That's not what it is. The profiling is done when there is absence of direct evidence like camera footage or eye witnesses.
@syskerully Right, so when a liquor store gets robbed by black teens three times a month every month for two years, and then on one night, the camera malfunctions, THAT'S the night you shake down the nursing home, right?Look, we know that young black men make up 6% of the population and still account for over 50% of violent crime. Guess what, I want my cops to take an EXTRA LONG, HARD LOOK at every black man they see and if they want to search his pockets for drugs, yes, I think being black constitutes probable cause. 'Cause probably. . . he did do something! And if there are any black nerds with 4.0 GPA who hate getting stopped and frisked coming home from school every day, you know what? Ask them if they'd rather have no cops and no searches and get mugged and raped and killed on their way home instead. Kids like that get murdered in drive-bys in Chicago ALL the fucking time. Too bad cops can't do anything about it because "das raycis."It should be okay for cops to be racist. Black people are racist against cops, so it evens out.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Essentially, if there's been a crime committed and there are 3 suspects: a 70 year old granny, a 20 year old white male, and a 17 year old black male, the black male should be the first suspect, followed by the 20 year old, then the granny.To tell Cops to pretend that a black person is JUST as likely to commit a crime as an Asian person, is as ludicrous and ridiculous as telling them to pretend that a 17 year old male is JUST as likely to commit a crime as a 70 year old granny.
Yeah, I mean you shouldn't assume he is the perpetrator, but I don't think there's anything wrong about referencing statistics.
I'm not saying he should be thrown in jail or harassed, but that he should be the one to receive attention first because statistically speaking, he's the one who's the most likely to have committed it.
It's controversial, but that seems entirely reasonable, to me.
But statistics are very easy to skew. Say 70% of the prison population is blue people and 30% in green people, it doesn't necessarily mean blue people commit more crimes, it could be that blue people are policed more strictly so are more likely to go to prison for a crime that a green person might only get a fine for. Or there's more police in areas were blue people live so there's more arrests purely because the police are there to see the crimes.
Ure talking actual details to a clueless Dunning Kruger. "Based on statistical fact" lol prolly never touched science before
The crime figures are what they are.It would be impossible to distort the raw figures.Ask a street cop about racial demographics of crime.
Yep. Never touched science before in his life
@cth96190 having written reports on physics experiments as part of my education, you really can manipulate raw data to literally say whatever you want. If you send more police officers into a minority area of a city, they'll find more crime, not because there is more crime, but because there are more police officers walking around looking for a crime. Say there are two dog parks, and I have two people counting dogs, if they both go to the same park the statistics will say there were no dogs in the 2nd park because the counters weren't there. Thats the same as crime stats, replacing the dogs for crimes and the counters for police officers
U think he can read and understand that 😆
Actually it's based on probabilities but yeah.
Probabilities arise from conditions. But yeah. When u think like a biased retard, u don't understand how it all relates.
Statistically, the profiling has not helped in catching the guilty party. In fact, heavy reliance on profiling has led to sloppy police work.
Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything. I personally don’t care what methods police use to catch law breakers, so long as those methods are legal and do not violate the Constitution.
With other words, people should be treated as suspects if there is actual evidence pointing towards them instead of “oh that guy was in that general area and he’s black, let’s break into his house and see whether he committed a crime”. Perhaps this is far-fetched idea on GAG (there are a lot of radical people on here), but I’m in favour of treating people as a suspect if there is sufficient evidence towards them. Happy to see the police here would not be allowed to do that shit by courts. Basically, having a given skin colour is not a reasonable suspicion for guilt of a crime.