Cologne cops defend use of racial profiling on New Year's Eve, Chief praises its success - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51612458]I don't have a good answer, except to say that it shouldn't be a problem, because many of these people should never even [i]make[/i] it into the country.[/QUOTE] I agree on that point - I'm honestly baffled that Europe needs to bear the brunt of this while the Middle Eastern countries who are flush with cash and ever-ready to pump cash into building mosques worldwide are absolutely silent on this. I think that the world also owes Lebanon and Jordan some props for being one of the few Arab countries that do this, while most of the GCC has done fuck all by comparison.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51612226]It really worries me to see so many people here defending racial profiling.[/QUOTE] It really worries me that people who worry about racial profiling seem to entirely miss the picture. I'm really happy people like you aren't responsible for our security. [QUOTE=Paramud;51612317]And, there really is a better alternative, it's not to employ racial profiling[/QUOTE] So what was that solution again? If there is none, then racial profiling was the best solution.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51612420]Whats funny is you give them credit for being smart then trash their policies that were effective.[/QUOTE] There's a of lot things that would be real effective, but that doesn't make them acceptable. You could cut out a ton of work and still get the same result. What they did should not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is a lazy half assed attempt at fixing the problem [editline]2nd January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CruelAddict;51612465] So what was that solution again? If there is none, then racial profiling was the best solution.[/QUOTE] Mobile surveillance cameras, mobile phone poles, extra police presence, you know.. standard large crowd things that aren't racially profiling. "There was no better option than racial profiling"/ "racial profiling was the best solution" Get the fuck out of here with that. This is embarrassing that you're defending it.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51612471]There's a of lot things that would be real effective, but that doesn't make them acceptable. You could cut out a ton of work and still get the same result. What they did should not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is a lazy half assed attempt at fixing the problem[/QUOTE] Aren't you a police officer? What would you propose in such scenario to avoid crime on the scale of Cologne? I seriously cannot understand you, people. You seem to criticize this ""racial profiling"" but so far you haven't bothered to introduce a similarly-effective alternative. [editline]2nd January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;51612471] Mobile surveillance cameras, mobile phone poles, extra police presence, you know.. standard large crowd things that aren't racially profiling. [/QUOTE] I don't quite understand about the mobile parts, but for extra police presence.... what if that wasn't possible, you know? resource limitation is still a thing I am pretty sure that there are no dumb retards in the higher ups of the police force. They have utilized an approach that was best given the situation.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51612471]There's a of lot things that would be real effective, but that doesn't make them acceptable. You could cut out a ton of work and still get the same result. What they did should not be acceptable under any circumstances. This is a lazy half assed attempt at fixing the problem [editline]2nd January 2017[/editline] Mobile surveillance cameras, mobile phone poles, extra police presence, you know.. standard large crowd things that aren't racially profiling. "There was no better option than racial profiling"/ "racial profiling was the best solution" Get the fuck out of here with that. This is embarrassing that you're defending it.[/QUOTE] You're proposing things that are reactionary instead of preemptive. It would be really good for the police to implement the things you've said and have something happen, especially having a now harder time as, with the Cologne attacks of yesteryear, that they work in groups instead of individuals, which could quickly become a chaotic mess. Going to be real swell when the Police, who did see this coming, only implemented measures that would only take effect after people started getting sexually harassed and violated.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51612480] I don't quite understand about the mobile parts, but for extra police presence.... what if that wasn't possible, you know? resource limitation is still a thing I am pretty sure that there are no dumb retards in the higher ups of the police force. They have utilized an approach that was best given the situation.[/QUOTE] You're to dense to talk to. If it was a real concern of the department they would have had the equipment. It's not like other departments can't share equipment for large events. We're setting the bar pretty high here for worst thread of 2017 with the amount of people defending this as an acceptable procedure for law enforcement

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;51612498]You're proposing things that are reactionary instead of preemptive.[/QUOTE] The problem is, reactionary is all that's left. Proactive went out the window when Germany went and decided that border security wasn't important. Now they have 3 options. Let the situation remain fucked. Devote enormous resources, both in terms of personnel and equipment, to fix it without prejudice. Or, selectively target the worst groups to efficiently use resources, and worry about any potential consequences of that later. Option 1 doesn't solve the problem, so it's clearly untenable. The resources for option 2 simply don't exist, and while it would be 'fair' would subject the entire population to an insane level of scrutiny for very limited net benefits, so that's not very good either. Option 3 has negative connotations, but it at least goes a long way towards solving the problem, and it's technically feasible. None of these are good replacements for actual border security. Option three is the least terrible option, and it's still abysmal. That's the reality of the situation though. Until border security is restored (and even for a while afterwards to finish cleaning up the mess), this problem is going to continue.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51612502]You're to dense to talk to. If it was a real concern of the department they would have had the equipment. It's not like other departments can't share equipment for large events. We're setting the bar pretty high here for worst thread of 2017 with the amount of people defending this as an acceptable procedure for law enforcement[/QUOTE] Eyyy it's pretty easy to be condescending and morally superior when you use hypothetical situations with predetermined conclusions isn't it? You should instead focus on what's the most likely thing to happen and give pragmatic solutions instead of having that view, because it doesn't work and only makes you look horrid.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51612226]It really worries me to see so many people here defending racial profiling.[/QUOTE] 1937 is the new 2017 baby

The safety of the people should always take precedence over people's hurt feelings. Racial profiling makes perfect sense when there is an increased criminal activity from the groups being profiled. It potentially stops criminals and I doubt people who were not criminals are gonna get mad and become criminals because of this incident.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51612226]It really worries me to see so many people here defending racial profiling.[/QUOTE] When you live in the part of a continent that's been under frequent attacks by a group whose MO is to use average joes to kill large amounts of more average joes, then these kinds of measures kind of become needed for short term problem solving. Playing the Manichean card won't accomplish anything. Actually taking measures will.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;51612624]Eyyy it's pretty easy to be condescending and morally superior when you use hypothetical situations with predetermined conclusions isn't it? You should instead focus on what's the most likely thing to happen and give pragmatic solutions instead of having that view, because it doesn't work and only makes you look horrid.[/QUOTE] Increasing police presence (as they did) without racial profiling? It's not enough for a solution to be effective, it has to be sustainable. Stopping and searching people because of the colour of their skin is in my opinion a clear violation of the principles of a liberal democracy, but I realise people are becoming more and more willing to compromise on those to get a bit of (sometimes purely imagined) safety. Especially when it doesn't impact them personally, of course.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51612682]Increasing police presence (as they did) without racial profiling? It's not enough for a solution to be effective, it has to be sustainable. Stopping and searching people because of the colour of their skin is in my opinion a clear violation of the principles of a liberal democracy, but I realise people are becoming more and more willing to compromise on those to get a bit of (sometimes purely imagined) safety. [B]Especially when it doesn't impact them personally, of course[/B].[/QUOTE] Fuck off with this. France has been through three major attacks in the span of slightly more than a year. Every time the malls, hospitals and stadiums around here had policemen and sometimes soldiers at the entrance indiscriminately checking bags. I had to deal with showing the contents of my bag and being scrutinized whenever I entered or left a public building just like everyone else, I didn't care back then and I still don't care now.

I suppose it came down to racial profiling vs rape and sexual assault, I know which I prefer to see implemented. You could argue that most if not all surveillance is racial profiling. The preemptive option was lost once the doors were opened.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51612635]It potentially stops criminals and I doubt people who were not criminals are gonna get mad and become criminals because of this incident.[/QUOTE] It certainly doesn't, but at the same time singling out someone purely on the basis of their race/ethnicity doesn't really help if you're trying to integrate them into your host culture. Even if other immigrants put an effort in to try and blend in, they'd still have this specter looming over them that suggests that no matter how hard they try, if they're not anything but whiter than lilies and not from "that bad sort", they'll never really be "<insert nationality here>". Can you imagine how frustrating it is to be put in that situation, to be a pretty decent, well educated person who only wants to get on with their life and does their best to integrate and learn the local language, but still be the one that gets followed around in stores because you could be a shoplifter, get stopped for "random questioning" if you're walking anywhere late at night, or be pulled over if there's a white chick in the passenger seat next to you, for no other reason offered except "it looks suspicious"? People often wonder why seemingly benign second-generation kids turn to this radical religious bullshit despite having seemingly grown up "embedded" in the culture and having local friends, but nobody ever wants to talk about [I]this[/I]aspect of it. This sort of reasoning is dangerously close to "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid" which is what's used to invade our privacy in this day and age.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51612705]Fuck off with this. France has been through three major attacks in the span of slightly more than a year. Every time the malls, hospitals and stadiums around here had policemen and sometimes soldiers at the entrance indiscriminately checking bags. I had to deal with showing the contents of my bag and being scrutinized whenever I entered or left a public building just like everyone else, I didn't care back then and I still don't care now.[/QUOTE] You don't have to take it as a personal attack (only if you think it applies to yourself) and I think you're a bit confused because this measure wasn't (at least as described in the article) about terrorist attacks in the first place - it was about rape. And the keyword is "indiscriminately" - police checking bags indiscriminately because of a terrorist risk is a lot different than if you were specifically detained on new year's eve because of your skin colour (because apparently you were gonna rape someone). I don't have an issue with airport security checking my luggage, but I would have an issue with it if it were done purely to people of a specific ethnicity. These two are fundamentally different.

If you want an example of this policy going way too far to be defensible there's the case of France arresting people over tweets and facebook messages after the Charlie Hebdo attacks because for "apology of terrorism". This is perfectly acceptable as a practical measure for a practical problem.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51612725]If you want an example of this policy going way too far to be defensible there's the case of France arresting people over tweets and facebook messages after the Charlie Hebdo attacks because for "apology of terrorism". This is perfectly acceptable as a practical measure for a practical problem.[/QUOTE] I guess we have a difference of opinion, then.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;51612715]It certainly doesn't, but at the same time singling out someone purely on the basis of their race/ethnicity doesn't really help if you're trying to integrate them into your host culture. Even if other immigrants put an effort in to try and blend in, they'd still have this specter looming over them that suggests that no matter how hard they try, if they're not anything but whiter than lilies and not from "that bad sort", they'll never really be "<insert nationality here>". Can you imagine how frustrating it is to be put in that situation, to be a pretty decent, well educated person who only wants to get on with their life and does their best to integrate and learn the local language, but still be the one that gets followed around in stores because you could be a shoplifter, get stopped for "random questioning" if you're walking anywhere late at night, or be pulled over if there's a white chick in the passenger seat next to you, for no other reason offered except "it looks suspicious"? People often wonder why seemingly benign second-generation kids turn to this radical religious bullshit despite having seemingly grown up "embedded" in the culture and having local friends, but nobody ever wants to talk about [I]this[/I]aspect of it. This sort of reasoning is dangerously close to "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid" which is what's used to invade our privacy in this day and age.[/QUOTE] When several major assaults and terrorist attacks in the past two years almost exclusively happened because of people from either the middle east or north Africa, I expect the good up-standing immigrants to show some understanding and to realize that this is only a temporary issue while police and military crack down on extremism and terrorism, assuming that people let them. You can't have it perfect in a time like this, safety always takes precedent. I'm sure that if the Colognes police department could somehow have had 1000 cops on duty inthe square instead of 300 they would've done so but even their means are limited. Racial profiling still makes perfect sense and protects people's lives.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51612772]When several major assaults and terrorist attacks in the past two years almost exclusively happened because of people from either the middle east or north Africa, I expect the good up-standing immigrants to show some understanding and to realize that this is only a temporary issue while police and military crack down on extremism and terrorism, assuming that people let them. You can't have it perfect in a time like this, safety always takes precedent. I'm sure that if the Colognes police department could somehow have had 1000 cops on duty inthe square instead of 300 they would've done so but even their means are limited. Racial profiling still makes perfect sense and protects people's lives.[/QUOTE] "Safety always takes precedent" is a dangerous line of thinking, and it's very obviously also wrong - safety doesn't always take precedent, so basically that line is worthless without some kind of qualifier for when, where and why safety takes precedent in some circumstances (airports for example) but not in others. If safety always did take precedent, you could justify just about anything.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51612790]"Safety always takes precedent" is a dangerous line of thinking, and it's very obviously also wrong - safety doesn't always take precedent, so basically that line is worthless without some kind of qualifier for when, where and why safety takes precedent in some circumstances (airports for example) but not in others. If safety always did take precedent, you could justify just about anything.[/QUOTE] in a time like this When several major assaults and terrorist attacks in the past two years almost exclusively happened because of people from either the middle east or north Africa safety takes precedent

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51612790]"Safety always takes precedent" is a dangerous line of thinking, and it's very obviously also wrong - safety doesn't always take precedent, so basically that line is worthless without some kind of qualifier for when, where and why safety takes precedent in some circumstances (airports for example) but not in others. If safety always did take precedent, you could justify just about anything.[/QUOTE] I'll clarify, safety always takes precedent when it seems that major terrorist attacks as well as horrifying rapes have become a regular almost monthly occasion and they're mostly perpetrated by the same general group of people. I did not mean it in a full literal "take all my rights away just keep me safe" sense, if that's what you thought I meant. Maybe "always" isn't the best word.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51612790]"Safety always takes precedent" is a dangerous line of thinking, and it's very obviously also wrong - safety doesn't always take precedent, so basically that line is worthless without some kind of qualifier for when, where and why safety takes precedent in some circumstances (airports for example) but not in others. If safety always did take precedent, you could justify just about anything.[/QUOTE] In this instance what would you suggest would have had a better outcome? As I see it, some people might have been offended but some people weren't raped, it seems like a decent enough payoff.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51612829]in a time like this When several major assaults and terrorist attacks in the past two years almost exclusively happened because of people from either the middle east or north Africa safety takes precedent[/QUOTE] You don't have to speeeeel iiiiit oooout like I'm a retard, but disregarding the fact that he said "always" and not "in a time like this", you still have to narrow it down to this specific instance, because I don't remember getting a cavity search walking to campus today despite it being "in a time like this". Should we increase surveillance? Check up on every Muslim once a month? "safety takes precedent in a time like this" is meaningless, the policies have to stand on their own merits. Personally I think the positives (perhaps more rapists arrested) are outweighed by the negatives (detaining innocent people because of their ethnicity), and I guess you disagree.

You know, if the IRA does become active again because of Brexit (and one hopes to god they don't), would it be acceptable for an Irish person like me to be stopped because I'm Irish? Like there [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment"]was merely a few years ago?[/URL] Oh, we're so going to regret this, we are so, so going to regret this.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51612872]You know, if the IRA does become active again because of Brexit (and one hopes to god they don't), would it be acceptable for an Irish person like me to be stopped because I'm Irish? Like there [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment"]was merely a few years ago?[/URL] Oh, we're so going to regret this, we are so, so going to regret this.[/QUOTE] If the IRA become active, how would this be because of Brexit?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51612881]If the IRA become active, how would this be because of Brexit?[/QUOTE] Because of how the Northern Ireland situation would be affected and because of how Northern Ireland would be treated. The tensions are getting ever so slightly worse. It's not completely impossible for there to be violence if there is a hard border installed in Northern Ireland, splitting the island in two, again. [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/northern-ireland-fear-brexit-conflict-good-friday-agreement-eu"]Read this[/URL] and [URL="http://qz.com/716515/with-the-brexit-vote-millions-of-english-voters-may-have-handed-the-ira-its-ultimate-victory/"]this.[/URL] You haven't answered my question.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51612864]You don't have to speeeeel iiiiit oooout like I'm a retard, but disregarding the fact that he said "always" and not "in a time like this", you still have to narrow it down to this specific instance, because I don't remember getting a cavity search walking to campus today despite it being "in a time like this". Should we increase surveillance? Check up on every Muslim once a month? "safety takes precedent in a time like this" is meaningless, the policies have to stand on their own merits. Personally I think the positives (perhaps more rapists arrested) are outweighed by the negatives (detaining innocent people because of their ethnicity), and I guess you disagree.[/QUOTE] Your campus isn't a big red target for an attack, at least not compared to new years celebrations in a densely populated area with colossal global media coverage. I'd hate to see half of you in charge of policy making, your raw naivety would cause so much pain it's unbelievable

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51612884]Because of how the Northern Ireland situation would be affected and because of how Northern Ireland would be treated. The tensions are getting ever so slightly worse. It's not completely impossible for there to be violence if there is a hard border installed in Northern Ireland, splitting the island in two, again. [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/northern-ireland-fear-brexit-conflict-good-friday-agreement-eu"]Read this[/URL] and [URL="http://qz.com/716515/with-the-brexit-vote-millions-of-english-voters-may-have-handed-the-ira-its-ultimate-victory/"]this.[/URL] You haven't answered my question.[/QUOTE] Who decides on how the border is going to become in the future? Your question is hyperthetical as it hasn't happened yet.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51612872]You know, if the IRA does become active again because of Brexit (and one hopes to god they don't), would it be acceptable for an Irish person like me to be stopped because I'm Irish? Like there [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment"]was merely a few years ago?[/URL] Oh, we're so going to regret this, we are so, so going to regret this.[/QUOTE] If IRA becomes a serious threat with multiple casualties and other serious crimes, possibly. I'd rather be stopped and checked than someone being killed or raped because I wasn't. Have some empathy man.