Comments on: Missouri Kills 3rd Party/Militia Bumper Stick Profiling http://donklephant.com/2009/03/29/missouri-kills-3rd-partymilitia-bumper-stick-profiling/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash? http://donklephant.com/2009/03/29/missouri-kills-3rd-partymilitia-bumper-stick-profiling/comment-page-1/#comment-543056 Donklephant » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash? Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:22:25 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=14208#comment-543056 [...] Missouri’s militia/Ron Paul tie still in full [...] [...] Missouri’s militia/Ron Paul tie still in full [...]

]]> By: kranky kritter http://donklephant.com/2009/03/29/missouri-kills-3rd-partymilitia-bumper-stick-profiling/comment-page-1/#comment-439644 kranky kritter Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:27:46 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=14208#comment-439644 In general, I find anti-profiling rhetoric to be over the top. We want to be safe from terrorists both domestic and foreign, from drug dealers, from burglars, from drunk drivers. And so on, and so on. So we pay lots of people to help keep us safe. I think we really need to decide whether or not we want the people we've thus hired to play the percentages, study the correlations, and make educated guesses, or not. Probable cause for things like traffic stops and searches needs to be objective, and I support that. That kind of stuff is well established, and it ought to be followed. But when it comes to the kinds of things that lead to a law enforcement agent exercising scrutiny, I think such agents deserve quite a bit of latitude. The notion of "profiling" has been successfully demonized in a very expanded form by a wide range of special interest groups liberal and conservative, and I think that's a mistake. We ought to re-think it. Our law enforcement agents have limited time and limited resources. So I want them to have the freedom to choose to scrutinize the actions of people who seem to be up to no good, within reason. In general, I find anti-profiling rhetoric to be over the top.

We want to be safe from terrorists both domestic and foreign, from drug dealers, from burglars, from drunk drivers. And so on, and so on.

So we pay lots of people to help keep us safe. I think we really need to decide whether or not we want the people we’ve thus hired to play the percentages, study the correlations, and make educated guesses, or not.

Probable cause for things like traffic stops and searches needs to be objective, and I support that. That kind of stuff is well established, and it ought to be followed.

But when it comes to the kinds of things that lead to a law enforcement agent exercising scrutiny, I think such agents deserve quite a bit of latitude.

The notion of “profiling” has been successfully demonized in a very expanded form by a wide range of special interest groups liberal and conservative, and I think that’s a mistake. We ought to re-think it.

Our law enforcement agents have limited time and limited resources. So I want them to have the freedom to choose to scrutinize the actions of people who seem to be up to no good, within reason.

]]>