Father Disowns Homophobic Daughter in Epic Letter

[Aderleth]

According to the NYS Criminal Procedure Law, the level of proof required to stop and question an individual is "reasonable suspicion".
A departmental policy cannot override the state law. The problem with abuse occurs when individual police officers abuse the law or don't understand it to begin with.
That's what was such a joke about the NYC stop and frisk debate. The stop and frisk "policy" was no different than if the city had instituted a "policy" to ticket drivers for going through red lights.
The procedure already existed as a part of policing and a part of state law.

Uh huh:

"A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, repudiating a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/n...d-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I agree that the bad is bad, but the good is either from a movie or the most amazing witness in the history of policing, to get knocked to the ground and notice a cross while scared. If that were a typical description there'd be no criminals on the street.
Here's more of what a cop usually gets: "Two males, one of them possibly black, wearing snorkel jackets. Fled southbound about a half hour ago." That takes in a lot of suspects.

More importantly for this conversation, what I'm doing is consistent with the good example, and racial profiling (which is essentially what you're accusing me of doing) is the bad example.

You may think you've ended up with a "hypothesis" here, but it's built on assumptions. Take for example the use of the word abomination. Assigning that to a christian is an assumption, a flimsy one at that.
The more flimsy assumptions you make, the more the percentage drops for your chances of a successful conclusion.
So if assumptions are bad, how good is an hypothesis that is built on them?

1) I haven't assigned anything to anyone. I have pointed out that describing homosexuals as abominations is almost entirely a conservative Christian thing. Can you point to any other use of that term to describe homosexuals? Please be specific.

2) You refer to multiple bad assumptions, but specify only one (addressed in point #1). What other bad assumptions have I made, and why are they bad?

Here's my conclusion based on the letter:
The father is a very religious christian, prone to using the word abomination about many things so it's a word the daughter is comfortable using. There is obviously pre-existing tension between the father and daughter. For something to come between a father and daughter it has to be a disagreement about something about which one of them feels very strongly. Typically, the average person feels that passionately about love or religion. The daughter turned away from her father's religion, most likely a christian religion since the story took place in the United States.
His compassion is probably greater than his daughter's because he is more religious.
Is this any less likely than yours. Are either of them relevant to the discussion?

First: you have a conclusion based on the letter? From whence comes the certainty?

Regarding your conclusion:

1 - The first part is certainly possible. Maybe the family has an unusually specific use of the term abomination. However, the letter says " Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real “abomination” here." (emphasis added) which sounds an awful lot like a reference to a specific conversation in which someone else (let's be honest: the daughter) used the term abomination to refer to one, specific thing. I wonder what she was talking about?

2 - I completely agree that there was very likely some pre-existing tension between father and daughter.

3 - Then the daughter turned away from dad's religion? Yeah, sure, maybe. That'd be consistent with my initial premise. The daughter turned away from a more tolerant religion and found herself within a less tolerant one. Makes perfect sense. And since there are plenty of Christian sects in the US that are tolerant (when I was in college, I briefly dated a Lutheran girl from Minneapolis who belonged to a church that has been performing gay marriages since the late '90s), and plenty of others that aren't, that's entirely possible. Works for me.

Profiling, racial or otherwise, is not something that a department can stop.

Again: I really don't think you understand what most people are talking about when they're referring to racial profiling.

It is in the head of the police officer. It is not provably used any less nor is it possible to prove that it is.

Actually, it's been proven to have been used in many places all over the country, sometimes as the result of departmental policy, and it's usually unconstitutional.

Police should treat people fairly, but not equally.
A white kid in a BMW will be treated differently at a known Harlem drug dealing location than if he were parked in front of a Starbucks in the Hamptons. And he should be.

I grew up around white kids with BMW's (and Lexus', and sometimes a Porsche). A cop who isn't suspicious of them having drugs is ****ing stupid.

That's profiling. In fact, it's racial profiling. And it's good police work.
Most police work, and almost ALL police work done by a patrol officer, occurs before any "facts of the case" even exist.

Here's the thing, though: cops aren't allowed (for mostly fourth and fourteenth amendment reasons) to conduct searches and seizures without particularized suspicion, and they usually can't do so in racially discriminatory ways. :shrug:

 

[cpwill]

I did, but I never lied, I never mentioned the Catholic church, you assumed because you either feel the same way or you defend those actions. You don't think you can read minds

:doh

You yourself said that you were referencing the Catholic church which you rather blatantly were, since they were the ones that had the scandal you were referencing. You yourself said I was correct in my initial assessment


But nice edit job on my post. I'm sure no one else saw that

 

[cpwill]

What i said to you after the fact has nothing to do with what i said before.

:lol: you were referring to what you had said before.


Man, this just really isn't your thread, is it?

 

[Brooks]

Well, I've read hundreds of police reports, and I've watched a couple of dozen cops provide testimony in a variety of cases, and I've never seen any evidence that they do what they do vis-a-vis race/gender/age issues based on a race/gender/age - based hypothesis (as I've been using the term). They frequently do so based on particularized observations of an individual. They sometimes do so based on bad assumptions. I've never seen them do so based on a hypothesis. Incidentally, why on earth would I need to conduct a study about what I have or have not seen evidence of?

You should, at least occasionally, throw in terms such as "sometimes", "oftimes", "often", "some", "many", etc..
Instead you say "never".
That's just not credible
The only time you said "frequently" and "sometimes" was to split bad behavior between two different reasons.

Also, I don't know in what capacity you read these reports, but do you also have much exposure to the tens of thousands routine and legitimate encounters to feed your perception?

I'm sorry, but the above comments demonstrate to me that you literally do not understand what most people are talking about when they're discussing racial profiling. It's not the same thing as the concept of profiling as it's used by detectives and academics.

Here's a decent definition of profiling as it's used by detectives:

"The act or process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies." Profiling - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

This is what your serial killer detective is doing. He's looking at the available evidence, and drawing reasoned inferences about likely characteristics of his suspect based on those inferences. Incidentally, this is also what I've been doing.

Here's a good definition of the term racial profiling, as it's used by pretty much everyone:

""Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband."

Pretty different, yes?

Agreed. Those after-the-fact profilers you are discussing profile based on age, race, culture, socio-economic status etc.
They culturally profile. They economically profile. They racially profile.
Our popular media culture has taken a neutral idea, racial profiling, and demonized it for the sake of oversimplification.

When I talk about racial profiling I'm talking about what the term actually means. You are talking about what it has come to mean.
Perhaps that has caused some confusion.

The primary reason that racial profiling is problematic in a car stop situation is that it rests on the notion that it's reasonable for the police to search/seize an individual and their car (which is what being pulled over is) - despite a lack of particularized suspicion of that person -.

I have a better understanding of what you are saying now that I understand you are using the media-ized definition of racial profiling.[/quote]

Aderleth: The primary reason that racial profiling is problematic in a car stop situation is that it rests on the notion that it's reasonable for the police to search/seize an individual and their car (which is what being pulled over is) - despite a lack of particularized suspicion of that person -
Brooks: Are you saying that police officers will sieze an automobile based on bad profiling? What do they later write on the paperwork as the reason for the seizure?
You have a wrong impression of how easy it is to do these things.
Aderleth: Yes. Are you sure you understand what constitutes a seizure with respect to fourth amendment law? I'm using the term in a relatively legally precise way. I alluded to this earlier. If you'd like me to give you a more detailed explanation I will do so.

I understand it enough, condescension unnecessary.
When the police engage in the "seizure", either of the vehicle itself or any evidence therein, they have to have a better reason on their paperwork than the race of the suspects.
Our exchange gives me the impression that police use race as a "reasonable" criteria for the search and seizure.

If they pull someone over and then consider race as one among all the other factors in making inferences about what they're dealing with, they're not engaging in racial profiling; they're profiling their suspect. That latter thing is completely legit. It's also what I did in my initial post.

In concept, but the ratio of evidence to inference was far different to the point of negating the comparison.

First of all, yes, stop and frisk is a legitimate term. I'm not sure how much familiarity you have with the law, but to be clear, I'm an attorney.

No counselor, Stop and Frisk is NOT a legitimate term.
Stop and question is. And if necessary, frisk for the sake of officer safety.[/quote]

What you apparently understand to some extent is that cops absolutely can have the authority to stop an individual for brief periods. What you apparently don't understand is that there are constitutional limitations on how that's allowed to operate;

You are either extremely condescending toward me or you overestimate the difficulty of the material.

More importantly for the purposes of this conversation, it's not the same thing as profiling.

I think that is the key phrase that has been the source of all of our problems.

Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's the result of departmental policy. :shrug:

I think you overestimate exactly what a police department can get away with.
There is absolutely no departmental policy that instructs police officers to abuse this law.

 

[Aderleth]

You should, at least occasionally, throw in terms such as "sometimes", "oftimes", "often", "some", "many", etc..
Instead you say "never".
That's just not credible
The only time you said "frequently" and "sometimes" was to split bad behavior between two different reasons.

It's not credible that I've seen what I've seen and read what I've read? Okay. What bad behavior is indicated by making a particularized observation of an individual?

Also, I don't know in what capacity you read these reports, but do you also have much exposure to the tens of thousands routine and legitimate encounters to feed your perception?

I don't hover over cops' shoulders on a regular basis. All I get is what they write down (presumably what they think is important) and what they talk about on the stand.

Agreed. Those after-the-fact profilers you are discussing profile based on age, race, culture, socio-economic status etc.
They culturally profile. They economically profile. They racially profile.
Our popular media culture has taken a neutral idea, racial profiling, and demonized it for the sake of oversimplification.

If you think the media invented racial profiling you are entirely out of your mind. It's an actual thing, and whether you like it or not, cops do try to get away with it. Again: it's the primary reason NY's stop and frisk policy gets attacked.

When I talk about racial profiling I'm talking about what the term actually means. You are talking about what it has come to mean.
Perhaps that has caused some confusion.

First of all, if a term has "come to mean" something, that is what that term currently means. Second, the first time you brought up the term profiling, this is what you said:

When a police officer makes similar assumptions to protect his life it is called profiling and I'm guessing you aren't in favor of it.

If you weren't talking about racial profiling, are you seriously under the impression that anyone has a problem with police taking race into consideration as one of many factors when scrutinizing an individual? If so, you've seriously misunderstood the debate about racial profiling in this country.

I have a better understanding of what you are saying now that I understand you are using the media-ized definition of racial profiling.

I've been using both, and I've been drawing distinctions between the two for several pages. When I, or pretty much everyone (including, yes, police officers and their representatives) use the term racial profiling, it means what I've said it means. You would do well to get past the notion that the concept of racial profiling is a media invention. It's not.

I understand it enough, condescension unnecessary.
When the police engage in the "seizure", either of the vehicle itself or any evidence therein, they have to have a better reason on their paperwork than the race of the suspects.
Our exchange gives me the impression that police use race as a "reasonable" criteria for the search and seizure.

I'm still not sure you do understand. You realize that a traffic stop constitutes a seizure, right? Also pretty much any time a cop detains anyone for more than a brief instant? And what they write down is sometimes different from their actual reasoning. Again: this kind of thing is not at all uncommon. Sometimes it's even legal.

In concept, but the ratio of evidence to inference was far different to the point of negating the comparison.

That's funny, because several pages ago you were happy to call what I did profiling:

When a police officer makes similar assumptions to protect his life it is called profiling and I'm guessing you aren't in favor of it.

Now it's a bad comparison?

No counselor, Stop and Frisk is NOT a legitimate term.
Stop and question is. And if necessary, frisk for the sake of officer safety.

I think you have some very naive ideas about what cops will sometimes try to get away with (and successfully get away with). Are you familiar with the term "Terry stop"?

You are either extremely condescending toward me or you overestimate the difficulty of the material.

Given how frequently you've either mischaracterized or flat out lied about what I've said (I have no way of knowing which) in this thread I frankly don't have a very high opinion of your critical reading skills. Hell, you still haven't explained what "grandfather" was supposed to mean.

I think you overestimate exactly what a police department can get away with.
There is absolutely no departmental policy that instructs police officers to abuse this law.

If only that were so. I've already provided you with this particular link, but since we're mostly talking about NY, here it is again:

"The judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as it increased the number of stops in minority communities. That has led to officers’ routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”" - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/n...d-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Here's my other favorite example of institutionalized racial profiling:

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/ortega-melendres-et-al-v-arpaio-et-al

If you do some research you'll learn that these two things aren't the only examples.

 

[CLAX1911]

:doh

You yourself said that you were referencing the Catholic church which you rather blatantly were, since they were the ones that had the scandal you were referencing. You yourself said I was correct in my initial assessment


But nice edit job on my post. I'm sure no one else saw that

Yes I did, but you didn't know that you assumed. That tells me how you feel about the Catholic church.

 

[CLAX1911]

:lol: you were referring to what you had said before.


Man, this just really isn't your thread, is it?

I am doing fine here, it's you that this just really isn't your thread

 

[csbrown28]

Obviously a fake.

It's hand written! It must be real!

 

[sangha]

Thaaankkk you.
to put the whole thing more simply, when your waiting for a friend to arrive and he's already two hours late, when you say "I bet he's not coming" what you mean is "I believe he's not coming".
That's just how that idiom is used.

You make up rules and think everyone else has to abide by them

The idiom can be used in many ways.

 

[Brooks]

Uh huh:
"A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, repudiating a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/n...d-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The article is stating it wrong, what else can I say. And if you have spent a lot of time in criminal court and/or around police departments you should understand what I'm talking about.

The police department CANNOT and DID NOT tell the police officers to go out and violate the NYS Criminal Procedure Law. They also did not tell them to go our and violate the Fourth Amendment.
Perhaps they said be more aggressive or observant to the conditions and/or individuals on your post.
But a "stop and frisk policy" is not something a police department can create. The procedure, guidelines and limitations already exist withing the NYS CPL. Any abuse of it is NOT the fault of the police department.

1) I haven't assigned anything to anyone. I have pointed out that describing homosexuals as abominations is almost entirely a conservative Christian thing. Can you point to any other use of that term to describe homosexuals? Please be specific.

Actually, you would have to show that conservative christians are the main users of that term and I would have to show that they don't. Clever, you're re-wording it but essentially asking me to prove a negative.

You refer to multiple bad assumptions, but specify only one (addressed in point #1). What other bad assumptions have I made, and why are they bad?

Abomination:
If you were in court, how well would your abomination thing hold up.

Further, if the police overheard "abomination" on a wiretap in a conversation about gays would you be comfortable if they ruled out Muslims, Jews, agnostics and every other religion besides conservative christians?

But the larger issue (and this may be lengthy) is the compounding of percentages. It's why I think Criminal Minds is silly

What I mean by that is, suppose on Criminal Minds, they state the following:
"there's a 50/50 chance it's a man"
then
"there's a 50/50 chance it's a caucasian"
then
"there's a 50/50 chance it's a Christian"
then
"there's a 50/50 chance the perp is short".
The audience thinks there's a 50/50 chance they're looking for a short white christian man.
IN REALITY, there's only a 6.25% chance of that! Interesting, no?

Now, the less real evidence available, the more you have to "hypothesize" and the more the percentages compound.
So let's look at your thought process:
Generally if a child isn't picking up values from its parents, it's picking them up from some peer group or organization.
I'll be generous and give you 60% on that. That's extremely generous because for all you know she is abiding by his former values and he is the one who changed.

Conclusion: the daughter has been influenced by some person or group that is not something her dad is a part of.
You don't know that he's not a part of it. I'll generously give you 65% on that one. No matter what, your parents are your biggest influence, but keep the 65%

By far the most populous and loudly bilious anti-gay voices in the US are Christians.
Loudest true, bilious, probably a tie or close second to Muslims. But since we don't know how loud or bilious this daughter actually is (all we know about her is from a letter not even written by her) this piece of evidence has very little validity and should have a very low percentage since it is extrapolation by hearsay. I think 60% is way more than fair.

Abomination.
I'll be very generous again and say that 8.5 out of ten people that use the word abomination are conservative christians. Vegas would be far less generous.

We can tinker with the numbers, but I think you get the point.
Based on this, your chances of being correct round off to just under 20% (and I was generous on some of them).

First: you have a conclusion based on the letter? From whence comes the certainty?

It's a word you also used a little higher up in this post. Let's not get sidetracked.

Regarding your conclusion:

Seriously, don't worry about my conclusion. I don't believe in it myself.
There was too little information available to take this seriously.

Again: I really don't think you understand what most people are talking about when they're referring to racial profiling.

And I really don't think you understand how little micro-control a department has over the actions of the officer on the street.

Actually, it's been proven to have been used in many places all over the country, sometimes as the result of departmental policy, and it's usually unconstitutional.

Unless you can get into the head of the police officer, there is no way to prove the increase or decrease in the practice.

I grew up around white kids with BMW's (and Lexus', and sometimes a Porsche). A cop who isn't suspicious of them having drugs is ****ing stupid.

And I grew up on Long Island where BMW's and Corvettes are birthday presents.
A cop profiling based on the car, as you just did, would be making a big mistake.

Here's the thing, though: cops aren't allowed (for mostly fourth and fourteenth amendment reasons) to conduct searches and seizures without particularized suspicion, and they usually can't do so in racially discriminatory ways. :shrug:

And that was my point. You claimed that they will search and seize based on race and I said they better have a better reason to write down on the report.

 

[Aderleth]

The article is stating it wrong, what else can I say. And if you have spent a lot of time in criminal court and/or around police departments you should understand what I'm talking about.

The police department CANNOT and DID NOT tell the police officers to go out and violate the NYS Criminal Procedure Law. They also did not tell them to go our and violate the Fourth Amendment.
Perhaps they said be more aggressive or observant to the conditions and/or individuals on your post.
But a "stop and frisk policy" is not something a police department can create. The procedure, guidelines and limitations already exist withing the NYS CPL. Any abuse of it is NOT the fault of the police department.

If you read the article (and the many others like it) you'll find that the judge who ruled on the case disagrees with you on many of the assertions you've just made (not about affirmatively telling cops to go out and violate the law).

Actually, you would have to show that conservative christians are the main users of that term and I would have to show that they don't. Clever, you're re-wording it but essentially asking me to prove a negative.

Nope. I asked you to provide even one single example of a non-Christian use of the term "abomination" to describe homosexuals. How is asking you to provide an example asking you to prove a negative? To be fair, you could probably find examples of that usage amongst other religious conservative groups, but since there are quite a lot more Christians in the US than, say, fundamentalist Muslims, any such usage in the US is far more likely to be coming out of the mouth of a Christian conservative.

Abomination:
If you were in court, how well would your abomination thing hold up.

Depends a lot on the context. It would hold up pretty well in the context of an expert witness testifying as to his opinion that by far the most common usage of the term abomination to refer to homosexuals in the US comes from Christian conservative culture. The term is lifted directly from the bible, after all.
Similarly, if someone started talking about putting the means of production in the hands of the proletariat, I'd think it's pretty likely that they've recently been reading - and been influenced by - Marx.

Further, if the police overheard "abomination" on a wiretap in a conversation about gays would you be comfortable if they ruled out Muslims, Jews, agnostics and every other religion besides conservative christians?

Of course not. You are once again attempting to paint me as having reached a conclusion. I have not done so. You would do well to keep that in mind when concocting further analogies.

But the larger issue (and this may be lengthy) is the compounding of percentages. It's why I think Criminal Minds is silly

What I mean by that is, suppose on Criminal Minds, they state the following:
"there's a 50/50 chance it's a man"
then
"there's a 50/50 chance it's a caucasian"
then
"there's a 50/50 chance it's a Christian"
then
"there's a 50/50 chance the perp is short".
The audience thinks there's a 50/50 chance they're looking for a short white christian man.
IN REALITY, there's only a 6.25% chance of that! Interesting, no?

I don't know what criminal minds is, but it sounds like a pretty bad show.

Now, the less real evidence available, the more you have to "hypothesize" and the more the percentages compound.
So let's look at your thought process:
Generally if a child isn't picking up values from its parents, it's picking them up from some peer group or organization.
I'll be generous and give you 60% on that. That's extremely generous because for all you know she is abiding by his former values and he is the one who changed.

Conclusion: the daughter has been influenced by some person or group that is not something her dad is a part of.
You don't know that he's not a part of it. I'll generously give you 65% on that one. No matter what, your parents are your biggest influence, but keep the 65%

By far the most populous and loudly bilious anti-gay voices in the US are Christians.
Loudest true, bilious, probably a tie or close second to Muslims. But since we don't know how loud or bilious this daughter actually is (all we know about her is from a letter not even written by her) this piece of evidence has very little validity and should have a very low percentage since it is extrapolation by hearsay. I think 60% is way more than fair.

Abomination.
I'll be very generous again and say that 8.5 out of ten people that use the word abomination are conservative christians. Vegas would be far less generous.

We can tinker with the numbers, but I think you get the point.
Based on this, your chances of being correct round off to just under 20% (and I was generous on some of them).

So... based on the numbers that you've pulled entirely out of your ass, my hypothesis is unlikely to be accurate. What do you think this demonstrates?

And I really don't think you understand how little micro-control a department has over the actions of the officer on the street.

As I think I've mentioned, there's caselaw out there that proves you are wrong about this (one of the more recent examples is the NY stop and frisk case). Certainly not in every police department, but definitely in some.

Unless you can get into the head of the police officer, there is no way to prove the increase or decrease in the practice.

Again: caselaw demonstrates otherwise.

And that was my point. You claimed that they will search and seize based on race and I said they better have a better reason to write down on the report.

Sometimes they have a better reason (fabricated or otherwise) sometimes not.

 

[CriticalThought]

I find it funny that people are arguing over whether it is fake. It went viral! It does not matter! It already had its intended effect.

 

[CLAX1911]

I find it funny that people are arguing over whether it is fake. It went viral! It does not matter! It already had its intended effect.

I guess it doesn't really matter if it is fake or not just whether it is right or not.

 

[chromium]

I find it funny that people are arguing over whether it is fake. It went viral! It does not matter! It already had its intended effect.

As if in this vast country this has never happened either :roll:

Of course somewhere out there, parents who abandon their kids have been shunned in return.

 

[Brooks]

Brooks: ...to put the whole thing more simply, when your waiting for a friend to arrive and he's already two hours late, when you say "I bet he's not coming" what you mean is "I believe he's not coming".
That's just how that idiom is used.

sangha: You make up rules and think everyone else has to abide by them
The idiom can be used in many ways.

I thought my description of what Aderleth said matched his intent, and here's what he said about it:
"I wasn't neutral, to be sure, as I would imagine anyone making a bet wouldn't be neutral as to their opinion re: the likely outcome of whatever they've bet on."

 

[sangha]

I thought my description matched Aderleth's intent, and here's what he said about it:
"I wasn't neutral, to be sure, as I would imagine anyone making a bet wouldn't be neutral as to their opinion re: the likely outcome of whatever they've bet on."

Well yes. Obviously Aderleth felt there was a strong probability that it was true. I don't blame him. From what I've seen, the odds are in his favor

However, there is a difference between believing something is probably true, and believing that it is definitely true

 

[Brooks]

It's not credible that I've seen what I've seen and read what I've read? Okay. What bad behavior is indicated by making a particularized observation of an individual?

No, what wasn't credible was that your language stated that all police did a certain behavior.
There are rare circumstances in life in which one can say "all", and this isn't one of them. It's not credible.

I don't hover over cops' shoulders on a regular basis. All I get is what they write down (presumably what they think is important) and what they talk about on the stand.

Then your exposure is too limited to say "all".

If you think the media invented racial profiling you are entirely out of your mind. It's an actual thing, and whether you like it or not, cops do try to get away with it. Again: it's the primary reason NY's stop and frisk policy gets attacked.

First, I refer you to my red signature line.
Further, I said they have re-defined it into a negative thing rather than the neutral police tool that it is.
Police "profile" based on time of day, the makeup of the neighborhood, age, etc. Those aren't considered bad things, but "racial profiling" is.
That's because the phrase has been tainted. That's what I said. NOT that the media invented it.

First of all, if a term has "come to mean" something, that is what that term currently means. Second, the first time you brought up the term profiling, this is what you said: [quote not given]

Since you feel you have an understanding of such matters I'd assume that we would talk about actual definitions.
I mean, I wouldn't expect you to say someone robbed a house. Or that someone would be charged with carjacking. Or home invasion.
Racial profiling, like any other profiling, is not a negative thing if not misused.

If you weren't talking about racial profiling, are you seriously under the impression that anyone has a problem with police taking race into consideration as one of many factors when scrutinizing an individual? If so, you've seriously misunderstood the debate about racial profiling in this country.

As you've seriously misunderstood what I'm saying.
The media, (I'll say media as a collective that also includes Democrat candidates, race hustlers, etc.) by turning the neutral concept of racial profiling into a universal negative, has therefore made racial profiling into a bad thing every time it's used, even when used properly.

What you describe as "..police taking race into consideration as one of many factors when scrutinizing an individual" IS racial profiling.
The context made it sound like you don't think "police taking race into consideration as one of many factors when scrutinizing an individual" is a bad thing. I agree it isn't.
You've described, what I've been calling, the REAL definition of racial profiling.

When I, or pretty much everyone (including, yes, police officers and their representatives) use the term racial profiling, it means what I've said it means.

Believe me, I know.
Then what is the phrase for when police use their mathematical calculation based on race to properly conclude the individual is suspicious?
Unfortunately, the phrase is also "racial profiling".
So my point is, even when the procedure is used properly it is automatically suspect because of the mischaracterization of the phrase.

I disagree with your blanket statement about the way all police officers use the phrase.

You would do well to get past the notion that the concept of racial profiling is a media invention. It's not.

That's twice. You really have to read more carefully.

I'm still not sure you do understand. You realize that a traffic stop constitutes a seizure, right? Also pretty much any time a cop detains anyone for more than a brief instant?

My first response to you was "Are you saying that police officers will sieze an automobile based on bad profiling?"
I meant the typical legal definition of taking property for evidence.
We should have seen earlier on we were talking about two different things.

That's funny, because several pages ago you were happy to call what I did profiling:

You'll have to show me what this is even about at this point.

I think you have some very naive ideas about what cops will sometimes try to get away with (and successfully get away with).

Your trying to have it both ways here.
We're trying to hash out various interpretations of the law and words within it and now you're bringing up police using it illegitimately. That's a different argument.
But this was a response to me saying
"You seem to have a familiarity with the law so let's stop saying "Stop and Frisk" since there is no such thing."
and you responding:
"First of all, yes, stop and frisk is a legitimate term."
But the fact is it's not.
We were discussing a legal term, not what police do illegitimately.

Are you familiar with the term "Terry stop"?

It's what we've been discussing this whole time, isn't it?

Hell, you still haven't explained what "grandfather" was supposed to mean.

I said at least once that it was a mistake so I think it's pretty obvious that it didn't mean anything. But I'm almost positive you already knew that.

If only that were so. I've already provided you with this particular link, but since we're mostly talking about NY, here it is again:

"The judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as it increased the number of stops in minority communities. That has led to officers’ routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”" - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/n...d-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"

Read the article (I'll assume that, like me, you didn't read her decision).
She says nothing about the responsibility of the police department.
The closest she comes is "concluding" (no proof) that they turned a blind eye toward it.

Here's my other favorite example of institutionalized racial profiling:
https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/ortega-melendres-et-al-v-arpaio-et-al
If you do some research you'll learn that these two things aren't the only examples.

That's racial profiling being misused, not merely racial profiling.
And I never said its misuse doesn't exist.

 

[Aderleth]

No, what wasn't credible was that your language stated that all police did a certain behavior.
There are rare circumstances in life in which one can say "all", and this isn't one of them. It's not credible.

Actually, what I said is "I've never seen any evidence that they..." So once again you have failed to actually read what I wrote, and replaced it with what you want to believe I wrote. This is why I don't take you seriously . Speaking of which, I won't be responding to the rest of this garbage. You've obviously made up your mind, and in doing so, you're engaging in the same species of bias of which you're falsely accusing me. Have fun being a hypocrite.

 

[Brooks]

Well yes. Obviously Aderleth felt there was a strong probability that it was true. I don't blame him. From what I've seen, the odds are in his favor
However, there is a difference between believing something is probably true, and believing that it is definitely true

Since you enjoy pointing out my traits as a poster, here's one of yours.
When your position becomes untenable, you will make a "well yeah, but" seemingly related, inarguable point that nobody disagreed with in the first place, as if it is part of what you'd been saying all along.

To pointlessly answer it, yes I agree, probably and definitely are different.

 

[Brooks]

If you read the article (and the many others like it) you'll find that the judge who ruled on the case disagrees with you on many of the assertions you've just made (not about affirmatively telling cops to go out and violate the law).

Read the article. The strongest statement the judge makes is that she believes the department turned a blind eye toward it.
Very qualified statement on her part and very different from you assertion.

Nope. I asked you to provide even one single example of a non-Christian use of the term "abomination" to describe homosexuals. How is asking you to provide an example asking you to prove a negative? To be fair, you could probably find examples of that usage amongst other religious conservative groups, but since there are quite a lot more Christians in the US than, say, fundamentalist Muslims, any such usage in the US is far more likely to be coming out of the mouth of a Christian conservative.

Your kind of cancelling out your first sentence here. You want an example from me but then acknowledge that Muslims also do it.
Anyway, I agree, there are more Christians than Muslims and other conservative religious groups (I would argue that Hassidics might also use the word).
That's why I said that your Christian assertion had a pretty good percentage of being right.

Depends a lot on the context. It would hold up pretty well in the context of an expert witness testifying as to his opinion that by far the most common usage of the term abomination to refer to homosexuals in the US comes from Christian conservative culture. The term is lifted directly from the bible, after all.

Yes, and all you'd need is a video and a bloody fingerprint and you'd have enough to convict.

Of course not. You are once again attempting to paint me as having reached a conclusion. I have not done so. You would do well to keep that in mind when concocting further analogies.

So you're profiling then (in the REAL sense of the word). I don't see what's so controversial about realizing this.

So... based on the numbers that you've pulled entirely out of your ass, my hypothesis is unlikely to be accurate.

I think I addressed the accuracy of numbers when I said "We can tinker with the numbers, but I think you get the point."

What do you think this demonstrates?

When you make multiple "guesses", no matter how educated, your negative percentage compounds.
With the subject of this specific thread, your assertion was base almost completely on extrapolation.
And some of your guesses were built on prior guesses. Building on sand.

Brooks: And I really don't think you understand how little micro-control a department has over the actions of the officer on the street.
Aderleth: As I think I've mentioned, there's caselaw out there that proves you are wrong about this (one of the more recent examples is the NY stop and frisk case). Certainly not in every police department, but definitely in some.

Wait..what? Case law?
Do you mean evidence or testimony from prior hearings or trials?
I don't think you meant case law.

Brooks: Unless you can get into the head of the police officer, there is no way to prove the increase or decrease in the practice.
Aderleth: Again: caselaw demonstrates otherwise.

Again, I don't think you mean case law or don't know what it means.
If for no other reason than a law doesn't demonstrate anything.
If you meant, as I said, prior evidence or testimony, then I understand what you mean.

Sometimes they have a better reason (fabricated or otherwise) sometimes not.

Well, that's a bit of a cop out. Any discussion we are having about police procedure, legal limitations, proper profiling, Criminal Procedure Law, etc. can always be halted by "but what if the police are lying".
That's coming in a little late in the game.

For that matter I could always say "but what if the judge in the NY Stop and Frisk case was paid off".
It kind of kills the whole discussion.

 

[Brooks]

Actually, what I said is "I've never seen any evidence that they..." So once again you have failed to actually read what I wrote, and replaced it with what you want to believe I wrote. This is why I don't take you seriously . Speaking of which, I won't be responding to the rest of this garbage. You've obviously made up your mind, and in doing so, you're engaging in the same species of bias of which you're falsely accusing me.

Wow, that was a lot of responses for someone you don't take seriously. I envy your spare time.
I'm sorry you won't be responding to the rest of this "garbage".
And I was so curious about what you think "case law" means. I was baffled by your use of the phrase.

Have fun being a hypocrite.

Wow.

 

[sangha]

Since you enjoy pointing out my traits as a poster, here's one of yours.
When your position becomes untenable, you will make a "well yeah, but" seemingly related, inarguable point that nobody disagreed with in the first place, as if it is part of what you'd been saying all along.

To pointlessly answer it, yes I agree, probably and definitely are different.

And yet, you argued that using the phrase the way Aderleth used it meant that he believed that it *was* true, not that it was probably true.

IOW, while you're now claiming that we all agreed, the truth is that you disagreed

 

[Brooks]

And yet, you argued that using the phrase the way Aderleth used it meant that he believed that it *was* true, not that it was probably true.
IOW, while you're now claiming that we all agreed, the truth is that you disagreed

I'm interested in what you mean by this, I just don't understand.

 

[doniston]

....so, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I’ll take this moment to say goodbye to you. I now have a fabulous (as the gays put it) grandson to raise, and I don’t have time for heart-less B-word of a daughter. If you find your heart, give us a call. – Dad."

Yahoo Shine - Women's Lifestyle | Healthy Living and Fashion Blogs

What prompted this thread, you difn't say, and that partial letter just doesn't cut it.