posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:58 AM
Nobody is disputing that Killak. For instance Serial killers are primarily white men. The argument here is the profiling itself, not necessarily
which races are profiled, even though people of Arabic dissent have been mentioned here.
Lets say for a moment that HISTORICALLY, i.e. actual cases, of a particular crime in a particular area are primarily committed by race X. Ill repeat,
its historical data based on actual crimes committed. Is it wrong to pay more attention in that area to race X in regards to that crime?
If you were watching a roulette wheel and after an hour noticed that red comes up as a winner 75% of the time, would it be wrong to bet red? Wouldn’t
you be disserviceing yourself by betting anything other than red? Now, of course red loses from time to time (25% in this example), but it would be
silly to spend much of your betting money on another color.
I hate to put such a simple analogy on this, but if the odds say one thing, you need to go with the odds.
Now, not all crimes are committed by any one race. But some are in some area's. I think if the % of crime historically shows that a particular race
is the primary offender, profiling should be permitted.
[edit on 2-12-2004 by skippytjc]