Profiling based solely on race may indict cops, which means unions can control cops better. Lack of profiling, racial or otherwise, may benefit criminals. Which benefit Leftists in charge of crime and its profits. (like Sharpton)

Either way, the Left wins.

The essence of strategy is to have 3 options, and all of them end in victory.

New York’s stop and frisk law requires that the people stopped and frisked be suspected on something other than mere race. There has to be some other behavior or demeanor.

Whether those criteria are used, or whether it is “just race,” is the question in NY. The police contend it is NOT “just race,” but that it ends up being applied mostly to black men because of suspicious behavior. That’s my recollection of the issue from doing a fairly large amount of research on the issue a couple of years ago. Don’t have time to research it fully now, but here’s a quick link and quote:

The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a penal law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons.

You may not believe the police; you may think they profile solely on race. But that does not describe the policy they are defending, or the way the law is written. Those who criticize them say it does describe the police’s behavior. I have not been one of those people.

You continue to misrepresent or misunderstand (I don’t know which it is) my position. You also did this earlier in the thread where we were discussing these questions, and never responded to the last comment I had made to you. Here it is, in case you didn’t see it.

The NYPD has long defended in-your-face policing by noting that blacks and Hispanics are victims of more than 80 percent of all murders, non-negligent homicides and felonious assaults; those groups also suffered 75 percent of all rapes and 68 percent of robberies committed in 2012.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/07/24/Detroits-Future-Could-Depend-on-Stand-Your-Ground.aspx#eHIAtSIHW0K6GDUL.99

Interesting that black New Yorkers, who benefit most from this policy, approve of it less. Pathologic thinking?

Leftists profile based on race alone… was that something non obvious?

Several decades ago, Jessie Jackson commented how, when walking down a remote street at night and hearing footsteps behind him, he was relieved when he turned around and saw it was a white man.

On an internet forum, a cop from Chicago (assuming he was telling the truth here) went to an appartment who had a resident who called him. When the black female resident opened the door and saw him, she blurted out “Oh thank god, it’s a white one”.

White people are not the only ones to profile.

So having prejudices about race alone, is a very weak profile, the Left is correct.

Yes, but that’s a strawman. Who actually profiles based upon race alone?

The case where you might do that is something like this: you get off the freeway to find a hotel and find yourself in a neighborhood that is almost all black. You might decide to drive on for a few more miles. But you are not profilling a specific person per se.

The police profilling that the left doesn’t like only uses race as one factor. People rarely profile on one factor alone. The word profile actually suggests this; it implys using a multitude of factors to estimate what kind of actor you are dealing with.

A lot of people talk about it but don’t do it. Or say that other people shouldn’t do it, while doing it themselves.

I think most people do it. Not sure how you wouldn’t.

I recall in the ’90s, when my politically correct Democrat mother in law was looking for a neighborhood to live in. She wanted “diversity”, but the right diversity was 90% to 95% white people. She wanted to see sufficient minorities to know she wouldn’t be the only one. It was funny to listen to her talk about how important “diversity” is while she looked for a place with very little of it.

People (police, and in fact George Zimmerman) have been accused of racial profiling that is just that: suspecting someone merely–or primarily–because of race. The police are often accused of stopping and frisking black men for no reason other than their race.

Oh yes, I know. However, I don’t believe the police in these situations ONLY frisk the black men because they are black men. In reality it is one of several factors that are used.

I often drive through a border patrol checkpoint. I have been stopped on several occasions and searched, although I’m a middle aged white male. Once, I was stopped because of the way I responded to a question, the other time my hispanic wife and I were stopped due to cues from a drug sniffing dog. My hispanic brother in law has a chip on his shoulder about being stopped at this checkpoint. He doesn’t like the fact that his hispanic ethnicity is an additional factor in stopping him. My point is that the agents are using multiple factors to profile. One of those factors is ethnicity; few illegals or smugglers are white or black.

The left’s goal in this is to remove race as a factor in profilling in situations like this, so that BP searches as many WASP old ladies as they do young hispanics.

So having prejudices about race alone, is a very weak profile, the Left is correct. However, the Left’s profiling methods are much stronger than that. And there are stronger methods than theirs that can be used to locate people as well.