“I have repeatedly made clear that profiling by law enforcement is not only wrong, it is profoundly misguided and ineffective. Particularly in light of certain recent incidents we’ve seen at the local level and the widespread concerns about trust in the criminal justice process … it’s imperative that we take every possible action to institute strong and sound policing practices.”
So said Attorney General Eric Holder as he announced sweeping changes for federal law enforcement agencies. Profiling will now be banned on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity.
Holder isn’t just wrong about profiling being ineffective, but is totally misguided in his rationale for instituting the new policy, as the recent incidents of white police officers’ altercations with blacks had nothing to do with race.
Let’s look at the truth behind race and profiling:
1. Michael Brown was not profiled in Ferguson, nor singled out because he was black. He was approached by Officer Darren Wilson because A. he was illegally walking in the street, and B. had allegedly just committed a felony in a convenience store. He fought with Wilson in the patrol car, and, as a 6-foot, 4-inch, 300-pound individual, was a potentially lethal threat. Agree with the grand jury process or not, let’s be perfectly clear that race was not a factor, as Wilson would have undoubtedly acted in the same way no matter what color his attacker was.
Race also was not a factor in the chokehold death of black New Yorker Eric Garner by a white police officer — a fact bolstered by his widow who said, “I really don’t feel like it’s a black-and-white thing.” Garner was being arrested for selling cigarettes illegally — (Really? That’s the “crime” to which New York’s finest should be allocating their time?) — but he wasn’t being profiled. Unfortunately, the grand jury got that one wrong, as Garner’s death was preventable and excessive force was used. While the officer utilizing the chokehold (a maneuver banned by the department for over two decades) should have been held for trial, the key point is that race wasn’t a factor.
So if these “recent incidents” that Holder cites were not racially motivated, why the need for new rules at all?
2. Holder’s ban only applies to federal law enforcement agencies, but he is strongly suggesting all state and local police departments adopt them. Given that some departments bow to political correctness, and still others prostitute themselves to the federal government, look for many to follow suit, especially if the feds tie their funding to implementing the rules.
3. Quite interestingly, there are exceptions. The new rules will not apply to screeners at airports and the southwest border, the Secret Service, and certain types of national security investigations. Two things come to mind:
A. Since we have exceptions for these crucially important areas, that must mean, by definition, that profiling works. In other words, it’s not “ineffective.”
B. Given that it is effective, why are we disallowing it in all other federal law enforcement areas? That’s like a football coach telling his team that they can only pass the ball when near the goal line. The self-tying of America’s hands is as dangerous as it is stupid.
4. The answer, of course, is that Holder’s ban is rooted in misguided ideas about racism and bigotry, and his belief that government-mandated political correctness is the solution. But in establishing this new policy, he has shown himself to be a hypocrite, as many of his traditional allies on the Left have been pointing out.
If profiling is bad, then it’s bad, period. Holder should have banned it in all circumstances. But since he didn’t, it’s disingenuous for him to take the moral high ground, preaching against the “evils” of profiling while still allowing it in numerous circumstances. Whatever little credibility Holder had is now gone.
5. What’s next? Will broadcasting a person’s color or gender over police radio when describing a suspect be outlawed too? Don’t laugh. That’s coming.
As it is, the FBI last year succumbed to pressure from Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott and other PC groups when it halted its “Faces Of Global Terrorism” ad campaign in Seattle (which sought the public’s help finding international terrorists). And why? Because, in McDermott’s words, the “ad featuring 16 photos of wanted terrorists is not only offensive to Muslims and ethnic minorities, but it encourages racial and religious profiling.”
Really? Showing pictures of people who, it bears repeating, are wanted for terrorism, is racist? Trying to nail people who committed heinous acts is religious profiling? Most sickening, 13 of the 16 weren’t even American! It’s bad enough that we are placating the “offended-by-everything” American crowd, but now we are instituting policies to make nice with foreigners — including those hell-bent on doing us harm. Too bad politicians aren’t profiled for intelligence before taking office.
6. Profiling is an effective tool of law enforcement, from Coast Guard interdiction to kidnappings. But, like anything else, there should be limits. Stop-and-frisk, for example, is a policy that goes beyond tactical profiling and targets people simply because of color, leading to police abuse and loss of civil liberties.
But for the vast majority of investigations, profiling serves as a reliable starting point, and for good reason. At its core, profiling is using the huge amount of law enforcement and psychological knowledge acquired over time to develop efficient methodologies to catch the bad guys. If people’s feelings are “hurt” because they happen to be the same ethnicity or religion as wanted individuals, tough. Either they have a guilty conscience, or they aren’t smart enough to understand the difference between law-breakers and law-abiders.
As a huge melting pot, America presents unique challenges to law enforcement. Terrorists are increasingly “home-grown,” and criminal syndicates are often foreign-based. To effectively combat them, profiling is the one tool, above all, that can give America’s protectors the edge they need. With proper oversight to safeguard civil liberties, profiling should always have a home in America.
Profiling Works Says Freind
Like this:
Like Loading...
