[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Did you miss the fires and the looting part?

No, did you miss those that were peacefully demonstrating condemning those were not demonstrating in a peaceful way. Not all demonstrators are up to no good just as not all cops are bad or good cops. However, there are some who overstep the boundaries of good decency and should be brought to justice.

[JB in TV]

Originally Posted by Rags123

Despite Grace's kind words below....err....above , I mean if racial profiling is what is necessary to protect my family and my neighbors then so be it.

I do not want to be a victim because the police for some reason were not allowed to approach, describe or otherwise deal with a criminal.

If that is racist, then so be it. Frankly all those on here who are always calling race....they would agree or they are not telling the truth.

Originally Posted by Rags123

As I re read this, I am sorry...not clear.

I mean that the color of your skin should never prevent you from voting, for example, but to me it is not something to avoid in crime prevention or apprehension of criminals or suspects.

Sorry for not being clear !

NOW I understand. Thanks for clearing it up!

[Gary7]

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement
activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent
that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that
links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified
criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland
security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence
activity."

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by Gary7

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement
activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent
that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that
links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified
criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland
security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence
activity."

Sorry Gary7, but I do not think many will read it since it was written by Eric Holder who many hold in contempt.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Gary7

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence activity."

"Trustworthy information" seems a debatable term. Who decides whether information was trustworthy, the media, law enforcement, the public?

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by Gary7

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement
activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent
that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that
links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified
criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland
security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence
activity."

Ok, I'll ask again - what will this accomplish that the ban against racial profiling in 03 by Bush hasn't? This nonsense about gender and sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything. How is this anything more than just grandstanding by Holder? trying to appease the base he is on this?

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

Sorry Gary7, but I do not think many will read it since it was written by Eric Holder who many hold in contempt.

So, you have read it in its entire and agree with all of it ? I dont and since you mentioned it, could you refer me to some links or posts to substantiate what you say about contempt for Mr Holder.

Thanks

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Rags123

So, you have read it in its entire and agree with all of it ? I dont and since you mentioned it, could you refer me to some links or posts to substantiate what you say about contempt for Mr Holder.

Thanks

That would be me saying I thought Eric Holder was stirring the racial pot.

I think this country has gone back decades in race relations in the last couple of months. I don't know who to blame but I have some favorites.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

That would be me saying I thought Eric Holder was stirring the racial pot.

I think this country has gone back decades in race relations in the last couple of months. I don't know who to blame but I have some favorites.

TENNISNUT said "MANY. hold in contempt" No disrespect but you are not many !!

Oh, and even those who have been supporters of the equal rights movement agree with you, but my question was the word MANY !!

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

"Trustworthy information" seems a debatable term. Who decides whether information was trustworthy, the media, law enforcement, the public?

The word trustworthy appears eight times in the article and I believe that the article answers your question. To correctly interpret the guidelines, I think IMHO it is best to read the entire 12 pages of the document.

[billethkid]

the contempt for Holder spearing is reminiscent of sniping that border personal attacks that got the political forum closed......totally uncalled for.

Comments on the new rules. In the end it was not clear to me why the rules were being changed.....like it or not as I have stated earlier I have no respect or confidence for the people making changes in and continuing to promote selective law enforcement, thus to graying what is right or wrong resulting in more confusion for law enforcement to do what, when and where to enforce whatever.

Why not simply enforce the rules and laws on the books? There is that controverial word again.......ENFORCE!!!!!!

[Gary7]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Ok, I'll ask again - what will this accomplish that the ban against racial profiling in 03 by Bush hasn't? This nonsense about gender and sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything. How is this anything more than just grandstanding by Holder? trying to appease the base he is on this?

There have been many cases where law enforcement officers have profiled a gender (e.g., women) and sexual orientation (e.g, gay) without any justifiable reason. A crime was not committed yet the officer stopped and arrested the person on a crime that was not real ... only because the officer profiled the community.

The 17 examples in the article can give you an overview of how these injustices can occur.

Some people may think the officer has all the right in the world to stop someone because the officer has an affinity to arrest someone who does not meet his personal liking. Some people may think that not allowing the officer to do this is "nonsense" ... I think think that we can better use the officer in our community than that.

There are too many people who still have prejudices in this country in my opinion.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Ok, I'll ask again - what will this accomplish that the ban against racial profiling in 03 by Bush hasn't? This nonsense about gender and sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything. How is this anything more than just grandstanding by Holder? trying to appease the base he is on this?

I think you've analyzed it correctly

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Gary7

The word trustworthy appears eight times in the article and I believe that the article answers your question. To correctly interpret the guidelines, I think IMHO it is best to read the entire 12 pages of the document.

To equate "trustworthy" with a group of senior leaders who have proven to be all but trustworthy seems both humorous and ironic ...

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

To equate "trustworthy" with a group of senior leaders who have proven to be all but trustworthy seems both humorous and ironic ...

All I know is that I have lot more trust in our leaders and faith in the direction in this country than I did six years ago. The fact that we can question authority in open way that would be unthinkable in many countries around the world is to be commended.