Print Story That's just a flatly racist statement.
Law
By aphrael (Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 11:04:23 AM EST) (all tags)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday that, shockingly, when a state prison responds to an assault on a prison guard by locking down every prisoner who is of the same race as the inmate who did the assault, that decision is racially motivated, and that this could be a violation of equal protection.

[Some background: the case came to the Ninth Circuit as an appeal from a summary judgment - the district court had ruled that the prisoner simply had no case and that there was no need for a trial. The Ninth Circuit isn't saying that the prisoner wins and that the lockdowns are per se unconstitutional, it's just saying there's enough of a controversy to warrant a trial.]



I watched oral arguments for this case, almost a year ago now. [Never let it be said that the wheels of justice turn quickly]. The state's lawyer was not the same dude who had represented the state at the district court, which meant that occasionally when the justices asked him what the reasoning at trial had been, he wasn't able to answer them. That said, he also gave away the farm; he conceded that it was a race-based security decision and was trying to argue that even so, the inmate had no case, because (a) all the state had to do was prove it was reasonable, and (b) locking down every black person whenever any black person assaulted a police officer was self-evidently reasonable. At one point, the chief judge of hte panel flat out accused him of making a racist statement; he agreed.

Given how oral arguments went, this is really not a terribly big surprise: the state has a self-evidently racist policy. It may be able to demonstrate that that racist policy is, in fact, narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest; but the inmates have a right to force them to prove that, and not just assert it before a compliant district court.

< Voting for Spam | The Dunning-Kruger Effect >
That's just a flatly racist statement. | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
and 88 year old grandmas by sasquatchan (4.00 / 2) #1 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 12:09:27 PM EST
should be stripped searched and not some swarthy guy, because grandmas are more likely to carry explosives onto an airplane ?

is profiling based on race ever appropriate in the liebral's eyes ?

In a word, no. by Gedvondur (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 12:34:48 PM EST
Your statement makes two basic assumptions that cannot be upheld:

1.  Elderly women cannot be suicide bombers.

2.  Swarthy men cannot be trusted.

While the case can be made on probability, that's generally not good enough, not at least for the idiot American public.  The first time a granny blows up a plane fingers will be a-pointing.

I gotta question for ya, sasquatchan.  Do conservatives ever make decisions based on facts and moral ethics rather than on horse-shit "common sense" and "gut feelings"?

Its like arguing with lawn furniture. "Its cold out side, so global warming MUST be false"


Gedvondur




"...I almost puked like a pregnant StackyMcRacky." --MillMan
[ Parent ]
I don't think he's making assumptions by chuckles (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:08:36 PM EST

He's just using his human intellect to notice a pattern, something that some people actively try to suppress.

You have limited resources. As much as I'm sure you would like to, you can't give everyone a full body cavity search before they board the plane. You can't strap everyone to a hand truck like Hannibal Lecter for the duration of the flight, either. Do you pretend that everyone has the same probability for terrorist activity and use valuable time patting down the 82-year-old Norwegian grandmother, or do you pay a little more attention to the 26-year-old Saudi man? If you chose to pat down the grandmother, I've found your intellectual soulmate in Dubya.



"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
Heh by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:20:26 PM EST
But that's the problem isn't it?  I don't demand perfect security, but the public does.  And as soon as they know you are going after young swarthy men, they switch it up.  Then you are fucked again.

So in a world of limited resources you are left with the idea that you can't check everybody and that air travel won't ever be perfectly safe.  So instead of racially profiling and becoming what we claim to despise, we check what we can.  They WANT us to give up on the idea that everyone is equal.  They want to feel persecuted, it adds to their justification.  By taking the high road, we avoid that. 

I simply don't find the exchange of principle for additional safety to be an acceptable one. Especially considering you are more likely to get killed by lightening then by an airplane bomber.


Gedvondur



"...I almost puked like a pregnant StackyMcRacky." --MillMan
[ Parent ]
right. by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #19 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:26:40 PM EST
And as soon as they know you are going after young swarthy men, they switch it up.  Then you are fucked again.

Right.

Profiling is a bad idea because it weakens your security --- because as soon as the bad guys know what you are profiling for, they know how to avoid your screen.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
Interesting choice by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:21:57 PM EST
Since it was neither the Norwegian grandmother or the Saudi man that tried to blow up the airplane.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
You're right, it wasn't the Norwegian or the Saudi by chuckles (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:32:12 PM EST
It was the guy named "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab".

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
Ah by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #23 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:59:19 PM EST
I was confused.  I thought you guys wanted race-based profiling, not name-based profiling.

This makes much more sense.  Clearly it'd make more sense to give more attention to someone with a name like "Jalal Talabani" and less attention to someone with a name like "Richard Reid".
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
You are thinking too narrowly. by chuckles (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:18:14 PM EST

My spam filter "profiles" my incoming email. Some individual factors, such as an IP address of a known spammer, are enough to trigger the filter. Other factors, such as the word "Viagra" in the subject or body of the message, add points to a score assigned to the message. Enough factors will raise the score above a certain threshold, and the filter is triggered.

Passengers ought to be similarly profiled. Is the passenger a male? Is the passenger a young adult? Does the passenger have an Arabic name? Has the passenger visited a failed state or a state sponsor of terrorism? Is the passenger a native of/second-generation immigrant from a failed state or state sponsor of terrorism? Did the passenger buy a one-way ticket? Did the passenger pay in cash? And so on. Add points for every positive answer to the preceding questions. If the score goes above a certain threshold, the passenger gets the rubber glove treatment.



"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
Ah by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:21:57 PM EST
So you are saying that a security system that has the same success rate as the average spam filter is appropriate for threats to blow up aircraft?
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
I was drawing an analogy by chuckles (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:43:18 PM EST
Besides, the proposed alternative isn't a more effective system. The proposed alternative is deliberately less effective in the name of egalitarianism. The alternative is induced naivete, as if every solicitation for "herbal Viagra" or every business proposal from a Nigerian prince should be given the same benefit of the doubt as email from my family members.

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
The alternative by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #28 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 06:04:23 PM EST
Is to spend the effort at the source.

If you have a limited number of enemies and a large number of potential targets, it makes more sense to attack the enemy rather than try to defend all the potential targets.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
The strategy of "invade the Muslim world by chuckles (4.00 / 1) #30 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 07:02:14 PM EST

until they learn to love us" hasn't been working.

Also our open, multicult society means that potential terrorists are already widely dispersed throughout the target-rich West. Good luck trying to track them down without profiling.



"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
Come to think of it... by chuckles (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:24:38 PM EST

I don't know what is the success rate of the average spam filter, but I would like the success rate of whatever Google is using for my Gmail account. I receive dozens of spam messages per day, but they always get routed to my junk mail folder. I haven't received spam in my inbox in years. I occasionally (around once per month) get a legitimate message flagged as spam, so I have to manually flag it as legitimate.

An airline security system with that success rate would be outstanding.



"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
Best (non-husi) comment of 2009: by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 06:39:13 PM EST
was in the comments about a super-duper terrorist detector for decertifying terrorists as pilots. - Hint, somebody figures out the super-high tech algorithm they must be using.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
Richard Reid was English. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:22:58 PM EST
So Hulver should be strip searched when he gets on an airplane.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
I have no problem by chuckles (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:37:26 PM EST

with everyone who looks like this getting extra scrutiny.

Richard Reid

Hulver is also rather shifty looking, but not in a terrorist way.



"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
maybe by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:02:05 PM EST
but that doesn't really apply here. the situation was: one black dude assaults an officer, so all black dudes in the prison are locked down for months.

that's not in the same category as choosing to give people with arabic-sounding names more screening than people with german-sounding names.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
err, uh by R343L (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:04:26 PM EST
There are usually pretty different standards for appropriate government actions when you're talking about a prison versus a situation containing overwhelmingly non-felons...

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]
For now at least by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #6 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:19:08 PM EST
Wait until the Rectum-Bomber strikes.


[ Parent ]
right. by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:30:42 PM EST
ISTM that suicide bombers who just shove shit up their ass would be more effective.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
Especially by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:36:31 PM EST
if they then poop in the water supply. Could cause many more casualties than any explosive..

[ Parent ]
They've tried that by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:47:48 PM EST
At least one mad bomber tried that in Saudi Arabia.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Personally by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:12:31 PM EST
I am for suicide bombers shoving the bombs up their asses.  First, it reduces the effectiveness and amount of explosives they can use by an order of magnitude.  Second, it for sure kills the shit out of the bomber. Assplosions are not survivable.


Gedvondur



"...I almost puked like a pregnant StackyMcRacky." --MillMan
[ Parent ]
But by Herring (4.00 / 1) #21 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:36:55 PM EST
Supposing they radicalised the goatse guy ...

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
Note by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:46:44 PM EST
The Christmas bomber did not look at all "middle eastern".
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
middle east, sub-saharan africa by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:03:35 PM EST
Hmmm by Gedvondur (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 12:22:59 PM EST
The real question is do the prisoners respond to every incident as being race-based in motivation?  Is that why they do it, because of the way the prisoners respond?  I'm certainly not a fan of race-based decisions in general, but it does raise the question of "why" on this policy.  It doesn't sound like a policy you implement just for fun.


Gedvondur

"...I almost puked like a pregnant StackyMcRacky." --MillMan
My guess by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:48:27 PM EST
Most prisons have race-based gang activity.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Yes by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:26:08 PM EST
That's kind of what I was getting at.  I don't understand the connection to a guard being attacked, however.  There should be an explanation as to why that may have a race-based component.


Gedvondur

"...I almost puked like a pregnant StackyMcRacky." --MillMan
[ Parent ]
Except, of course, by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 3) #27 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:00:14 PM EST
the gangs in California prisons have completely segregated themselves - which means that attempts to lock down a gang that may be about to riot will, by definition, lock down members of a single race.


An Angry and Flatulent Pig, Trying to Tie Balloon Animals
Right. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #31 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:50:05 PM EST
Because aggrieved prisoners *never* react violently in solidarity with other prisoners of their own race.

Please - never look for work in the corrections field. You'll end up getting good men killed with your naivete.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

excuse me? by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:06:52 PM EST
all i'm saying is that the state should have to demonstrate that locking down all the black people when one black person assaults an officer meets the constitutional standard for treating people of different races differently. it shouldn't get to just claim it and have the court say "oh, ok then, you win."

otherwise the fourteenth amendment is meaningless.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
In a correctional setting . . . by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 11:50:04 PM EST
I'm fine with that standard being lower than what *you* want - for everyone's safety.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
have i said what i want? by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 12:28:46 AM EST
i mean, this is really bizarre.

i've expressed no opinion whatsoever as to what the standard should be. i've just said that, whatever the standard is, the state has the responsibility of demonstrating that it's met the standard. it can't just assert that it's met it.

and yet here you are saying that my standard sucks and you have no problem with the state having a lower standard.

but how the ** do you know what standard i'm advocating?

my conclusion: you don't. you're trolling. and i should just stop responding to you, across the board, until you demonstrate that you're willing to discuss in good faith.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
I am saying that when by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 05:54:30 AM EST
corrections professionals say that's what they need to do in order to keep their peers and charges safe, I believe them and support that decision. You, apparently, do not support their professional judgment.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
i don't believe by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 10:08:12 AM EST
that when the executive says something is necessary, the other branches of government should just roll over and accept that as true without exercising independent judgment.

they could be wrong. or they could be lying.

both have been known to happen from time to time.

"trust but verify".
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
You don't trust the Obama administration? by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 07:32:42 PM EST
You seemed like a pretty solid Democrat supporter to me.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
I don't trust executive power. by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #43 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 07:46:00 PM EST
Doesn't matter to me so much who the executive is; I still think there are institutional pressures which cause the executive to arrogate power to itself, and that make abuse of that power (a) likely and (b) difficult to detect.

In the particular case at issue, it's the Schwarzenegger administration, not the Obama administration, but I think the principle is the same: if the executive wants to engage in policies which have obvious discriminatory impact, it should have to demonstrate to the judiciary that those polices are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
if there's anyone by 256 (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 11:05:56 AM EST
who i want to be answerable to the law of the land, it's police officers and "corrections professionals."

---
I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni
[ Parent ]
I'm only speaking to the corrections field. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 07:23:02 PM EST
Convicted felons here lose many civil rights, many forever. Precedent is well-grounded.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
curious by R343L (4.00 / 2) #39 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 01:31:26 PM EST
I seem to recall some posts from you about how police officers are pigs and deserve whatever they get for being racist and/or fascist thugs. Or something like that.

I'm curious as to why you would think corrections professionals are so much less likely to abuse their authority than police officers that the mere requirement that the executive demonstrate to the judiciary that their actions are proper and legal is unwarranted.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot

[ Parent ]
I am referring to State action here by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 07:28:39 PM EST
which is in furtherance of the State's DUTY to protect the physical safety of those people it incarcerates. Where is this alleged abuse of authority?

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
That's just a flatly racist statement. | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback