why is Detaining those who fit a profile WRONG?
150297
How can we live with ourselves \nif we descend to these pitiless \nacts?\nWe should at least allow \nthem trial. Ransom. banishment.\neven execution as a soldier, if necessary.\nWhy would you anger an animal, like a bee,\nand then let it go?\nThat is more chaotic than just killing the bee.\n\nThe US law does not protect foreigners.\nforeigners actually don't have rights, \nin general, under US law.\n\nBut I hold that even animals should be \ngranted rights, and that it is not \nprimarily for the good of the animal\nthat we do not abuse animals,\nbut for our own good.\n\nI am not saying that any human is an animal.\nI am saying that the conditions should be \nalways fit at least for an animal.\n\nAbusing prisoners will/has create/d\na generation of haters with powerful arguments.
186390
To them its not natural.  Its something that was punishable by at least imprisonment. Its like with other countries with oppressed societies.  If you are different in some way you are out casted.  In some societies its imprisonment, while others its death.
355078
Sounds like you are suggesting we detain people that COULD commit a crime. Sorry still cant do that. In this country CITIZENS are STILL considered INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
774547
It is now a National policy for all convicted felons to give DNA samples.  That database, in effect for over 5 years now, has already been responsible for the detection and identification of thousands of criminal suspects.  \n\nTyping of all citizens is, like the mandatory SS number, a sure sign of tyranny.
947674
If someone wants to sign up to serve our great nation then let them! They are more brave than I am! Why should you have to have a clean record to fight for the safety and security of your country? It's a better option than letting them sit in a jail cell at the taxpayers expense or, more often than not, go back home and get on wellfare (also at the taxpayers...MY...expense). Freedom isn't free and neither is paying for the "less fortunate". I say let them make something of themselves!
293735
I'm pretty sure that it's a Federal Law that a person has to be released after 24 hours. It's not unheard of for the police to say " you were free to leave at any time" as an excuse for holding a person longer.
258953
This is a statement of fact, NOT a question.  \n\nSome people don't have profiles or choose to keep them private.
493720
Its a question of fitting in and to make people like them. Or to hide themselves because they dont people getting to close or figuring out exactly who they are
963584
In my honest and humble opinion... I think the government is doing it to avoid a law suit or being labeled as prejudice themselves. The government isn't the ones that said hey im being discriminated against because of my race or nationality it is a few squeaky wheels that messed with the cog so much our government had no choice but to acknowledge there is a difference in skin tones. Its scary that people always blame someone else often our government for their short comings rather than accept that they aren't perfect, learn from their mistakes, move on, and try to become better people by learning from their mistakes.\n\n\nHave a GREAT day!
988849
If I'm not mistaken, SevenPoints (above me) is one of my brethren, and is absolutely correct.\n\nA few of the other people here have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and should keep their keyboards to themselves.  \n\nThe police do not need "reasonable cause" to ask people to identify themselves in a car.\n\nThe Patriot Act has nothing to do with cops asking people to identify themselves when they're in a vehicle.\n\nIt is most certainly not a 4th Amendment violation to ask someone to identify themselves.  What a ridiculous notion...exactly where is the search and seizure in a request to tell me what your name is?  The rest of that answer is generally very mistaken as well.  \n\nThe key here is that the asker wants to know if the police can ask for passengers to identify themselves.  Of course they can.  The police can ask the passengers to stand on their head, too.  If they're *asking*, then nobody is under any obligation to do anything.  \n\nAnd really, I'd disagree with SevenPoints only as to one thing...I'd suggest the police *can* demand identification, they just can't do anything about it under these circumstances if the demand isn't met.
452867
People in positions of power, regardless of race, often receive a lot of leeway in legal matters that would land most of the common people in jail. Consider Ted Kennedy (got away with manslaughter), the head honchos at Enron (getting off pretty light compared to all the people whose retirements have been ruined), O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake (they should team up to catch the "real killers") and the list goes on...
91074
Yes, from what i hard it is really hard for anyone convicted of a felon to even get a job that requires a background check. No it is not discrimination because when you hire someone you want to be able to trust them. You wouldn't want an armed robber to handle cash at a bank would you?
577574
I would think it would be hard if you actually thought someone was on the right track, and then you bust them and have to send them back to jail. Disappointment.
1159065
if you make a claim which is false, in order to obtain a job / insurance etc, it is a pecuniary advantage & therefore criminal (england & wales). omission is not, unless you are falsely representing yourself eg, the employer asked, & your omission misled to the extent you got the job as a result, when you woulnt otherwise. its not often dealt with nowadays by police
110946
of course it would affect your case..it can give you a good chance not to be convicted, right? unles it's a typographical error ;), kidding aside...such concern is critical and having a wrong last name on paperwork is a big matter to consider!
403068
First of all it is unconstitutional to make status a crime, that is someone cannot be lawfully detained unless there is proper cause or there is presidential authority under times of war. Only lately have decisions come down in Supreme Court which give basic rights to those detained in the US base in Cuba (Guantanomo Bay). \n\nThe problem with racial profiling is that it can lead to unconstiutional arrests and basic harrassment of minority groups simply based on skin color. This gives too many people, even those who are not racist and have good intentions, too broad of a license to police. \n\nThe question is: Once we start eliminating the constitutional rights of some, how long before our own rights are eliminated for what we think is a valid reason at the time. The whole point of the constitution and bill of rights is that those rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or given away no matter what we think. Our founding fathers realized there will always be times when it seems our rights should take second to our needs, however, they also realize that certain rights are never worth compromising. Racial profiling leads us down that same wrong path of compromise.\n\nIt does not legally exists, but is still a policy used by certain police departments in urban areas and is used grossly by the FBI.\n\nThat is the jist of the controversy.
576885
I understand what you mean. In some cases previous employment should make a person ineligible for certain jobs. For example, a former pimp should not be allowed to act as vice-president of the United States, nor should a hitman be allowed to work as a pediatrician. I guess we need more laws.