zlacker

I think you are purposefully misreading the comment. There are ways to differentiate, mom with kid, old man vs. young guy in black clothes with a backpack.

I think I know what you want to imply, but did you note the complete absence of race or colour in OPs comment? And alos the completely different circumstances, crowd control vs. standard law enforcement?

>>hef198+(OP)
I am not purposefully misreading. I am reading. I was gobsmacked by how ironic the proposal was and felt compelled to point it out. To show that this stuff is hard even when folks are entirely well-meaning.

I did notice the absence of race or color and you will note my comment does not include any notion of race. You added race. I did note judging by appearance. You added age, out of nowhere.

Using appearance to treat people differently is profiling, though not always racial profiling. Should non-racial profiling be okay? To your inclusion of age, should we treat gatherings of youth differently than gatherings of the elderly?

The GP says "...for the police to target...". No distinction is made between crowd control and standard law enforcement.

>>RhysU+f8
It reads to be that you’re being purposely obtuse. Any security is going to take into account the appearance of a person. Undoubtedly you understand what that means in practice in America—-that appearance has been boiled down to just race: “be on the lookout for a black man.” It’s lazy and should be called out so that police are forced to do work and learn the difference between a non-violent angry person and a violent angry person in a crowd.