Stereotyping.

Status
Not open for further replies.
NDN-man,

What I said was half-in-jest.

I knew the point you were making, and I agree with you more than I disagree with you.

My assertion, at this point, is that dress is often PART of the body language/outward expression of a person.

The highest-grossing broker I knew at one firm I worked for was exactly as you described-- leather and Harley's.

But if he walked into a "biker" bar, he would be pegged for exactly what he was in approximately 0.005 seconds. He simply didn't "carry" the "look."

I met my best client as a broker once when I got off work and really didn't want to go home. I ended up in an "underground" bar where chains and other interesting items was the decor of the day.

I aimlessly got in (bouncer was slacking, I suppose) in a three-button suit. Somehow, I ended up at the bar talking to a woman who had a shaved head, tattooed eyebrows, and enough body jewelry to cause Airport Security to go into Code Red. She was there with a guy that builds motorcycles.

She thought I was as out of place as I thought she was "unique." I bought a round of drinks, and she took my card.

That next week, I set up a 401(k) for her body piercing studio and started her Keogh plan. Turns out she made more money than most senior brokers in my firm. I was a new broker, and because of that account, I kept my head above water that year.

I kept her as a client until we both retired. I think she lives in Mexico now.

She was there when I got my first tattoo, and there is nothing like the promise of free body piercings for life! LOL

My point is that I DO see what you are saying. I actually PREFER the company of more unique individuals-- even if my post history on THR may indicate otherwise.

If we all were normal, life would be rather boring.


Even so, I do recognize that we create our own perceptions through our choices, and I stand by that.

If a person finds themselves in circumstances that I can discover what they are about, I am usually pleasantly surprised. However, when I pass an anonymous person on the street, we will likely never find out if they are a real thug or if I am a serial killer. We best both be on our guards for the time being.

That's just life.


--John
 
You obviously haven't witnessed a lot of inner city crime.
Yeah, growing up on 69th and Indiana Ave. in Chicago, I didn't see much inner city crime...

I was places on Christmas night that would make you wet yourself, even if you HAD a gun.
 
Were the troublesome people wearing polos and jeans and smiling when you made eye contact?

I was born in Chicago, have lots of family there, and go back frequently.

The answer to your question is: Umm.. No.

Les
 
I was born in Chicago, have lots of family there, and go back frequently.

The answer to your question is: Umm.. No.
But hey, we can just pretend that the answer is yes, if it will keep the PC crowd happy.
 
I don't have to stereotype because im condition yellow constantly. That's not to say i don't do it anyway (mostly out of pure disdain for the sloppiness and stupid looks of the "gangsta" style), but for me stereotyping proves little "tactical advantage" because to quote 'Boston T. Party'...

"Nobody can tell you what your Bad Guy (or Girl) will look like, where they'll come from, or what they'll be armed with. Statistically, it will be a minority male(s) in his early twenties, however it could be a 53 year old Asian woman with a cane."

Basically, I dont worry too much about lumping someone into this group or that because im aware that they are a potential threat (no matter how paranoid that is) until proven otherwise. If something smells funny about someone, i shoot to orange regardless of what they look like.
 
Nobody can tell you what your Bad Guy (or Girl) will look like, where they'll come from, or what they'll be armed with. Statistically, it will be a minority male(s) in his early twenties, however it could be a 53 year old Asian woman with a cane."
On the same token, just because I'm more likely to get hit by a bus when I walking across the road than I am to get hit by that same bus while I'm skiing.

But just to be safe, I'll be cautious of busses when I'm crossing the street. Because they are much more likely to hit me there than they are when I'm skiing.
 
But hey, we can just pretend that the answer is yes, if it will keep the PC crowd happy.

I'm convinced that the "PC crowd" lacks substance and conviction and is therefore seduced by the allure of the popular uniform. It makes no more sense than a high school clique. it's pointless to attempt to rationalize it.

Les
 
Back in my Chicago daze, 69th and Indiana was ... out of my territory.

Grand Avenue, West Town, and Hyde Park were my beats. The Checkerboard Lounge on 43rd was like Ricks in the DMZ. Not that I'm any kind of heavy. It's just funny when Erkel pipes up with "You OBVIOUSLY haven't seen any inner city crime."
 
It is a statement that it's OK for the state to violate the civil liberties of whatever constitutes "punks" these days in the name of "our (notice it's a collective pronoun) safety".

That was my one and only concern W/ the statement.

Quote:
or those of us who don't care about PC or all the treaties we entered into W/ the American Indian as much as we care about our own safety

Quote:
or those of us who don't care about PC or the civil liberties of the black guy we're about to lynch as much as we care about our own safety

Slightly different wording,same rationale
No, it's not the same rationale.

American Indians are BORN American Indians. They don't get that way by making a choice of what clothes to wear or how they wear their hair. They can't make a wardrobe change and stop being American Indians.

"Black guys" are BORN black, they didn't get that way by wearing tattoos, by not shaving, by choosing to emulate self-proclaimed gangsters. Putting on a business suit won't change the color of their skin.

The idea that a person can CHOOSE to look and act in a way that will predictably DRAW negative attention and then claim that the results are equivalent to the plight of a person who is mistreated because of how they were BORN is logically bankrupt.

A person isn't born a punk. "Punkhood" is brought on by the bad choices of the person who earns the label. Frankly it's repugnant that anyone would even suggest that being a punk is analogous in any way to being an American Indian, a Jew or a "black guy".
 
Well, I've known full blooded Indians who passed for white, and I've known 1/16 Indians who were the most militant, nationalist/ethnically identified people I've ever known. So there is some choice involved.
 
Well, I've known full blooded Indians who passed for white, and I've known 1/16 Indians who were the most militant, nationalist/ethnically identified people I've ever known. So there is some choice involved.
That is an very good point to make.
 
Well, I've known full blooded Indians who passed for white, and I've known 1/16 Indians who were the most militant, nationalist/ethnically identified people I've ever known.

I'd be willing to bet that most of those 1/16 Indian idiots don't really have any Indian blood at all. Ever hear of Ward Churchill?
 
Oh, yes.

In my state, most of the population that's been here a few generations has some native blood. Heck, they're proud of it. But they don't exactly go around making a fuss about it, since almost anyone around could tell them they're part Indian, too. They are probably even telling the truth, whether they know it or not. And in almost any conversation about partial Indians, casinos will be mentioned in jest. That's been on the statewide ballot before, and what a dust-up that was. No, the 1/16thers didn't get their dang casino. Not here. No way, no how.
 
A major part of my patrol area was RT 40. I never ceased to amaze me when I would stop a particular car and they would show me a ticket or warning issued by another agency earlier that night or days before. My favorite one was getting a homicide suspect who was a passenger in a car. The car had been stopped earlier in the night, and I would later find out many times before with him as the passenger. He was of course not required to show ID as a passenger so nobody ever bothered to ask. I did and got a guy who the state had be looking for for well over two years for a double murder in a hotel that occurred about five miles from the stop. Profiling works, if it didn't there would be nothing to complain about.

Let me get this right, you don't want me to stop someone based on their color or religion, but you want me not to stop them based on their color or religion.
 
mercop said:
Let me get this right, you don't want me to stop someone based on their color or religion, but you want me not to stop them based on their color or religion.
I'm sure you've seen the studies that show that profiling is just as accurate as flipping a coin? Citing the one time that it worked for you as a reason to use it all the time is called confirmation bias.
 
The Strategies and Tactics Forum is not a place to discuss profiling on traffic stops. The majority of the readers will never make a traffic stop.

Let's keep it on topic.
 
I have been enjoying reading about the subject in general, as well as the differences between profiling as a citizen and profiling by police. I may never make a traffic stop, but when considering the idea of profiling I would still consider the information relevant and helpful.
 
I use dress, appearance, and mannerism as a weight in my assessment.

Something I keep in mind though is how many 'stealth' bad guys there are out there who get caught after years of theft, murder, assault, etc. completely by accident. And everyone is amazed they are the serial killer.

Yeah, I watch the guy that is hanging out all 'gangsta.'

That doesn't keep me from watching the guy in the three piece suit though. Or the preacher's wife for that matter.
 
I don't think I judge "them." I just think they try to look like they just crawled out from a dumpster. For what reason, I haven't a clue.:uhoh:
 
Big difference between judgment and discernment. Passing judgment may carry a negative connotation (which is fine if you want to do it,) but discernment is key to situational awareness.
 
Last edited:
I have been enjoying reading about the subject in general, as well as the differences between profiling as a citizen and profiling by police.

A discussion of profiling by the police would not be on topic in S&T or at THR. Let's limit discussion to it's use by private citizens.
 
If those posts were regarding "profiling by the police" I would agree with you. However, to me they were about profiling (i.e. On topic) that just happened during someone's time as a police officer.
 
With due respect to your intent Jeff, the logic that police officers who profile (or do not profile) in a given circumstance could be awfully useful to me in my daily affairs, as I profile (or do not profile) individuals.

I haven't gotten to hear cops discuss this "off the record," and I suspect that the risks inherent in that situation are why you don't want the discussion to continue...how about we let it continue if it doesn't turn into a debate that derails the thread? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top