andy

[GreecePwns]

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Looking in windows in what way?

Just glancing as they walk by the house? They aren't doing anything suspicious and it is racism to assume they are based on only the description of "a black man." If there had been a more detailed description, and that person matched that description, then perhaps it would warrant suspicion.

Stopping and looking inside and observing who/what is in within visible views? This is suspicious behavior, and race need not enter the conversation.

[john9blue]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

and that's okay.

[john9blue]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

and that's okay.

he was also being sexist, because a black woman would not have aroused the same amount of suspicion. but that, too, is okay, because of this crazy thing called logic

[thegreekdog]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

and that's okay.

I don't think it's okay (because I am anti-profiling regardless of the reason), but I understand and accept the arguments as to why it's okay.

[Woodruff]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Is it technically racist? I would say so.

Is it justifiable (perhaps not the word I want, but you get the idea) or reasonable? I would say so.

[Phatscotty]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

[john9blue]

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

i think a better question would be whether i can think that a black person is acting suspiciously without being considered a racial profiler.

[Phatscotty]

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

i think a better question would be whether i can think that a black person is acting suspiciously without being considered a racial profiler.

yeah I just came back to edit it, but I was mostly asking TGD, however the more the merrier. But that's basically where I was going to go with it

[Night Strike]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

and that's okay.

I don't think it's okay (because I am anti-profiling regardless of the reason), but I understand and accept the arguments as to why it's okay.

How do you catch possible criminals without knowing their exact name, birthday, social security number, address, etc. then? You obviously don't go around arresting all black males to interrogate them all about the crime, but that doesn't mean you ignore a black male walking next to homes and peering into windows at night in a neighborhood that has been burglarized by at least one black male.

[Night Strike]

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Looking in windows in what way?

Just glancing as they walk by the house? They aren't doing anything suspicious and it is racism to assume they are based on only the description of "a black man." If there had been a more detailed description, and that person matched that description, then perhaps it would warrant suspicion.

Stopping and looking inside and observing who/what is in within visible views? This is suspicious behavior, and race need not enter the conversation.

From the way I understand the events, he had been walking up next to the buildings and looking inside (maybe not stopping at each, but still clearly looking in), not just on the sidewalk peering around.

[Woodruff]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

Irrelevant question. thegreekdog is correctly pointing out that it is the behavior that is the question and that the race is immaterial to the question and that it is racist not to consider it so. He also points out correctly that it is somewhat understandable that folks would still consider race in those circumstances, even though it is tacitly racist to do so.

[Woodruff]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

and that's okay.

I don't think it's okay (because I am anti-profiling regardless of the reason), but I understand and accept the arguments as to why it's okay.

How do you catch possible criminals without knowing their exact name, birthday, social security number, address, etc. then?

How about by their actual actions?

[spurgistan]

Or maybe what they look like, and not, you know, incredibly broad (and arbitrary!) racial parameters.

[thegreekdog]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

Yes, but I'm not sure how that question is relevant.

[thegreekdog]

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

i think a better question would be whether i can think that a black person is acting suspiciously without being considered a racial profiler.

Yes, but I'm not sure how that question is relevant.

[thegreekdog]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

Irrelevant question. thegreekdog is correctly pointing out that it is the behavior that is the question and that the race is immaterial to the question and that it is racist not to consider it so. He also points out correctly that it is somewhat understandable that folks would still consider race in those circumstances, even though it is tacitly racist to do so.

Correct. PS, j9b, and NS are absurdifying (copyright pending) my position for obvious reasons.

NS brings up very valid points with respect to profiling generally. Suffice it to say, it's a difficult thing for me to justify my stance on stops, seizures, arrests, and the like (in brief, I think the standard should be incredibly high and did not laugh out loud at NS's tongue-in-cheek list) as compared to my wish to remain safe.

[kentington]

How about by their actual actions?

Regardless of race.
If you know your neighborhood and neighbors pretty well. You see someone unfamiliar, they have a hood up and you can't see skin and both hands in pockets. Walking in the rain and looking in windows of houses. Does this arouse suspicion?

This is not a defense of Zimmerman. The dispatch asked what race he was and Zimmerman said Black. We know he saw skin and any thoughts innocent or guilty about how he felt about the skin color are speculation.

To me these actions, which aren't exactly what Zimmerman said, would get me calling the police. There are legitimate possibilities for that person to be there, but I would rather double check before something happened. To look in a window you are no longer on public property, but trespassing (is this legally true?).
I would have to listen again to the whole call to remember everything Zimmerman said.

[AndyDufresne]

I think the answers here are obvious, and I am not sure why no one has brought these up yet:

* Weather Modification - If scientists would get off their arses and start controlling the weather, removing dangerous rains like the one in this case, maybe this would have never happened.



Moreover,

* Tremendous Amount of Light - If bureaucrats would get off their arses and start installing massive amounts of light, to turn night into second day, maybe this would have never happened.



Moreover,

* Touch Sensitive Eye Cameras - If engineers would get off their arses and start designing cameras that open our eyes and take a picture record of events when someone touches us, maybe this would have never happened. Or if it did, we'd at least get a better sense of things.




--Andy

[kentington]

Thin bullet proof gel suits would also help.

[john9blue]

So if I'm reading the pro-profiling argument correctly:

1. Accusing someone of doing something suspicious based on race alone is racism.
2. Seeing someone doing something suspicious, then adding in the race factor afterwards, is not racism.

Many houses had been recently burglarized, with several descriptions saying a black male was involved. A black male was walking next to houses, maybe looking in windows, on a dark and rainy night. Is it racist to be suspicious of that correlation?

Yes it is.

Can a black person ever act suspiciously?

Irrelevant question. thegreekdog is correctly pointing out that it is the behavior that is the question and that the race is immaterial to the question and that it is racist not to consider it so. He also points out correctly that it is somewhat understandable that folks would still consider race in those circumstances, even though it is tacitly racist to do so.

Correct. PS, j9b, and NS are absurdifying (copyright pending) my position for obvious reasons.

NS brings up very valid points with respect to profiling generally. Suffice it to say, it's a difficult thing for me to justify my stance on stops, seizures, arrests, and the like (in brief, I think the standard should be incredibly high and did not laugh out loud at NS's tongue-in-cheek list) as compared to my wish to remain safe.

it's not "absurdifying", it's showing what happens when your position is applied to the real world. anyone who takes action against a historically profiled race can be accused of being a racial profiler, regardless of what the person was actually doing.

the real tragedy is that, the more often one race gives people good reason to profile them, the more common these accusations of racial profiling against that race will become. so we end up letting more and more of them off the hook because of their race (and because racial profiling is supposedly bad) until we get real and admit that not all types of people are equal in every different way, and that racial profiling can be justified in some cases.

it's just part of our collective cultural insanity which grows year by year.

[thegreekdog]

anyone who takes action against a historically profiled race can be accused of being a racial profiler, regardless of what the person was actually doing.

This is an absurdifying sentence.

If the person against whom action is taken is, let's say, black, then you could not be accused of being a racial profiler.

If however, the reason you took action against the persion is because he is black, then you could be accused, rightfully, of being a racial profiler.

In the instant scenario, Zimmerman took action against a person because he was black and looking in windows and walking down the street at night. I note the last two because if we just take them - here's a guy walking down the street and night and looking in windows - then we see that the ultimate reason Zimmerman took action against Martin was because he was black. That's profiling due to a person's race.

In terms of justifying racial profiling in some cases, I think someone else mentioned this. If the only profile the police have on a suspect is "he's black" what to do? Do the police stop all black people in the area? I tend to think there are other, more descriptive, characteristics, like, for example, a black man wearing a white t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers, around 5 feet eleven inches and 200 pounds. Everything after "black" is more descriptive than "black" (unless you live in a place with zero black people where 90% of the population are males who wear white shirts, jeans, sneakers, and are almost six feet and 200 pounds). In sum, I think we can safely eliminate racial profiling from profiling and still get the same results.

[kentington]

This is an absurdifying sentence.

If the person against whom action is taken is, let's say, black, then you could not be accused of being a racial profiler.

If however, the reason you took action against the persion is because he is black, then you could be accused, rightfully, of being a racial profiler.

In the instant scenario, Zimmerman took action against a person because he was black and looking in windows and walking down the street at night. I note the last two because if we just take them - here's a guy walking down the street and night and looking in windows - then we see that the ultimate reason Zimmerman took action against Martin was because he was black. That's profiling due to a person's race.

In terms of justifying racial profiling in some cases, I think someone else mentioned this. If the only profile the police have on a suspect is "he's black" what to do? Do the police stop all black people in the area? I tend to think there are other, more descriptive, characteristics, like, for example, a black man wearing a white t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers, around 5 feet eleven inches and 200 pounds. Everything after "black" is more descriptive than "black" (unless you live in a place with zero black people where 90% of the population are males who wear white shirts, jeans, sneakers, and are almost six feet and 200 pounds). In sum, I think we can safely eliminate racial profiling from profiling and still get the same results.

What if you saw a white person walking down the street in the day time and peering into peoples windows? I would say that is suspicious too. People shouldn't be looking into people's windows. Shoot even if it was a neighbor I knew lived in the area that would weird me out. However, I would suspect that he was just a pervert and try to find a way to stop him.

[AndyDufresne]

What if you saw a white person walking down the street in the day time and peering into peoples windows? I would say that is suspicious too. People shouldn't be looking into people's windows. Shoot even if it was a neighbor I knew lived in the area that would weird me out. However, I would suspect that he was just a pervert and try to find a way to stop him.

I took a late evening walk with a friend of mine I was visiting in between my travels. She lives in a big city, and we were in quiet suburbs walking around in the street and sidewalk. I am pretty sure we were looking into people's houses. We also saw lots of late night dog walkers because it was so hot earlier in the day.

Lock me up.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

This is an absurdifying sentence.

If the person against whom action is taken is, let's say, black, then you could not be accused of being a racial profiler.

If however, the reason you took action against the persion is because he is black, then you could be accused, rightfully, of being a racial profiler.

In the instant scenario, Zimmerman took action against a person because he was black and looking in windows and walking down the street at night. I note the last two because if we just take them - here's a guy walking down the street and night and looking in windows - then we see that the ultimate reason Zimmerman took action against Martin was because he was black. That's profiling due to a person's race.

In terms of justifying racial profiling in some cases, I think someone else mentioned this. If the only profile the police have on a suspect is "he's black" what to do? Do the police stop all black people in the area? I tend to think there are other, more descriptive, characteristics, like, for example, a black man wearing a white t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers, around 5 feet eleven inches and 200 pounds. Everything after "black" is more descriptive than "black" (unless you live in a place with zero black people where 90% of the population are males who wear white shirts, jeans, sneakers, and are almost six feet and 200 pounds). In sum, I think we can safely eliminate racial profiling from profiling and still get the same results.

What if you saw a white person walking down the street in the day time and peering into peoples windows? I would say that is suspicious too. People shouldn't be looking into people's windows. Shoot even if it was a neighbor I knew lived in the area that would weird me out. However, I would suspect that he was just a pervert and try to find a way to stop him.

Well yes, that's my point. The profiling should be "someone is peering into people's windows at night." The profiling should not be "a black guy is peering into peoples' windows at night." Why do we need the "black" part of the equation?

Hell, to use j9b's logic, if

the more often one race gives people good reason to profile them

, then we really don't need to identify someone by race. Right j9b?