posted 11-14-2009 12:09 PM         

"Have you ever engaged or participated in Racial Profiling?"

Thoughts?....Anyone?.....Anyone?....Bueller?

posted 11-15-2009 07:21 PM         

abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=7115933

posted 11-16-2009 11:53 AM            

Handler, Honts, Krapohl, Nelson & Griffin (2009) discussed pre-employment target selection a bit.

They (we) searched the existing literature on police selection, training, and performance (problems) and did not seem to find that profiling appeared as a signal indicator or polygraph target for effective police selection (risk prediction). What was identified was that racial intollerance might be an issue in effective police selection, training and field performance.

Obviously, racial intollerance is an issue that presents difficulties for question formulation. There is a rather broad range of behavioral possibilities, while all serve to complicate the formulation of an operational definiation and beahviorally descrioptive question.

I do not think we have sufficient evidence to suggest there is yet, or will be, any clear and useable linkeage between racial intollerance and the practices and pragmatics of profiling.

Sure this is complicated. But we will be better off in the long run if we think this through and stick to the science. To do otherwise - to just do something because it makes people happy and gets us paid - is the equivalent of selling voice stress.

If you ask me - which I realize no-one really has - I'd suggest that pre-employment exams attempt to address this through the side-door in the form of behavioral questions about any history interpersonal (non-sports, non-professional) violence towards other persons.

Evaluation of attitudes and beliefs is a clinical task, not a polygraph task. But, indicators of troublesome attitudes, coupled with a history of violence (non-sports, non-professional) against other persons, may indicate the need for a cautious recommendation that the applicant seek employment in field that doesn't include a badge, gun and great authority over diverse members of the community.

Interpersonal violence does not presently seem to be a common pre-employment target. However, when I think about the information that I would want, if i were a psycho-babbling head-shrinking type participating in police hiring recommendations, I would want to know about someone's history of violence.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 11-16-2009 04:46 PM            

Without a great deal of psychobabble (no offense), the issue that has concerned me for many years is the "tolerance" of brutality, and corruption among the brotherhood.

We all know the urge to clean some dirtbag's clock for committing some heinous act, but unless there is legal justification during a "small window of opportunity", we are compelled to use minimal force to effect the arrest.

Many cases come to mind; Rodney King,(That tape was hard to watch when no one had the backbone to stop it.)
The now retired Chicago Police Detective Commander that will go on trial (medical condition permitting), for the numerous torture tactics with suspects over his years on the force.

The Chicago Police Commander of a Burglary Squad that masterminded numerous thefts over the years.

These practices cannot continue without a subculture of tolerance and
sudo-justification in the minds of the people involved.

With all that said,it would seem logical to include RQs that deal with "tolerance" of violence, and corruption.

posted 11-16-2009 04:49 PM            

I could be a white officer profiling a white group of college kids who are in the wrong area for the wrong reasons. That is profiling and you could even call that racial profiling--but having a problem with a certain group of people or race is not the root of it.

posted 11-16-2009 09:57 PM         

I don't think the Rodney King incident had anything to do with "Racial Profiling".

If you want to talk about having a "backbone", I thank God that there were men and women on duty that night who had the "Backbone" to engage Mr. King and take him into custody and stop his criminal rampage. Did the Cops go too far? A jury did not think so. We can always "Monday Morning Quarterback" a given incident. The fact is, you and I were not there and were not involved.

I for one, salute the men and women in law enforcement who have swallowed their own teeth during the fight only to later be hung out to dry by the media and admin. Bottom line is; At the end of watch, I am going home to my wife and kids.

posted 11-17-2009 12:36 AM            

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.

I'm not against making a stop by the ER before booking if it was justified.

I've worked with LE in many different countries where unnecessary brutality, and corruption are a way of life. I just think Americans are better than that.

A fact of life is that law suits are a killer on the city/state budgets.

I think King cost LA 18 million??

Every year Chicago pays out millions.
Jody Weiss, former FBI, now Chief of Chicago Police is finding this out.

posted 11-17-2009 01:31 AM            

No, I was not there but I recall the video. The cops and the jury were both wrong. A separate LA jury didn't think OJ was guilty either!

I will always support law enforcement personnel, but they must remain one step above the average citizen. Bottom line is, do the job the ways it's suppose to be done, legally, or start looking for another profession. Do it right and you go home with (pride), not shame, to your wife and kids.

Either way it goes, law enforcement personnel have a lot on the line. Screw up bad enough and you may not have a jury as forgiving (or ignorant) as those in the King and Simpson trials. What do you tell your family when you're off on vacation for 10-20 years or more. You're screwed if you do and screwed if you don't.

Making the correct split-second decision will identify the true professional officer or just another thug wearing a badge, a liability to fellow officers and their department.

END.....