If a majority of the criminals looked like me, ...

You get pulled over once a month!? What are you doing? Do you look like a criminal? And no tickets?

The average American gets pulled over once every 7 years.

 

Silly stuff, going 50 in a 45 mph zone, not signaling when I change lanes...stuff like that.

And you'd be surprised how easy it is to flirt with a cop and get out of a ticket for something like that.

All I ever get are warnings.

LOL, you boys are so gullible its pathetic.

 

Pic won't import. Sorry.. It was funny...

 

Yeah. Last time I got pulled over my son and I had a gun pulled on us, were handcuffed and had to sit at the side of the road. No ticket though.

 

I'm not stupid, I know I'm getting profiled albeit for a different reason.

Still, it doesn't bother me.

 

Both bother me. Maybe you don't have guns drawn on you, but at 12 stops a year, that's a fair amount of time officers are wasting. And each stop has paperwork and reporting that goes with it.

 

Nope, never had a gun drawn on me and the officers are always friendly.

Overly friendly but whatever.

And I don't know if its a big waste of time because usually they are just sitting by the road anyways waiting for speeders or whatever.

Not sure how long their paperwork is since they don't actually issue a ticket.

Stops usually take the time it takes to run my name and then some harmless banter before I have to say I have to go.

 

I don't cheer on error; however, I can understand it. I can tolerate it, especially if I can understand it. I don't condemn everything that I don't condone. I condone about 2% of stuff. I condemn about 1% of stuff, and I merely tolerate about 97% of stuff.

 

No, it's stupid. It's this thinking that land innocent people in jail while the real perpetrator walk free. It limits you in such a way you don't do the necessary investigation and let a case go cold because you would have been...wrong.

 

1. Racial profiling doesn't work. You can't determine if someone is intending to commit a crime or has committed a crime based on their skin color.

2. I don't think being inconvenienced by the police the issue Americans are seriously concerned about. Their concerns seem to be with unnecessary police violence, shootings in particular, and unfair sentencing in the judicial system.

 

OK since the majority of all armored car & bank robberies are committed by white people, white people shouldn't get upset if they get stopped in connection to them.

 

If you are stopped because you match the discription of a wanted criminal that's not profiling, that's a legitimate reason to stop.

What the OP is missing, is the fact that police often stop black people who have done nothing wrong for nothing but the reason that they are black.

 

Nobody knows, but according to many conservatives I know most all of them are black.

[

 

Yes, if they're only in my neighborhood and on 24/7. If they're close to the bars and on from 1 to 3 am it won't bother me

And checkpoints stop everybody, not just one type of person.

 

Well ****....i'm gonna call the FBI tomorrow and tell them they need to quit profiling serial killers because all it does is land innocent people in jail.

Thank you for pointing that out....you probably just saved hundreds of innocent people!

 

That's an interesting point. I mean in the movies and on TV, profilers are these savants who are able to produce accurate and specific profiles which break the case.

In the real world there is no consensus on the effectiveness of profiling and little scientific evidence to support its use, despite its increasing popularity. Perhaps it's life imitating art, perhaps it's a sign of how desperate law enforcement are. Profiles are generally so vague as to be almost useless "male between the age of 20 and 40" and/or inaccurate. The risk is that vital police resources could be tied up working the profile while the perpetrator, who doesn't match the profile carries on.

https://www.mun.ca/psychology/brl/publications/Eastwood-article.pdf

 

Of course.

If you have 10 dead bodies in a city, looking at the history of who usually commits these acts will be of no help whatsoever.

No reason to go through the history of serial killers to perhaps give you a clue....big waste of time.

Hahahahahaha

You guys are a joke.

 

Read the study I linked. It reviewed the available material and concluded that trained profilers were no better at profiling suspects than people at large.

If you look at serial killers, the vast majority are white, male and between the ages of 20 and 50. That's not really reducing your suspect pool in a meaningful way and if you place too much trust on the profile, you may initially miss more viable suspects outside the group.

 

Profiling not only gets you closer to the killer but gets you their MO which leads you to likely victims, one step closer to catching him.

Its a valuable tool.

When you are looking at multiple suspects a profile can help you narrow down the list.

I believe Ted Bundy was the first serial killer to be profiled and they got it almost 100% accurate and it did help to catch him.

 

That may be your view, but analysis of actual results show that they aren't useful.

Even if Ted Bundy was successfully profiled, that means little. even a stopped clock is right twice a day. More likely successes have been exaggerated and failures ignored (a.k.a. confirmation bias).

That's why it's important to review the results objectively - which leads to the conclusion that it is not effective.

 

Your mistake is in assuming that it is a crime solver.

It isn't,

It is a tool that gets you a step closer to the criminal.

Its very effective in that role as it helps you narrow down suspects.

You still have to do the police work.

Are you saying its so ineffective that police should not bother adding that to their kit?

 

That's what an objective analysis of the effectiveness of the current state of profiling seems to show.

That is not to say that profiling techniques cannot and should not be improved or that analysis should not continue but right now profiling seems to be ineffective.

 

You may want to rethink that.

https://www.online-psychology-degre...rial-killers-caught-using-criminal-profiling/

 

As is often said, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The examples you give are very partial re-telling of the stories from the presumption that profiling works. Even if it worked in those 5 cases, there may be hundreds of cases where profiling actively hampered the investigation. It's like claiming that I'm a top class tipster because I once picked four winners in an afternoon and ignoring the hundreds of times where I failed to pick a winning horse.

That's why a broad objective analysis is required. Those which have been carried out show that profiling is ineffective.

 

As I stated, its a tool that can help.

Not in all cases but in some.

When you place the profile against the police work and it doesn't fit then you discard it.

But there are times when it can help the police work and lead you closer.

Its a tool that can be very effective but no investigation relies on that alone.

As I've shown, profiling can actually break open a case in some instances and when you are investigating crimes I believe law enforcement should bring all the tools available to them.

Some will work and some won't, each case is different.

To discount profiling out of the gate is denying law enforcement a tool they can use.