Ladies & gents...sorry to utter heresy...but there is no such thing as racial profiling. The two words cannot logically be linked in the same sentence Profiling in Law Enforcement is the use of MULTIPLE (that means at least 2) factors that, based on the officer's experience, would lead him/her to further investigate.

Race can legitimately use as one of several factors in an investigation. However when it's the ONLY factor, or the driving factor, then it's probably unconstitutional/illegal, but it's not profiling.

Regards,

COL M

gvillan,

Thanks for the reference. I need to be more precise in my post(s). My point was, "racial profiling" is SEMANTICALLY incorrect. I consider it a "made up" term...Wikipedia notwithstanding. As a former Law Enforcement offier, I believe in profiling as a legitimate technique. I do NOT however support the use of race as the only factor or the primary factor in a traffic stop.

My concern is that when we use terms that are inherently false-to-fact/semantically incorrect, then we lock ourselves out of the ability to conduct legitimate investigations. Profiling is properly defined as using multiple factors leading the officer to believe that based on the totality of the circumstances, he/she might want to investigate further...stop the person, ask some questions etc.

Successful cops use this technique and are able to properly articulate their reasoning in each case, such that the average person should be able to come to the same conclusion.

Poorly trained or inexperienced officers can/have abused this or used race/creed as the only factor and violated folks rights. Depending on circumstances these guys need to be retrained, fired or if the violation severe enogh...prosecuted.

Regards,

Mike

You are creating a strawman by pretending that "racial profiling" is the use of race as the "only" factor in the profile.

Racial profiling is the use of physiognomic markers ("race") as a DISPROPORTIONATE factor in how an organization deals with customers/suspects/victims etc.

There are circumstances where it is legitimate to use particular physiognomic markers in investigating a crime:

• Only looking at tall people because the perp was reported as being over 6'4"
• Only looking at white males because the perp was a white male

But where this goes sideways is when you look at things like vehicle stops, drug arrests and other "opportunity interdictions" (to coin a phrase) where the officer uses the pretext of "reasonable suspicion" that is disproportionately based on "race".

Thus "Driving While Black" stops of an African American Chicago Alderman because he drives a BMW.

So it doesn't matter if there are other factors in the "profile". What matters is if "race" is a DISPROPORTIONATE part of the profile.

And nothing you've said suggests that this is not a problem.

Never said it wasn''t a problem. I'm just saying the term lacks semantic rigor. Just because it's a popular term doen't make its use semantically correct. My concern is that when we bandy about terms such as these, we lose credibility and hence, a VERY REAL issue doesn't get the credibility/concern it deserves.

Regards,

Mike

Mike, I think Degsme just made a very strong case for the semantic rigor of racial profiling, but allow me as well, to clarify.

I see your main error here as assuming that the popular conception of the term "racial profiling" is that it is when police use race as the only factor in investigations. I don't think most people consider that to be the definition of racial profiling.

Example -

A policeman is out on patrol. He just heard that there was a shooting in the neighborhood (Factor 1). He knows that its a rough part of town, and there is a lot of gang activity (factor 2). He sees a kid in a bulky sweatshirt running down an alley, suspicious activity (factor 3). The kid is black (factor 4?).

You seem to be saying that the policeman could rationalize all 4 factors as contributing to a decision to arrest that person, and not be engaging in racial profiling. In practice, theory, and semantics, that is nonsense. If race is a factor in constructing a criminal profile (and you have no evidence beforehand of the suspect's race), then it is racial profiling.

Nobody would look at that scenario and say, "oh, well since the officer made the judgement based on other factors as well as race, then I guess race played zero part in it at all." No, thats impossible. What happened there was several types of profiling. Neighborhood profiling (2), age and attire profiling (3), and racial profiling (4). If you use racial profiling among other types of profiling, you aren't not using racial profiling. You are.

I'm not really trying to make the arguement that profiling is evil or always wrong. I'm just pointing out that it is a very easy concept to describe, and one that obviously exists.

The profiling is more insidious than that. I recollect an episode of COPS in which a pair of black teens were pulled over for running a stop sign. The cops had the 2 kids out of the car and body searched before asking for ID. Had these been a pair of white-boys in the same care, that would not have happened.

Now we know that a Terry Stop is constitutional, but not every stop HAS to be a "terry stop". And in this case it was pretty clear that the COPS were using race as their differentiating critieria in choosing to do a Terry Stop vs. just a normal traffic stop.

So yeah "racial profiling" does have sufficient semantic rigor to be meaningful. What it means is that if an identical white suspect were in the identical circumstance, all the "profiling" elements would not be sufficient for a stop, whereas being a minority pushes the "profile" "over the edge".

If race is the thing that pushes the profile over the edge, no matter how broad the profile is, it functionally is indistinguishable from a profile that is based purely on race.

All the above are good points. I appreciate the discussion. Glad it didn't devolve into name calling etc that I've seen on other threads.

Regards,

Mike