Explosion at the Boston Marathon

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Flames89

So you don't think they profile themselves at all?
Vigilantism, false accusations by media, etc are all wrong. Speculation based on profiling is not such a crime.
If you have a back pack, look sketchy or fit a profile, and you were standing NEAR where the bombs went off you deserved to be questioned. Likely before the granny with a back pack or the young mother with her daughter and a back pack.

What you're advocating is the presumption of guilt until the individuals you believe "look sketchy" or "fit a profile" clear their names. That's not how our justice system works, nor should it be.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by neo45

That's pretty much a libel suit in the bag for those guys

The Post headline says . . . . "Bag Men, Feds Seek These Two." Deadspin says the Post story indicates the Feds are circulating internally that particular photo and looking for those two individuals.

At this moment, you probably don't know if the Post is wrong.

You probably will know the truth or falsehood of the Post representation in a few hours when the Feds release their photo's.

Deadspin describes the guys in the photo as "dark-skinned" and "assuredly innocent." The one with the profile looks like a white Slavic guy and Deadspin doesn't know if those guys are innocent.

The Post's lawyers probably vetted the story and photo before it went to publication.

You'll know who is right or wrong in a few hours probably. Only the Feds really know.

Cowperson

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flames89

So you don't think they profile themselves at all?
Vigilantism, false accusations by media, etc are all wrong. Speculation based on profiling is not such a crime.
If you have a back pack, look sketchy or fit a profile, and you were standing NEAR where the bombs went off you deserved to be questioned. Likely before the granny with a back pack or the young mother with her daughter and a back pack.

Why? You're willing to trample on deeply held societal values like equality and privacy because a brown guy is 0.0000000001% more likely to be a mass murderer than a white grandmother? Certainly not a trade off that I am prepared to make. And, as a white male who would be sacrificing absolutely zero dignity or privacy under a racial profiling regime, its certainly not a trade off that I would cavalierly volunteer all the brown guys for.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What you're advocating is the presumption of guilt until the individuals you believe "look sketchy" or "fit a profile" clear their names. That's not how our justice system works, nor should it be.

I don't know what's going on elsewhere on the Internet, but no one in this thread has presumed anyone to be guilty. As far as I remember, 3 photos with supposedly suspicious people highlighted have been posted in here, and 2 of the 3 were immediately questioned/ridiculed. As for the one with the bearded white guy, no one said that he's guilty, but people did say that he better expect some FBI agents to confirm that he's still in possession of that bag. I think that's absolutely true.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why? You're willing to trample on deeply held societal values like equality and privacy because a brown guy is 0.0000000001% more likely to be a mass murderer than a white grandmother? Certainly not a trade off that I am prepared to make. And, as a white male who would be sacrificing absolutely zero dignity or privacy under a racial profiling regime, its certainly not a trade off that I would cavalierly volunteer all the brown guys for.

Given the timing of the bombing, I'd think that white guys would be profiled at least as much as darker skinned people, and I'm perfectly ok with that as a white guy. If NRA members were easy to spot in a crowd, I'd absolutely be fine with any who were in the vicinity of the bombs to get a little extra scrutiny. Regardless, at least on this board, the speculation seems to be based much more on the way that people are carrying their backpacks than on the color of their skin.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What you're advocating is the presumption of guilt until the individuals you believe "look sketchy" or "fit a profile" clear their names. That's not how our justice system works, nor should it be.

get real.

Profiling, ethnic or otherwise, is a tried and true tactic long used by law enforcement everywhere.

Scenario..

You are sitting at your kitchen table and a rock comes through your window. You run outside and see

a) A group of older ladies standing to one side

b) A group of young males in the middle

c) A group of middle aged men standing to the other side

Which one are you going to suspect and question first?

Dont get all high and mighty that some get profiled because their peers of the past committed similar actions. It doesnt make them guilty, it merely makes them people of interest.

I suspect if there were photos of bald headed, swastika tatooed men carrying backpacks in some of these photos, they too would be getting the same treatment.....as they should.

[CaptainCrunch]

Personally I know its the Grandma's that are guilty, because the middle age men are too drunk to throw accurately and the teenagers are playing a game on their phone that involves throwing rocks through windows and don't want to do anything that requires ambition. But grannies are kinda jerks.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by transplant99

get real.

Profiling, ethnic or otherwise, is a tried and true tactic long used by law enforcement everywhere.

Scenario..

You are sitting at your kitchen table and a rock comes through your window. You run outside and see

a) A group of older ladies standing to one side

b) A group of young males in the middle

c) A group of middle aged men standing to the other side

Which one are you going to suspect and question first?

Dont get all high and mighty that some get profiled because their peers of the past committed similar actions. It doesnt make them guilty, it merely makes them people of interest.

I suspect if there were photos of bald headed, swastika tatooed men carrying backpacks in some of these photos, they too would be getting the same treatment.....as they should.

Suspicion shouldn't equal presumption of guilt. You guys are arguing two different points

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why? You're willing to trample on deeply held societal values like equality and privacy because a brown guy is 0.0000000001% more likely to be a mass murderer than a white grandmother? Certainly not a trade off that I am prepared to make. And, as a white male who would be sacrificing absolutely zero dignity or privacy under a racial profiling regime, its certainly not a trade off that I would cavalierly volunteer all the brown guys for.

I bet the odds are slightly higher than that.

I don't think the post making guesses out loud is the right thing to do, however profiling, racial or otherwise does make sense if the profile is tight enough. Personal privacy and dignity are important, but not as important as stopping bombers.

EDIT: the fact you used so many zero's has me profiling you to be hyper-emotional to the point of being irrational.

[Stay Golden]

Brad Marchand takes some heat time to time around CP being that he is one of those pest players. Personally i would have 3 on on the Flames.

He made quite a generous gesture to the Parents of the little boy that lost his life in this heinous crime. All proceeds going to the family.

http://larrybrownsports.com/hockey/b...-victim/184282

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Personally I know its the Grandma's that are guilty, because the middle age men are too drunk to throw accurately and the teenagers are playing a game on their phone that involves throwing rocks through windows and don't want to do anything that requires ambition. But grannies are kinda jerks.

And they know they can get away with it by blaming the teenagers. Sneaky grandmas....

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

get real.

Profiling, ethnic or otherwise, is a tried and true tactic long used by law enforcement everywhere.

Scenario..

You are sitting at your kitchen table and a rock comes through your window. You run outside and see

a) A group of older ladies standing to one side

b) A group of young males in the middle

c) A group of middle aged men standing to the other side

Which one are you going to suspect and question first?

Dont get all high and mighty that some get profiled because their peers of the past committed similar actions. It doesnt make them guilty, it merely makes them people of interest.

I suspect if there were photos of bald headed, swastika tatooed men carrying backpacks in some of these photos, they too would be getting the same treatment.....as they should.

There is a significant difference between your two examples (age and swastika tattoos) and race. Age and tattoos/expressions of hatred are both changeable characteristics. Race, like gender or sexuality or rekigiob, are deeply held and unchangeable characteristics if who we are as people.

[Ozy_Flame]

The CIA, DHS, NSA and FBI all have suspect profiling systems and profile usage in their intelligence analysis procedures. Profiles are matched against data collected from crime scenes for pattern analysis. Profiles can (and does) include body type, skin colour, eye colour, facial features, genetic information, academic history, lifestyle choices, and everything in between. It's not just about skin colour.

Profiling also becomes very important when you're conducting Social Network Analysis (SNA), which is a critical part of analytical tradecraft in these organizations. Empirical evidence is matched against these profiles, which is then fed into finding commonalities among networks of people. If a group of people are tied to another set of people with a particular set of profile criteria, say, being known to set off bombs with pressure cookers in other parts of the planet and they know similar people or are from similar tribal backgrounds, this becomes very important.

Profiling happens and its one of the foundations for intelligence analysis. Deal with it.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The CIA, DHS, NSA and FBI all have suspect profiling systems and profile usage in their intelligence analysis procedures. Profiles are matched against data collected from crime scenes for pattern analysis. Profiles can (and does) include body type, skin colour, eye colour, facial features, genetic information, academic history, lifestyle choices, and everything in between. It's not just about skin colour.

Profiling also becomes very important when you're conducting Social Network Analysis (SNA), which is a critical part of analytical tradecraft in these organizations. Empirical evidence is matched against these profiles, which is then fed into finding commonalities among networks of people. If a group of people are tied to another set of people with a particular set of profile criteria, say, being known to set off bombs with pressure cookers in other parts of the planet and they know similar people or are from similar tribal backgrounds, this becomes very important.

Profiling happens and its one of the foundations for intelligence analysis. Deal with it.

I had this argument already. It's not worth it on here. The moment you say "skin color" and don't follow it up with something like "doesn't matter", you can't win.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There is a significant difference between your two examples (age and swastika tattoos) and race. Age and tattoos/expressions of hatred are both changeable characteristics. Race, like gender or sexuality or rekigiob, are deeply held and unchangeable characteristics if who we are as people.

Much like those of us who have a skin color that somehow gives us all some mythical "priveledge"?

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=699


It's amazing what this PC nonsense has come to.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I bet the odds are slightly higher than that.

Oh, I suspect that it is significantly lower than that. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised if white people have committed more acts of terrorism (per capita) than brown people in the United States.

Originally Posted by Flames in07

I don't think the post making guesses out loud is the right thing to do, however profiling, racial or otherwise does make sense if the profile is tight enough. Personal privacy and dignity are important, but not as important as stopping bombers.

Equality, dignity and privacy are foundational values that every person in the Western world relies on every single day. Catching bombers is something that we only very rarely have to do. I therefore disagree with you.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Much like those of us who have a skin color that somehow gives us all some mythical "priveledge"?

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=699


It's amazing what this PC nonsense has come to.

What on earth are you talking about? "White privilege" is an observation about our society, not an observation about white people.

Good grief.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Oh, I suspect that it is significantly lower than that. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised if white people have committed more acts of terrorism (per capita) than brown people in the United States.



Equality, dignity and privacy are foundational values that every person in the Western world relies on every single day. Catching bombers is something that we only very rarely have to do. I therefore disagree with you.

You might be right, and that should be part of what they profile. Do you feel better now?

I bet there's a large team of people who do this all day every day as a full time job. They don't just kick the old bomber profiling machine into gear on Sept 12, 2001 for a little while then fire it up for a few days again starting last Monday.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What on earth are you talking about? "White privilege" is an observation about our society, not an observation about white people.

Good grief.

Middle-class, white, CIS males are pretty persecuted.

Give the guy a break.

[MarchHare]

I don't know what's going on elsewhere on the Internet, but no one in this thread has presumed anyone to be guilty

Flames89 has said that people should be expected to be questioned by the authorities if they "looked sketchy" or "fit a profile".

I wonder if he would consider the following person worthy of questioning:

White male
Late 20s
Roman Catholic
Clean shaven, neatly trimmed haircut
Army veteran, awarded the Bronze Star for service in Iraq

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Flames89 has said that people should be expected to be questioned by the authorities if they "looked sketchy" or "fit a profile".

I wonder if he would consider the following person worthy of questioning:

White male
Late 20s
Roman Catholic
Clean shaven, neatly trimmed haircut
Army veteran, awarded the Bronze Star for service in Iraq

Depends on how many My Little Pony figurines he has clipped to his backpack.