Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
But it’s not a glass, it’s a stacked deck. Those 12% go on to commit heinous crimes and rack up a body count but you want to balance that with the 88% that are inconvenienced for 2 minutes. Sorry, this is not a level playing field. Do you think it is unfair if you are stopped for a broken taillight but the officer finds 10 kg of crack? Would you have your undies in a bunch if they only seized 10 kg from 1200 out of every 10,000 stops?
|
If in those 10,000 stops for broken taillights it was found that 8,800 times there was no broken taillight then absolutely I would consider that unfair and would argue against it.
If the error rate of "acting suspiciously" is 88% then someone needs retraining on how to detect suspicious activity. I don't know what an acceptable error rate is but it ain't 88%!
Your characterization of it being just an inconvenience is meaningless until it is YOU who is stopped daily just for walking down the street. Perspectives change significantly when it is the observer who is "inconvenienced."
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY - Randallstown, MD - Yakima, WA - Stevensville, MD - Village of Hillsborough
|