# Penn Station New York arrest



## Village Idiot (Jan 5, 2009)

Amtrak Police Harassment Of Duane Kerzic For Photography In Pennsylvania Station New York On December 21, 2008

Discuss.



> Edit 01/04/09: How can you help. Write to your President, members of his cabinet, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and anyone that you voted for about this or how you have been personally effected because of incidents like this. That's what I did, I sent letters to Joseph Boardman the CEO of Amtrak and copied everyone I could think of that could have any type of interest as an elected official. It doesn't take long to write a letter, they actually make a huge difference. Things I've written about in the past have been changed for the better. Most politicians have email addresses posted online or a webform to send message on their websites. Use them. Send copies to the people I've listed below. Letters are more efffective then 100 people showing up in Pennsylvania Station with cameras. I will try to write some sample letters and post them to make it eaiser. You can also print out my letters to Mr. Boardman and just put a short note saying I want to be sure you are aware of this and send it off. You can email links to my page here to your representitives. You can email links to my page to Amtrak Media Relations National and NY. Very easy to do. Thanks for your help.
> 
> If you have had something like this happen to you in an Amtrak Train Station, on an Amtrak Train or on any property belonging to Amtrak that is open to the public anyplace in the country please contact Todd Maisel of the National Press Photographers Association or me about what happened to you. Use "Amtrak Incident on" as the first words of the subject line. Be sure to include as best you can the what, where and why and when of what happened to you. This way a class action law suit can be prepared against Amtrak showing a pattern of violating the publics civil liberties. Let me know if I have permission to post your data on this web site.
> 
> ...


----------



## Yemme (Jan 5, 2009)

Oh boy that's what ThorHammer was talking about.


----------



## rmh159 (Jan 5, 2009)

Aside from the argument of right or wrong... I'll just throw in that I think we all read and see enough of these articles that it's worth anticipating this type of thing... especially if you're into shooting pics of infrastructure.

Side note: Wasn't there recently a rumored threat on NYC subways?


----------



## impressme (Jan 5, 2009)

rmh159 said:


> Side note: Wasn't there recently a rumored threat on NYC subways?



Around the holidays the NYPD NY Port Auth. always up the threat level on trains and subways. They seem to get some activity as far as info on threats to these forms of transportation but nothing really concrete comes from them. It's more to keep the public alert to their surroundings.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

This is why we should be racially profiling.  We can't just ban all photography of anything that could be a terrorist target.  That's just not freedom.  A little common sense on the part of the authorities would go a long way..


----------



## clarinetJWD (Jan 5, 2009)

I have been told misinformation regarding photography in many places involving transit...the Baltimore subway, Washington Metro (Photos allowed, but not pointing down the tunnels was what they said), Washington Union Station, New York Union Station.

A couple times I was asked to delete my photos, which I of course, refused to do.  I carry around the Photographers' Bill of Rights, an explanation and summary of photographer rights taken from US law.  No police officer, guard, or anyone else may force the deletion of or confiscate photographs or photography equipment without a court order.

Now, on private property, or where people may reasonably assume privacy, if you are asked to stop taking pictures, you must stop, but you can keep any ones you've already taken.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 5, 2009)

And the arrested party's account said that the officer arrested him for trespassing and disobeying an order to delete the photos. If that's true, then he was arrested for disobeying and illegal order given by the law enforcement official.

There was that whole big stink in DC about Amtrak and the metro and how they had to get their policy straight. They did a pretty bad job of it, but I don't think I've heard of anyone else being harrassed at Union Station in the past couple of months.


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> This is why we should be racially profiling.  We can't just ban all photography of anything that could be a terrorist target.  That's just not freedom.  A little common sense on the part of the authorities would go a long way..



Never seen "racial profiling" used to backup the words "freedom" and "common sense". :er:

Racial profiling is one of those things that, on the surface, "might" be effective but the expense of personal freedoms of a smaller group is an "absolute".  It opens huge can of worms in the long run and programs the public into fearing a racial group.  It is just another form of segregation... separating a group of people as "high risk" over others considered "low risk".  Separation by race is never equal.

Considering that most terrorist like acts against the U.S. on U.S. soil have been committed by white, male, U.S. citizens, racial profiling would most likely not be effective.  It certainly would not have picked up Timothy McVeigh (and those that helped him).  It certainly would not have picked up Theodore Kaczynski (Unibomber).  

Also remember that we as a nation racially singled out the American Japanese during WWII. We placed thousands of innocent U.S. citizens into internment camps against their will.  That action alone became one of the America's most shameful acts against its own people.  Threats from "terrorism" can come from anyone from any race...

Think about it....  The police are already profiling Photographers as potential terrorists and you are already claiming your rights are being violated.  Just imagine if the police were profiling your race as a potential terrorist.  Do you think the state of personal rights in the U.S. will improve?  Are we going to be safer?  At what point are the police driven by profiling no better than terrorists?


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

To keep from violating the rules of the forum, I've responded to your post on my site if you're interested.  It could quickly go astray here.


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

Sorry... won't spend my time on your site.  If such high regard for the non-politics post, such a comment should have been relegated to the back of your mind and stayed there rather than posted here.

There is a whole lot of "I" in your post with little historical content to back your ideas. Sorry if not doing racial profiling is an inconvenience to you at the airport.  

BTW... middle eastern is not a race.  The area of question has a lot of people from asian, persian, arabs, even white bloodlines (too many too list).  One of my fears is that we will degrade back to racial profiling of just dark skinned individuals.  A state that has lead this country down a dark path in past decades.  Not to mention that white individuals have bombed as well.... what about those.

A coworker of mine was held up in England for 6 weeks (in the process of immigration).  He's 3rd generation english who works in the states.  He was held up because he carries the last name of a Pakistani descent.  Not only is he English but Pakistan is historically an ally to the U.S (as with the UK).  It didn't leave him with a good impression of the country he wishes to start a new life.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> This is why we should be racially profiling.



Wow... and that coming from someone that has an avatar of a dark skinned man in a turban.

Why don't we start with you then?  How would that make you feel?  Not good, I am sure.

Racial profiling is useless and a waste of time.  You will find members of the caucasion race both anti and pro sympathetic to the cause of the terrorists.  That is not politics, that is a simple truth.

Only the ignorant use profiling as any kind of a "proven" method to weed out true issues and problems.  Heck, the last suicide bombing in the middle east was claimed on CNN as being done by a fair skinned woman!

Damn the thought of profiling makes me ill.  Let's all assume that anyone with a good tan or naturally dark skin and a foreign name is a terrorist... no, thank-you, that is just wrong on so many levels.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Wow... and that coming from someone that has an avatar of a dark skinned man in a turban.
> 
> Why don't we start with you then?  How would that make you feel?  Not good, I am sure.
> 
> ...



Jerry, while I wholeheartedly disagree with your post and think you're completely wrong, I'm not going to go on here about it in order to keep the thread alive.

I think that a little common sense being employed is the answer, not blanket bans on activities.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 5, 2009)

What the **** are railroad "police" doing with handcuffs anyway????  What's next, Mall-cops with side-arms?


----------



## Kegger (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Jerry, while I wholeheartedly disagree with your post and think you're completely wrong, I'm not going to go on here about it in order to keep the thread alive.
> 
> I think that a little common sense being employed is the answer, not blanket bans on activities.



Common sense is one thing, being racist is a completely different thing. 

I *agree* wholeheartedly with Jerry's post, I even forgive him for being Canadian.:lmao:

But I have to disagree with everything you have said here, racial profiling is a step backwards for this country. Why should we go back to saying someone is a bad person just because of how they look? That makes no sense. As a soldier, I serve right next to people from all over the world. Many who came here to get away from profiling, whether it be racial, religious, whatever. Quite a few of these people I call my closest friends and would go so far as taking a bullet for them so they can get back to their families. One of my best friends is an Iraqi interpreter, who despite being in a US Army uniform everyday, wears his beard. Most people would look at him as a terrorist. I look at him as a friend and someone who could one day save my ass. 

So if you want to judge people by how they look, then you are no better than the transit cop who arrested a law abiding photographer. And I bet if you were the one who was unlawfully arrested, you'd be whining more than anyone about how you were profiled as a "terrorist" photographer.

Edit: And I read your little blog, and it sounds just like every other white hat and cape wearing douche I see throughout the KKK, I don't listen to a word they say. So why should I even take into consideration your very weak, extremely biased, culturally inept argument on why we should profile?


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

Kegger said:


> Common sense is one thing, being racist is a completely different thing. As a soldier, I serve right next to people from all over the world.



Oh boy-don't try that with me.  I was an active-duty soldier in the Army for 8 years, and I have many very good friends of many ethnicities and religions, in addition to a black step-son.  I wouldn't have lasted 8 years in the Army if I was racist, and you know that full-well being a soldier.

Okay, so let's take the word "racial" out of it, because that word alone makes everyone lose their minds, throw common sense in the trash and react with feelings rather than with facts.

Let's say it like this-I think it would be good to look at what people look like that commit certain types of crimes the most, and when you're trying to stop those kinds of crimes, let's look for people who fit those descriptions, irrespective of race.  I'll bet I'd pick the investment banker crook out of line-up 8 out of ten times..  I'll also bet I could pick the drug smuggler across our Southern border 8 times out of ten, and I could pick the person taking a picture for malicious reasons out of a line-up with similar precisions and accuracy..  I know common sense and truth are almost dead, but I'm doing my best to save them.  Tell me someone committed a murder in Boston's Dorchester section, and I'd get that right in a line-up of racially diverse people, as well.  Facts are stubborn things.. Stop calling it racist.  It's called observance of fact and trending.  Sure, I won't be right 100 percent of the time, but I'll settle for high 90 percents...  There will always be those wrongfully accused-we will never stop that, but to act like you can't use trending and statistics as a tool is stupid.  Our world has gotten so sick with political correctness that people are getting away with crimes for fear of offending other people who look like them who haven't done anything wrong.  What I mean is-the news here in Massachusetts will report a crime with the suspect still on the loose.  Let's take rape, for example..  They will actually report on the crime and say that the perpetrator is at large.  What information will they give you to go on?  "Male in his 30's with a baseball cap.."  What's missing?  Exactly.

Let me ask you this-if I immediately think, "White person!" when I hear investment banking fraud (which I would), does that mean I'm racist against my own race?  Exactly..  It's called stereotyping, and stereotyping exists because of the observance of a particular behavior, trait, or act over time..  People are too quick to pull the race card today without any thought at all because it immediately puts the other person on the defensive and shuts down conversations before adequate discourse has taken place.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 5, 2009)

Here we go....


----------



## Kegger (Jan 5, 2009)

You're the one who said, and I quote "This is why we should be racially profiling."

So don't try to go noble now. And being 90% correct is what our current laws seem to go by, we falsely imprison innocent people all the time. Why? Because they fit a profile. So why should we base how we see people, on a profile, when that screws decent people as well. Yeah, yeah, you can say that it gets the bad guy all day long. But until it stops getting good people, you're still in the wrong.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

Kegger said:


> You're the one who said, and I quote "This is why we should be racially profiling."
> 
> So don't try to go noble now. And being 90% correct is what our current laws seem to go by, we falsely imprison innocent people all the time. Why? Because they fit a profile. So why should we base how we see people, on a profile, when that screws decent people as well. Yeah, yeah, you can say that it gets the bad guy all day long. But until it stops getting good people, you're still in the wrong.



Do you really think we'll ever reach a level of competence where only true criminals will be accused of crimes?  That would be great, but I don't see it, unfortunately.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jan 5, 2009)

tirediron said:


> What the **** are railroad "police" doing with handcuffs anyway????  What's next, Mall-cops with side-arms?



Well, here in TX, whatever they call the health-department guys who check dentists' offices, they're specifically treated as law-enforcement for the purposes of being able to carry weapons.  (Yes, _specifically_ the ones inspecting dental facilities.  I don't recall if any other specializations are in there, but it seemed odd for that one to be mentioned in particular.)  OTOH, I've got a friend that's a dentist, and she's never seen one carrying during an inspection.

Then again, here in TX, if they're called "police," odds are they're commissioned law enforcement, and armed.  The state is pretty picky about any private security being misidentified as law enforcement.  Private security may be commissioned and armed, but they're a lot more expensive than the unarmed ones.  Armed security officers do generally carry roughly the same duty belt load as regular law enforcement unless the client specifies otherwise.


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

tirediron said:


> What the **** are railroad "police" doing with handcuffs anyway????  What's next, Mall-cops with side-arms?



Police are police who are licensed and trained with handcuffs and side-arms.  It does not matter their jurisdiction.  They are to serve and protect which requires being ready and equipped properly.  Do not confuse them with security guards who are not required to "serve and protect".  Often, they are simply an extra set of eyes to notify the authorities when necessary.  In certain areas, the mall-cops are full police officers from either neighboring towns or state officers.  A long time ago, I befriended a college campus officer during my education.  I was surprised to discover that he is actually a state level police officer whose jurisdiction is actually the entire state even though he is assigned to focus on the college campus.  This was strange given that his jurisdiction was actually wider than the city police in which the campus is located.


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

One more comment regarding racial profiling...

The issue we have is Radical Islam.  Please remember that radical Islam is not bound by any geographic boundaries nor racial lines.  You have radical Islamic groups in Asia (I am most familiar with the groups in the Philippines), middle-east, UK, USA, Africa, and small groups in practically every continent in the world.  

You (stsinner) are asking for common sense.  Common sense would easily identify racial profiling as a complete and utter waste of time... you'd basically be profiling anyone who is not caucasian.  A person with common sense would open their mind, do a little researching (history), do a little soul searching, and think before you speak (without hiding behind the no politics rule).

Don't bring crime into the picture either..  some of the most notorious serial killers are not easily profiled either; white male, educated.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

usayit said:


> One more comment regarding racial profiling...
> 
> The issue we have is Radical Islam.  Please remember that radical Islam is not bound by any geographic boundaries nor racial lines.  You have radical Islamic groups in Asia (I am most familiar with the groups in the Philippines), middle-east, UK, USA, Africa, and small groups in practically every continent in the world.
> 
> ...



So we should do nothing-look at no facts or trending..  Not look at laws of averages..  Just be surprised by every crime...  Neat.

Don't bring crime into the picture?  Isn't the entire reason for the Amtrak police arresting this photographer fear of a crime?  Again.. Neat..  Doesn't it _feel_ good not to think.....


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> So we should do nothing-look at no facts or trending..  Not look at laws of averages..  Just be surprised by every crime...  Neat.



Nope. but common sense and an educated background would easily conclude that profiling across racial lines is a complete and utter waste of time.   And no.. you can't just change the topic by "removing" the fact that you specifically stated race.  Profiling and racial profiling are two completely different things.  Most of what you post is trying to justify "ends justify the means" attitude.  You do remember the great mind Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That is applicable to all crimes.....  





> Don't bring crime into the picture?  Isn't the entire reason for the Amtrak police arresting this photographer fear of a crime?  Again.. Neat..  Doesn't it _feel_ good not to think.....



No... the issue is that you find it totally wrong that a photographer can be profiled as a terrorist while supporting profiling of other people.  Kinda sounds like "its ok" as long it is not me... ignorance.  The rest of your posts is simply a bunch of "what ifs" to justify your stance with little to no substance.  You still ignore the fact that most terrorist acts on US soil has been committed by white males and serial killers are white educated males.  You also ignore the fact that Radical islam doesn't live in a person that looks like a terrorist.

BTW.. thanks for your service in the Army but nothing you posted there can justify nor make you anymore credible.  You could be a former slave and it still would have absolutely nothing to do wiht the topic at hand... except that it is even more surprising that you would condone racial profiling.


Dark skinned turban wearing avatar
Army soldier with mixed family
Mixing racial profiling with freedom
Calling a reaction to separate treatment along racial lines an emotional reacition
Not understanding that Radical islam is not racial
..etc...

and you say we are lacking in common sense?


----------



## table1349 (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> This is why we should be racially profiling.  We can't just ban all photography of anything that could be a terrorist target.  That's just not freedom.  A little common sense on the part of the authorities would go a long way..



I had intended to just read this thread and pass it by as the one problem from my standpoint with all of the treads like this is they are all one sided.  It would be nice to read about these after they have reached their conclusion and everyone can have their say.  Be that as it may, this one I just can't ignore.  

*Racial profiling is defined as any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity.* _*Police may not use racial or ethnic stereotypes as factors in selecting whom to stop-and-search, and police may use race or ethnicity to determine whether a person matches a specific description of a particular suspect*_.

Quick and simple definition of what racial profiling is and is not.  With that Racial Profiling is something *that should never occur*!  It is intolerable and there is absolutely *NO* justification for racial profiling.  There wasn't twenty seven years ago when I joined the law enforcement community and there is none today.  



> tirediron;                       What the **** are railroad "police" doing with handcuffs anyway????  What's next, Mall-cops with side-arms?


http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2004013.pdf

From the US Department of Transportation.  Explains exactly why railroad police have handcuffs, guns, bullets, arrest authority, etc.  Because they are commissioned law enforcement and their jurisdiction is the railroads and railroad property.  



> quote=stsinner;Oh boy-don't try that with me. I was an active-duty soldier in the Army for 8 years, and I have many very good friends of many ethnicities and religions, in addition to a black step-son. I wouldn't have lasted 8 years in the Army if I was racist, and you know that full-well being a soldier.


My family was/is Navy/Marines and my wife's family is Air Force with a couple of brothers that made careers out of the Army.  I will tell you first hand as can the rest of the family that there are many in the services that have not only lasted longer than 8 years, but have had entire careers in the armed forces and been racist.  That's like saying there have never been homosexuals in the military.   Your above statement is still no justification for suggesting something like racial profiling.  There are some things that are just flat out wrong and racial profiling is one of them!


----------



## tirediron (Jan 5, 2009)

usayit said:


> Police are police who are licensed and trained with handcuffs and side-arms. It does not matter their jurisdiction.


 
Fair comment; I guess my surprise is that a private company is allowed to maintain its own police-force.  There's enough problems with legitimate, government law-enforcement entities.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

usayit said:


> Dark skinned turban wearing avatar
> Army soldier with mixed family
> Mixing racial profiling with freedom
> Calling a reaction to separate treatment along racial lines an emotional reacition
> ...



I think that my experiences and my current situation make me more qualified than most to participate in discussions revolving around race..  It's too bad you're unwilling to learn from my experience.   I've done a little bit of it all, including living for two years in Germany, 6 months in Switzerland, 4 years in Arizona and in 5 other states in America..   I've don'e my share of living , but you seem to think that I don't have a clue as to what I'm talkling about..   One of us is in denial.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 5, 2009)

I think we simply have to accept that are artists (us) and non-artists (police officers, mostly).  Those inartistic philistines will never be able to understand why we enjoy doing what we do and will revert to the default setting of the terminally stupid: threats and violence.

If they tried using even a modicum of common sense, they'd realize that no terrorist would use big, heavy, conspicuous SLR.  They'd use the tiniest point-and-shoot they could find or some sort of obfuscated camera.

"Security" is a scapegoat excuse for childish xenophobia.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Quick and simple definition of what racial profiling is and is not.  With that Racial Profiling is something *that should never occur*!  It is intolerable and there is absolutely *NO* justification for racial profiling.  There wasn't twenty seven years ago when I joined the law enforcement community and there is none today.



One stupid statement..


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I think that my experiences and my current situation make me more qualified than most to participate in discussions revolving around race..  It's too bad you're unwilling to learn from my experience.   I've done a little bit of it all, including living for two years in Germany, 6 months in Switzerland,c 4 years in Arizona and in 5 other states in America..   I've don'e my share of living , but you seem to think that I don't have a clue as to what I'm talkling about..   One of us is in denial.



You are delusional that anything you say brings more credibility....  you don't even know me and you are making assumptions about my education and background.  Nothing you point out makes you any more knowledgeable.  It is painfully obvious in your posts.

You can't even address any of my concerns/comments directly.  Please explain why profiling a photographer as a suspected terrorist/criminal is any different than racial profiling.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

usayit said:


> You are delusional that anything you say brings more credibility....  you don't even know me and you are making assumptions about my education and background.  Nothing you point out makes you any more knowledgeable.  It is painfully obvious in your posts.



I'm listening.  Surprise me.  Let me know how you are qualified to call me racist when I was raised by racist parents, joined the Army at 18, bonded with every race known to man, put my life in the hands of fellow soldiers of all ethnicities during Desert Storm and maintain close bonds with friends from all over the world 10 years later and am proudly raising a black step-son with my white wife...  Please tell me how you are more qualified to comment on race issues...  I'm dyin' to hear..  

You know, I'm very proud of how I've strayed from my father's Tennessee upbringing of me where every other word was the n-word, but I'm not willing to let the pendulum swing so far in the other direction that I'm not observant of common sense and the fact that certain races commit the majority of certain crimes..  It's a simple matter of research...  Facts are stubborn things..


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

Btw.. going back to the original post. 

I want to point out that we should all write our concerns to our representatives.


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I'm listening.



For starters:

Please explain why profiling a photographer as a suspected terrorist/criminal is any different than racial profiling.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 5, 2009)

tirediron said:


> Fair comment; I guess my surprise is that a private company is allowed to maintain its own police-force.  There's enough problems with legitimate, government law-enforcement entities.



One thing to keep in mind is the history of the railroads.  In the US it is a very unique one.  A vast majority of the land that the railroads were built upon was given to them, private industry, by the U.S. Government.  The U.S. Government had a history of protecting the railroads in the early days.  But as this country was "settled" the need for that form of protection was lessened.  

There became however a need for the railroads to be protected in a different manner than in the early years and they built up their own security agencies in the beginning.  

The FBI wasn't started until 1908. 

The Secret Service was begun in 1865 with the purpose of stopping counterfeiting.  Only later were they brought into play against bootlegging, mail fraud etc.  It wasn't until 1897 before they provided their first presidential detail.  

The U.S. Marshals date to 1789, but were there to enforce the laws of the United States including those that the Secret Service took over and to carry out Federal Death sentences.  

Due to the vast network of railroads the U.S. Government found it expedient and more cost effective to pass legislation that gave law enforcement powers to the security agencies for the railroads under strict guidelines and oversight.  While they have the same rights as any other law enforcement officer, they also have the same responsibilities.  Every one that I have ever dealt with have been well trained professionals.  It save the government from having yet another vast bureaucratic law enforcement agency to fund.  It also kept them from having three departments of government from maintaining law enforcement branches.  Currently there is the D.O.J. and the Department of the Treasury.  They have enough trouble getting along.  A third department would have added to the entire mess.


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

epp_b said:


> If they tried using even a modicum of common sense, they'd realize that no terrorist would use big, heavy, conspicuous SLR.  They'd use the tiniest point-and-shoot they could find or some sort of obfuscated camera.



Ah.. but if that were true that a big heavy conspicuous SLR was a free ticket, don't you think any common sense terrorist would use that to their advantage?  



> "Security" is a scapegoat excuse for childish xenophobia.



Totally agree....

Why can't we all (human race) just all get together... smoke some weed um.. er.. have a few glasses of wine and relax a bit?


----------



## table1349 (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> You know, I'm very proud of how I've strayed from my father's Tennessee upbringing of me where every other word was the n-word, but I'm not willing to let the pendulum swing so far in the other direction that I'm not observant of common sense and the fact that certain races commit the majority of certain crimes..  It's a simple matter of research...  Facts are stubborn things..



With a statement like this:



> quote=stsinner;This is why we should be racially profiling. We can't just ban all photography of anything that could be a terrorist target. That's just not freedom. A little common sense on the part of the authorities would go a long way..



You haven't strayed that far.  Not something to be proud of.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 5, 2009)

> Ah.. but if that were true that a big heavy conspicuous SLR was a free ticket, don't you think any common sense terrorist would use that to their advantage?


Interesting point, but, like I and also the article pointed out: terrorists just don't do that anyway.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> With a statement like this:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't strayed that far.  Not something to be proud of.



I'll agree that my upbringing was bad in that race was all that mattered, but to say that race doesn't matter at all is just as ignorant..


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

epp_b said:


> terrorists just don't do that anyway.



Oh really?

There was a time that much of our defense was based on the assumption that opposing fighters have a will to live and fight another day.

We defeated one of the most powerful armies in the world by simply not doing the expected.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I'll agree that my upbringing was bad in that race was all that mattered, but to say that race doesn't matter at all is just as ignorant..



The only thing ignorant here is to think that race matters in any way shape or form.  To think so is a classic example of Archie Bunker Syndrome.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The only thing ignorant here is to think that race matters in any way shape or form.  To think so is a classic example of Archie Bunker Syndrome.



That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever read..  You've obviously succumbed to the PC sickness..  Don't pay any attention the the Israeli/Palestinian conflict going on right now..  You may be in for a shock...   Holy God...  To think that people like this exist...

The big difference you must start to make is between what you wish was and what actually is...


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Let me know how you are qualified to call me racist



Just to be clear... I never called you racist (don't know you).  I simply disagreed with your stance that we should condone racial profiling and made my stance with historical facts.  

Again.. nothing you posted makes you anymore credible.  You have not posted any facts at all...


----------



## stsinner (Jan 5, 2009)

usayit said:


> Just to be clear... I never called you racist (don't know you).  I simply disagreed with your stance that we should condone racial profiling and made my stance with historical facts.
> 
> Again.. nothing you posted makes you anymore credible.  You have not posted any facts at all...



Okay.. Let me post some facts..  Ready?  9/11..  Get that?


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Okay.. Let me post some facts..  Ready?  9/11..  Get that?



And how is 9/11 applicable?  Any definite proof that racial profiling would have prevented 9/11?  You can't even get it through your head that Radical islam is not bound by racial lines.  You can't even get it through your head that organized terrorist organizations are not bound by racial lines.  There is no proof that racial profiling is effective.  

What I can tell you is that history specifically points out that specifically targeting groups along racial lines just degrades the freedoms of everyone.   Slavery.  Japanese Internment.  Segregation.  etc..   Racial profiling is effective at one thing.... breading racism in this country.

You haven't explained to me why profiling a photographer is any less acceptable and profiling along racial lines.

Archie Bunker you are.....  (love that line Gryph.. laughed myself out of my chair)


----------



## Yemme (Jan 6, 2009)

How you doin' Usayit?


----------



## DRoberts (Jan 6, 2009)

Wow! What a post. 
If a person is not swayed by your most obvious of arguments towards a point, why should you expect them to be swayed with repeated slants and angles?
Anyone who has stated an opinion on the subject of racial profiling is not going to change their mind on their own view. That being said, why is this still going on? 
I believe the content of the original post is worthy of pages of discussion, but just like so many other post on here, it has been hyjacked for completely useless offtopic bullsh*t!
 This just truelly shows that the OP is not the idiot of this village.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 6, 2009)

KD5NRH said:


> Well, here in TX, whatever they call the health-department guys who check dentists' offices, they're specifically treated as law-enforcement for the purposes of being able to carry weapons. (Yes, _specifically_ the ones inspecting dental facilities. I don't recall if any other specializations are in there, but it seemed odd for that one to be mentioned in particular.) OTOH, I've got a friend that's a dentist, and she's never seen one carrying during an inspection.
> 
> Then again, here in TX, if they're called "police," odds are they're commissioned law enforcement, and armed. The state is pretty picky about any private security being misidentified as law enforcement. Private security may be commissioned and armed, but they're a lot more expensive than the unarmed ones. Armed security officers do generally carry roughly the same duty belt load as regular law enforcement unless the client specifies otherwise.


 
Well, ever since the Texas Dental Drill Massacres, things just haven't quite been the same.

I'm going to go back and read the rest of the thread now...


----------



## abraxas (Jan 6, 2009)

Timothy McVeigh?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 6, 2009)

Profiling works though. It's just a fact of police work. Sometimes though, profiling leads to bad situations.

Fact: Police regularly stopped and harassed people with modified vehicles that use to cruise the 10-15mi dual highway in a town about 30 minutes from me. When they stepped up a bigger presence and cracked down on these people (yes, I like my toys), the fights, loitering, and vandalism at several places in the area went down drastically, not to mention the amount of people "street racing" through a populated area. Profiling certain individuals with a certain taste in modifying vehicles reduced crime.

Fact: Police/Security have been stopping and harassing photographers even when they're not breaking any laws because of the whole big stigma of photographers are terrorist mastermings here to document sites and plan attacks on us. Many, many, many bad arrests have been made. The risk of terrorism has not dropped dramatically and many people are still dying from bombings around the world even though Joe Dirt was arrested for taking pictures of a courthouse in Nebraska last week.

Fact: Profiling happens. 

Opinion: I agree that *racial* profiling is bad. 

Fact: Technically there's three races on Earth. Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Those are the three scientifically defined races. 

Opinion: So take 1/3 of the world's population (theoretically) and target them for doing whatever it is you think that they all do and you can talk about racial profiling.

Anyways, profiling happens. If it didn't, then there wouldn't be law enforcement jobs for people called "criminal profilers". Sometimes the results can be good, sometimes they can be bad. 

It's when people start profiling based on stereotypes born of ignorance and fear that is can lead to harassment, murder, war, etc...


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 6, 2009)

abraxas said:


> Timothy McVeigh?


 
Been said.

IRA? 

Brits living in America that were trying to overthrow the rule of there benevolent leaders in the colonies so that they could live free of there tyranny and oppression?

The Japanese cianide subway attacks?

The murderous indians that were trying to take away the land that was orignally claimed for America as one nation under God?

etc...


----------



## stsinner (Jan 6, 2009)

usayit said:


> And how is 9/11 applicable?  Any definite proof that racial profiling would have prevented 9/11?



Really?  You really asked that?  The fact is that 9/11 changed the world.  We had no clue before that act of terrorism that radical Islamists wanted us dead to that degree.  We knew from the Olympics hostage situation, the bombing of the Marine barracks and many other events that they were capable of terrorist acts overseas, but that terror had never visited our shores.  You think that anyone cared about people photographing trains before 9/11?

How is it applicable?  You act like I'm some kind of lunatic.  I GUARANTEE you that any Muslim taking flight lessons in America today will have a file with Homeland Security.  You can bet on that.  

You say I can't get it through my head like I'm thick or something..  Feels good to not think, doesn't it?  Unfortunately for you, and others like you who refuse to deal in reality, the person that we're afraid to have taking pictures that has resulted in these stupid rules and laws has a discernible look.  You know it, and I know it.  Whether you're willing to admit it or not is another matter.  Yes, there will always be terrorists of other ethnicities, but there is one type of person that we would do a double-take at if we saw them photographing trains..or buildings....or popular tourist spots..  Not the 30's white dude with the Red Sox cap on and $1000 camera..


----------



## usayit (Jan 6, 2009)

Wow .. the nonsense dribble is flowing really well now...

Radical Islamists have been targeting the U.S. for decades.  Terrorism was an issue before 9/11 and the problems did not start on that terrible day.  Muslim is not a race.  Terrorism has visited our shores.  Timothy McVeigh was a 30s something white dude with a bomb.  

Your reaction means we need to make efforts to secure against terrorism.  I agree.  Not a single thing you said is definite proof that racial profiling is effective in anyway.  Yet the historical evidence that singling out along racial lines is damaging is ignored.

Just to reiterate Gryphs post:

"Racial profiling is defined as any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity. *Police may not use racial or ethnic stereotypes as factors in selecting whom to stop-and-search, and police may use race or ethnicity to determine whether a person matches a specific description of a particular suspect.*"

The part I bolded is very important.  "may use race ethnicity to determine whether a person matches a specific description of a particular suspect".  I understand profiling is a fact in police work... it is not what I am referring to.  (sts  tried to change it earlier in the thread)

You still haven't answered why profiling a photographer is such an unacceptable act yet profiling a person by race is acceptable.


----------



## usayit (Jan 6, 2009)

Forgot to mention...
https://www.flightschoolcandidates.gov/IFR_Alien_Pilot.pdf

Please point out the lines that specifically state that people of a certain race or creed are required to register in order to take flying lessons.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 6, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Really? You really asked that? The fact is that 9/11 changed the world. We had no clue before that act of terrorism that radical Islamists wanted us dead to that degree.


 
I will say this. That 9/11 changed the world because the world allowed the events, new/media, and the administration to change it. They bombed the World Trade Centers before. They were trying to take down the whole place with everyone in it. If they would have been successful, then there would have been a lot more dead people.

They just accomplished what they wanted on 9/11. One top security adviser wrote and article about photography and terrorism. He stated that a lot of the time there's no reason for the threat level system. I believe the point he was making is that it was doing more harm than good for the media to drill into our heads that the hi jackers were muslim. Just like after Pearl Harbor with the round up of the Japanese citizens. Muslims who had no affiliation with any sort of terrorist activities were being regarded as possible threats. People were vandalising their properties and disrupting their way of life.

Ordinary non Muslim US citizens were basically becoming terrorist in their own rights. This wasn't on a huge scale, but it was because of profiling based on the fact that the media was basically telling us to watch out for people dressed in robes, turbans, etc... That they could blow us up with the dynamite they had strapped to their chest at anytime. 

So in regards to what you're saying is that we should keep a close eye on people of Middle Eastern descent until the whole terrorism thing dies down and a new threat arises. Like the economy? Hitler did blame the Jews for Germany's Economy. See where that got him?  :er:


----------



## stsinner (Jan 6, 2009)

usayit said:


> You still haven't answered why profiling a photographer is such an unacceptable act yet profiling a person by race is acceptable.



A radical element of photographers don't want us dead.  Conversely, a radical element of Islam does.

Notice, now, that I haven't derided Muslims or Islamists in any way, because I don't believe that they're all terrorists, nor do I wish them ill in any way.  I know that the vast majority of Muslims are fine, upstanding people.  But I also know that a very small percentage of them is determined to kill us infidels.  

When I was in the Army in basic training, they practiced what is called, "blanket punishments," meaning that when one guy messed up, we all did push-ups.  Once I got out of bt and got to my first duty station, the mess-ups were addressed on an individual and case-by-case basis.

That is my point here-maybe racial profiling was the wrong term, but I don't think that a blanket ban on photography by Amtrak is appropriate.  I think that every individual should be assessed on an individual basis and just scrutinized for anything suspicious.  If there is no reason to suspect the photographer has ulterior motives, let him shoot away.  Trains are very fascinating, as they're rare sights for many people.  I suppose that what's deemed suspicious might be offensive to many people, so I guess Amtrak would have to come up with a set of standards to prevent unfairness.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 6, 2009)

usayit said:


> Forgot to mention...
> https://www.flightschoolcandidates.gov/IFR_Alien_Pilot.pdf
> 
> Please point out the lines that specifically state that people of a certain race or creed are required to register in order to take flying lessons.


 
What he was saying is that the DHS will know about it. Look at some of the recent stories on the no fly list. There's people on the FAA's no fly list that are just rediculous. One is a 4 year old boy. Another is a pilot that was at risk for losing his job unless he was removed. All of this because they were singled out because of their name. Some are just people that were suspected to have connections to terrorist, others were because their religion was Islam.

Don't think for the second the government isn't doing a ton of racial profiling in the current political climate. You have no idea who the FBI and CIA are watching.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 6, 2009)

stsinner said:


> This is why we should be racially profiling.  We can't just ban all photography of anything that could be a terrorist target.  That's just not freedom.  A little common sense on the part of the authorities would go a long way..


Would racial profiling detain and question this guy?







He's a Musllim.

How about this guy?






He's a Muslim.

All racial profiling does is harass people of color.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 6, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Really?  You really asked that?  The fact is that 9/11 changed the world.  We had no clue before that act of terrorism that radical Islamists wanted us dead to that degree.


Not true, we wer bombed by Muslim radicals in 1993 and the target was the same, the  World Trade Center.

Why 911 happened is because the Clinton Administration did absolutely nothing to prevent it.  He opted to prosecute the actors in court and not treat the bombing as an act of war.  He didn't go after the ring leader even though he had actionable intelligence against Bin Laden.

The FBI knew about Ata being enrolled in flight school and they had other reports about members of his cell... yet they did nothing.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 6, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Not true, we wer bombed by Muslim radicals in 1993 and the target was the same, the  World Trade Center.
> 
> Why 911 happened is because the Clinton Administration did absolutely nothing to prevent it.  He opted to prosecute the actors in court and not treat the bombing as an act of war.  He didn't go after the ring leader even though he had actionable intelligence against Bin Laden.
> 
> The FBI knew about Ata being enrolled in flight school and they had other reports about members of his cell... yet they did nothing.



I know the WTC was bombed before, but it was a rather small incident compared to 9/11, so people didn't really take it seriously.  It was also one vehicle, compared to the grand scale of 9/11 with 4 planes loaded with passengers.  My point was that terrorists were reasonably unsuccessful at carrying out any act successfully on our soil until 9/11, so our guard was down..  Sadly, it's down again because of our collective short term memory.  I also don't remember if there was all the chanting in the streets overseas and cheering after that first attack..  I first learned how hysterical the Muslim world is and filled with anti-U.S. hatred after 9/11 when they showed the throngs of supporters jumping and chanting and burning America flags and burning effigies of President Bush and celebrating the death of 3000 innocent American civilians..  I think that opened a lot of peoples' eyes that weren't opened before 9/11, even with the hostage situation during the Olympics, the bombing of the Marine barracks, the first attack on the WTC, and all the other singular, rather small attacks.

I'm sure the FBI did know about Ata being in flight school, even more disturbing is that I learned in some documentary I was watching that one of the terrorists told his instructor that he wasn't interested in learning to actually _land_ the plane.  How he ever got near a plane again is a mystery..  I think we would have a chat with him today in this climate.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 6, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I know the WTC was bombed before, but it was a rather small incident compared to 9/11, so people didn't really take it seriously.  It was also one vehicle, compared to the grand scale of 9/11 with 4 planes loaded with passengers.  My point was that terrorists were reasonably unsuccessful at carrying out any act successfully on our soil until 9/11, so our guard was down..


It was a huge event, I remember watching it live on television.  I had just gotten out of the military where I was involved in counter terrorism work (worked with nuclear weapons).  When I saw the first video clips on the television in the restaurant I was dining in, I recall saying "that's a terrorist attack" and no one believing it was true.

The same thing happened on 9/11.  I was driving to the office when the news that a plane had hit the Trade Centers came over the air.  I immediately called the office President and told him to let people go home that I was certain we were under attack.  He asked me if I was serious.  He said it was probably an accident and I assured him a commercial jet would never accidentally hit the World Trade Center.   A short while later the second plane hit, I called back and before I said a word he said, "You're right I'm sending people home now".  Our offices are just a couple of blocks from the Sears Tower in Chicago.

To some the events of 1993 may not have seemed significant, but to me they were very significant.  I knew that those buildings were now targets and the whacko's who bombed them would be back to finish their job... and I was right again.

But I couldn't have been the only other person that felt that way.  I know men I served with that were still active in the military felt that it was just the beginning (in 1993).  That tells me others in the anti-terrorist/intelligence community had to have similar concerns in Washington.... so why did the Clinton Administration do nothing?

Now, while I'm opposed to "racial profiling" I am not against "profiling".  The FBI does it when looking for a killer, we all do it when we're looking for threats in our daily lives.  It doesn't have to be about skin color, there's much more telling traits/behaviors that might telegraph to those watching that someone might be up to something nefarious.   The Israelis have been profiling for decades and it's been almost 100% effective in stopping airliner bombings and hijackings with flights originating from their airports.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 6, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> It was a huge event,



Okay, it was a big event in that we don't have terrorists attacks in America, for the most part.  But it was also a _failed_ mission, and that's what I meant.  It was a failed terrorist attack, but a terrorist attack, nonetheless.

So what do you think we have in store for us now?  I'm afraid it will be nuclear next time.

You're right about the Israelis in that they don't mess around.  They shoot to kill, and they don't ask twice.  I was lucky enough to work with Israelis from IAI (Israeli Aircraft Industries) while in the Army, because they made the planes I worked on and flew, the Hunter and Pioneer UAV's.  They are serious people and tough as hell. 

Since I shot expert at the range every time, I was one of 5 people selected to go on a shoot with the French, Germans and Israelis in Germany.  We shot the FAMAS assault rifle, the Uzi and a 9mm pistol, as well as the M16 A-1.  The FAMAS was sweet-I got standing first-shot kills as soon as I picked it up with no zeroing.  I was impressed, and it also has a built-in bi-pod.

Here I am firing the uzi:






Here's the FAMAS:


----------



## inTempus (Jan 6, 2009)

I worked with the Irish Rangers, Royal Marines, SAS, SEALs, Rangers, etc. over the years... they all trained with our unit or they acted as aggressors during war games and tried to infiltrate our facilities.  It was fun and they were great people.

I was in the presence of the IDF once and that was on US soil.  We had a joint training operation.

I never worked with any French forces.

The weapon you're firing looks like a MAT49 SMG.  I've not fired one of those, but I have fired the FAMAS before.  It's a neat rifle.  The one you have pictured is a F1 varient, from the late 80's or early 90's I would say.  They've since issued the F2 which looks a little different (the trigger guard is more like an AUG now).

Check out this baby face:


----------



## usayit (Jan 6, 2009)

stsinner said:


> A radical element of photographers don't want us dead.  Conversely, a radical element of Islam does.



The use of photography by any country/group as recon to plan an attack is a radical use of photography.  The use of Islam to site terror is also a radical element of Islam.  You "might" prevent a terrorist if you harass photographers.  You "might" prevent terrorist if you harass people of color.  You are guaranteed to violate the rights of photographers.  You are guaranteed to violate the rights of people of color.  

You can make any point you want but they are the same.... they both make ineffective attempts to catch that one possible criminal at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the larger public. 

You admit that the majority of Muslims and Islamists (again not a race and not easily identified in a public area) are NOT terrorists much like not all photographers mean harm.  Isn't that the flaw in both the profiling photographers as well as people.  Lets take it outside the fear of terrorists.  Some communities moved to ban cameras from playgrounds to protect children from pedophiles.... it is the same thing.  You violate the freedoms and rights of a group of people in hopes to catch that one pedophile.  

Again... don't forget that if a suspect is identified using a camera or of a certain race, it is perfectly acceptable to use those factors to locate and detain.  That is a totally different issue all together and I have no problems with that.



> the mess-ups were addressed on an individual and case-by-case basis.



And it should be no different in the general public (or race).  Let me reiterate a part of Gryph's post that relates:

"rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity. "

important part is "behavior of an INDIVIDUAL".  Racial profiling is a blanket applied to a group of people based on the color of their skin.



> That is my point here-maybe racial profiling was the wrong term, but I don't think that a blanket ban on photography by Amtrak is appropriate.  I think that every individual should be assessed on an individual basis and just scrutinized for anything suspicious.  If there is no reason to suspect the photographer has ulterior motives, let him shoot away.



Again... you stated that "every individual should be assessed".  That is NOT true with Racial profiling.  

So in essence you cannot condone racial profiling and yet speak against a blanket ban on photography.  The motives are the same.... and wrong.

The other element was already mentioned...  The government publicly bans or limits photography.  They identify people with cameras as a possible threat.  The fear is directed towards photographers.  The same thing will happen if the government public uses racial profiling.  It identifies people of color as threat.  The fear and racism is directed towards people of color.


----------



## usayit (Jan 6, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Don't think for the second the government isn't doing a ton of racial profiling in the current political climate. You have no idea who the FBI and CIA are watching.



Oh yes.. I agree..

My point was to differentiate between behavior done "behind the scenes" and acceptable behavior done in "official" capacity.  There is a HUGE difference in how it impacts policies and freedoms.

There is absolutely nothing in that document that specifically points out individuals of race or creed.  It leaves room for an individual to fight for their rights.  If it was an official stance, then there is no room for an individual to fight for their rights... essentially rights have been officially taken away. Two completely different outcomes depending on what is officially condoned practice and what is done behind the scenes.

A lot DHS's unethical activities are no different prior to 9/11 (under the individual separate branches).  The difference is that a lot of those unethical activities have been written into official capacity effectively eroding the rights of the general population.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 6, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> The weapon you're firing looks like a MAT49 SMG.  I've not fired one of those, but I have fired the FAMAS before.  It's a neat rifle.  The one you have pictured is a F1 varient, from the late 80's or early 90's I would say.  They've since issued the F2 which looks a little different (the grigger guard is more like an AUG now).



You're good!  That picture is from 1992..  What you say brought back some memories-I think two of the weapons we fired were the Mat49 and Mac50.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 6, 2009)

stsinner said:


> You're good!  That picture is from 1992..


I used to sit around on duty and study flash cards of various military rank, vehicles, weaepons, etc... it was part of the job.  We had to be able to quickly identify uniforms, vehicles and weapons at a glance.

It kind of stuck with me.  I'm a walking encyclopedia of military weapons knowledge... totally and completely useless information as a civilian.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jan 6, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I used to sit around on duty and study flash cards of various military rank, vehicles, weaepons, etc... it was part of the job.  We had to be able to quickly identify uniforms, vehicles and weapons at a glance.



Remind me never to invite you over for a movie...my wife already throws stuff at me for catching the obvious weapon mistakes.  :mrgreen:


----------



## stsinner (Jan 6, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I used to sit around on duty and study flash cards of various military rank, vehicles, weaepons, etc... it was part of the job.  We had to be able to quickly identify uniforms, vehicles and weapons at a glance.



I think that applies to the entire Army.  We had to do the same thing, and we had skills tests twice a year or once a quarter-I don't remember. On that day you saw everyone sitting around between tests studying their smart-books and decks of cards with enemy vehicles on them, reading maps and using compasses..  It was fun.  We'd set up camo-nets and tables under them for test stations, and the NCO's would test the lower enlisted..  

I was cleaning up the garage the other night and came across my smart book..  Of course I had to sit and read for a while..


----------



## table1349 (Jan 6, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> *Not true, we wer bombed by Muslim radicals in 1993 and the target was the same, the  World Trade Center.
> 
> Why 911 happened is because the Clinton Administration did absolutely nothing to prevent it.  He opted to prosecute the actors in court and not treat the bombing as an act of war.  He didn't go after the ring leader even though he had actionable intelligence against Bin Laden.
> 
> The FBI knew about Ata being enrolled in flight school and they had other reports about members of his cell... yet they did nothing.*



Exactly.  Let's not forget the 1998 Embassy attacks in Tanzania and Kenya as well as the USS Cole bombing in 2000 in the Port of Aden in Yemen. While the embassy attacks were not on American soil, they targeted American Embassies and American personnel.  The attack on the USS Cole was not, despite the Clinton Administration's belief, a terrorist attack.  The attack of a military vessel such at the USS Cole is an Act of War.  

The general populace of the United States paid little attention.  "It happened in some third world country, what can you expect." was the attitude.  It was however a wake up call to many in the military, the intelligence community and law enforcement.  It was never a thought of would this come to our doors, but when.  Then when it did happen, the general public was in total shock due to their lack of attention and concern of the affairs going on in the world.


----------



## Joves (Jan 6, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Okay.. Let me post some facts.. Ready? 9/11.. Get that?


 And what does 9/11 have to do with infringing on the rights of the people reguardless of color or, religon? While I have no love for Arabs because, they are the only people I cant get along with, I still cant condone profiling all of them. Profiling photographers wether it is saying they are potnetial terrorists, pedos or, what ever is the fashion of the week is a plain infringement of rights and, should not be tolerated. Im so tired of 9/11 being used as a justification for doing everything anymore. All 9/11 was is a wake up call or, our entrance into what the rest of the would has been dealing with for decades. All I have to say to the citizenry is welcome to the real world.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 6, 2009)

> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Profiling works though. It's just a fact of police work. Sometimes though, profiling leads to bad situations.
> ...


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jan 7, 2009)

Ethnic Profiling is a double edged sword.

It may be needed in some small dose, but it has to be warranted, and done legally (if possible to do at all) 

I can actually see balances of both in action, stereotypes are based on observation most likely, and investigations work off of facts and patterns. 

If one out of 5 criteria points is ethnicity, then it makes sense to keep track of it along with all of the other criteria, *but* tracking past events and just outright stopping people from legal activities based on ethnicity are 2 totally different things. 

I think we can all agree the latter would be very very wrong, but the first probably depends oh *HOW* intrusive it is. I don't mind some degree of tracking or investigation if the potential for a large death toll is very large, but they need to use common sense, and pick their battles and realize not all Muslims are terrorists, not all whites want to bomb things from Montana and not all blacks want to pillage and steal during a riot. 

But if they have a checklist they use to cross off or discount certain scenarios, and one of those is based on past evidence or patterns, thats good police work, its pattern finding. But their needs to be some oversight so that it cannot be abused by someone with a racial bias, thats all. 

Were all human and bound to get caught up in issues like race from time to time right ? Just realizing that can make a difference if we catch ourselves.


----------



## digital flower (Jan 7, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Amtrak Police Harassment Of Duane Kerzic For Photography In Pennsylvania Station New York On December 21, 2008
> 
> Discuss.





			
				the article said:
			
		

> Edit 01/04/09: How can you help. <blah, blah, blah>
> For the print media or if you have special needs please contact me.:roll:
> <blah, blah, blah>
> Thanks.



This guy has a lot of letter writing time on his hands. He better hurry because his fifteen minutes will be over soon. Only one side of the story is presented here it may or may not be how it went down. 

The management and the police department brass need to make a photography policy and make it clear to the cops walking the platform.

I probably would have just took my lumps and moved on.


----------



## digital flower (Jan 7, 2009)

tirediron said:


> What the **** are railroad "police" doing with handcuffs anyway????  What's next, Mall-cops with side-arms?



The Railroad Police have been around for a long time. I know since I have been chased off by them before. They are the real deal as  far as having full summons and arrest power and carrying sidearms. 

I think there are a couple of reasons for having their own force like the amount of jurisdictions the tracks and stations cross and at least around New York and Connecticut there is a lot of accidents and crime.


----------



## photographyprogess (Jan 7, 2009)

I'm sorry this is my first post, but I just gotta ask. Do you by the quote below, say that a stereotype is based upon statistical observations?



stsinner said:


> It's called stereotyping, and stereotyping exists because of the observance of a particular behavior, trait, or act over time..


----------



## McQueen278 (Jan 7, 2009)

This is hilarious to me because I used to live by an Amtrac station and I regularly walked their rails for pretty great distances taking pictures and waiting for trains to go by for photo opportunities for this same contest.  It's a good thing there aren't over zealous officers patrolling the track out in the sticks, because I really do go where I am not supposed to.


----------



## stsinner (Jan 7, 2009)

photographyprogess said:


> I'm sorry this is my first post, but I just gotta ask. Do you by the quote below, say that a stereotype is based upon statistical observations?



Absolutely.  Stereotypes are created by a people of a certain race/sex/ethnicity doing a certain thing often and therefore being associated with whatever that favorite car to drive it, favorite food to eat is, IQ level is, propensity to commit a crime is..  

Right or wrong, that's what a stereotype is.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jan 7, 2009)

photographyprogess said:


> I'm sorry this is my first post, but I just gotta ask. Do you by the quote below, say that a stereotype is based upon statistical observations?



the actual Habit exists because of something observable I believe. (At least initially) Wether its a good or bad habit I'm not evaluating.  You should give people the benefit of the doubt when possible, but other times you have to protect yourself, everyone needs to make their own decisions when and where and how. Its a balance. 

Is it wrong to think your teenage son might start doing bong hits if hes hanging out with deadlocked hair guys who drive a VW van and listen to Phish all day while their eyes are super red. Sure maybe he will surprise you and turn down the drugs, or possibly they are just into music and enjoy pipe tobacco, but to anticipate the stereotype is just facts of life. 

I think the problem is when we just judge based on looks as if they have already done the crime right? People dont mind stereotyping when its a good thing, for example a woman walking down the street with a Louie Vuitton bag enjoy everyone else assuming they are rich, or maybe someone famous. Guys get tattoos sometimes just to look like tough gangster types, when in reality they live with mom and havent been in a fight in 10 years, 
Some single guys rent little rooms and have no food , but pay a 700$ month car payment to attract women, thats also a stereotype.

Nobody minds the stereotype as long as its intended. Im not saying its good or bad, just a fact of life.


----------



## photographyprogess (Jan 7, 2009)

Then here we go: 

Definition of Stereotype:



			
				Dictionary said:
			
		

> 4. Sociology. a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group: The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.


 Source

WikiPedia should also be read in this matter. 

You could also read some litterature within my own field, sociology, where you will get some knowledge regarding this area as it seems like that you lack some knowledge in both social science and in statistics. The problem with some of the claims in this thread is the lack of documentation. To sadly too many people will refer to personal observations to generalize, something one should never do. 

Until there is any documentation for claims, I do not see any reason for answering these claims, as I in this matter will relate to only documentation.


----------



## usayit (Jan 7, 2009)

Stereotyping and racial profiling are different things...  

There is nothing illegal about stereotyping people (it is human nature and it is not illegal to have thoughts).  It is illegal to act with prejudice towards those stereotypes (including race).

Racial profiling is being prejudicial in an offical capacity.  That is wrong.  No exceptions.  I understand what you are saying, Thorhammer, but I don't think there can be any exceptions.  As you admitted, stereotypes is a human "habit" that we all possess.  As such any system assembled and operated by humans to allowing racial profiling to a certain extent is inherently flawed.   Such a system will still label a particular race/ethnic group as a "threat" in the eyes of the public... no matter how specific the exceptions defined.  Such a system reminds me of a failed compromise we all know as "seperate but equal".  

Also remember... that racial profiling is using race as the primary reason to stop/detain a person.  Using race to identify/locate a suspect is NOT racial profiling.


----------



## usayit (Jan 7, 2009)

McQueen278 said:


> This is hilarious to me because I used to live by an Amtrac station and I regularly walked their rails for pretty great distances taking pictures and waiting for trains to go by for photo opportunities for this same contest.  It's a good thing there aren't over zealous officers patrolling the track out in the sticks, because I really do go where I am not supposed to.



Unfortunately, NYC is a victim and on edge ever since 9/11.  Really can't blame them... it is fresh on every new yorker's mind and will remain so for many years.  It is not uncommon to encounter a person (even in Jersey) who was directly impacted.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 7, 2009)

THORHAMMER said:


> Ethnic Profiling is a double edged sword.
> 
> It may be needed in some small dose, but it has to be warranted, and done legally (if possible to do at all)
> 
> ...



Ethnic profiling is a single edge sword just as racial profiling is.  The two terms are actually interchanged when it comes to this issue.  If a law enforcement officer were to stop someone of Hispanic origin just because they are hispanic that would not be racial profiling.  Hispanic is not a race, rather it is an ethnic group.  The act however of stopping that person strictly because they are Hispanic would be reported as and treated as Racial profiling.


----------

