http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070813/BREAKINGNEWS/70813038 - Link.

thats retarted,

hell, rambino could even win a case against that.

Linus wrote: Apparently you guys don't get the reasoning behind this law. It's just like getting pulled over for having dice on your rear-view mirror. It's for when they see a car leave a known drug area, they have a basis to pull them over, talk to them, run the ID for possible warrants, and they might even see/smell some drugs or see something suspicious the driver or the passenger does. As for this, it gives them the ability to stop, with legal reason, a pedestrian and talk to them. Then while in the discussion they can see if the person starts acting weird and they can take it from there. If not, then they will send the person on their way. Pretty smart.

So legalized profiling?

Gatyr wrote: Linus wrote: Apparently you guys don't get the reasoning behind this law. It's just like getting pulled over for having dice on your rear-view mirror. It's for when they see a car leave a known drug area, they have a basis to pull them over, talk to them, run the ID for possible warrants, and they might even see/smell some drugs or see something suspicious the driver or the passenger does. As for this, it gives them the ability to stop, with legal reason, a pedestrian and talk to them. Then while in the discussion they can see if the person starts acting weird and they can take it from there. If not, then they will send the person on their way. Pretty smart. So legalized profiling?

-------------

Let's not forget that profiling, to a certain extent, is an integral part of investigation.

I'm going to start a flame fest with this one-I think that if you're going to dress and act like a gang member, you should be treated like one.

Linus wrote: Gatyr wrote: Linus wrote: Apparently you guys don't get the reasoning behind this law. It's just like getting pulled over for having dice on your rear-view mirror. It's for when they see a car leave a known drug area, they have a basis to pull them over, talk to them, run the ID for possible warrants, and they might even see/smell some drugs or see something suspicious the driver or the passenger does. As for this, it gives them the ability to stop, with legal reason, a pedestrian and talk to them. Then while in the discussion they can see if the person starts acting weird and they can take it from there. If not, then they will send the person on their way. Pretty smart. So legalized profiling? Profiling against what, people wearing loose fitting clothes? I'd like to see a lawyer use that argument.

And I'd like to see a lawyer try and deny the generally viewed connection between certain clothing styles and certain social groups or races.

You guys are all missing the big issue here.  Police should be violently opposing this law.

With crooks now forced to wear fitting pants, the police are going to have to return to exercizing - in order to keep up with the crooks that will no longer simply fall down while trying to run away.

Everybody knows that baggy pants, like crack and HIV, were originated by the CIA to keep the blacks in their place.   Now these Loosiana chumps have gone and messed it up.

I think alot of you are completely missing Linus' point...

It's illegal to investigate (or whatever legal term you want to use) a civilian without proper cause. "Silly" laws like these allow officers more room to question people. There are lots of laws that alot of people don't realize even exist because officers don't use them on a daily basis, but they exist for the simple fact that sometimes officers need a reason to investigate their suspicions, but do not have that reason.

Setting that completely aside, whether you like it or not certain cultural trends set you apart as being more likely to be involved in certain types of crimes.

heliumman77 wrote: I know what he is talking about but its none the less is stupid I mean as Linus said some profiling is in being a police officer obviously but I think this is over the line and is only gonna cause problems. Profiling will become more predominant in police work Just gives more reason to pull over the African American in a Porsche etc. car or stop the teenager with baggy clothes walking down the road. Now sometimes this could work but it's stupid.

Why did you just equate black people and Porsches?

Linus wrote: USAF... show me where in the Constitution it says profiling wasn't allowed. I have been unable to locate it.

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Susan Storm wrote: So, because my pants don't fit tightly around my waste, I (a well-to-do white kid) am more likely to do, or be caught with, drugs? It's yet another poor attempt by an elderly bureaucracy to make laws based on things it doesn't understand.  "Sagging" or loose fitting pants have nothing to do with drugs or gangs, or anythign of the sort, it's simply part of fashion now a days. I seriously doubt that either of you know the actual origins of it in the first place, and yet you still make your drug based generalizations. Nice try.

Unfortunately you don't have to make on the spot decisions based on visual evidence like officers do every day.

And I don't remember ever making "drug based" generalizations. You dress like a gangster, prepare to be profiled as a gangster, is what I'm saying.

14th amendment wrote: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

But you tell me, what social class or race, as you so eloquently stated before, does society instantly think of when they see baggy clothing?

-------------

heliumman77 wrote: Wow now your just trying to dodge the fact of wrongness but nice arguing maybe we can do this tomorrow but I'm tired so Im gonna go to bed but don't profile me as someone that sleeps to much. BTW OMG! my shorts are falling down.

PICS OR SHENS

Linus wrote: stratoaxe wrote: heliumman77 wrote: Wow now your just trying to dodge the fact of wrongness but nice arguing maybe we can do this tomorrow but I'm tired so Im gonna go to bed but don't profile me as someone that sleeps to much. BTW OMG! my shorts are falling down. PICS OR SHENS OK I'm uninviting you to my house tomorrow... I have a pool and that just freaks me out.

Hey, any chance for some forum noodz right?

usafpilot07 wrote: Linus wrote: Someone decides to play their electric guitar at night at max volume. They are just expressing themselves, right? SO I guess everyone else has to deal with it... can't stanp on their right to express themselves! Someone decides to walk naked in front of an elementary school during the day. Nope, can't do anything... just expressing themselves. Because loose fitting pants are the same as disturbing the piece or exposing yourself to children.  Careful, you're going to pull a muscle with all that reaching. And Strato, you still haven't told me what "gangsters" wear.

Mainly because I haven't found a delicate way to phrase this without starting a completely seperate argument about the clothing style of gang members.

However, I think it's pretty safe to say you know what I'm talking about, given the nature of the thread.

usafpilot07 wrote: Linus wrote: It's for when they see a car leave a known drug area, they have a basis to pull them over, talk to them, run the ID for possible warrants, and they might even see/smell some drugs or see something suspicious the driver or the passenger does. So wearing my pants the way I do is the same as hanging out at a crack house?  That's good to know.

Again, you're nitpicking the point to death. If you see somebody wearing their pants around their knees, their cap sideways, and a shirt that's ten sizes too large with a picture of Tupac on it (and yes, I mean white or black) walking out of a known crack house, you don't think that would send up a red flag?

usafpilot07 wrote: stratoaxe wrote: usafpilot07 wrote: Linus wrote: It's for when they see a car leave a known drug area, they have a basis to pull them over, talk to them, run the ID for possible warrants, and they might even see/smell some drugs or see something suspicious the driver or the passenger does. So wearing my pants the way I do is the same as hanging out at a crack house?  That's good to know. Again, you're nitpicking the point to death. If you see somebody wearing their pants around their knees, their cap sideways, and a shirt that's ten sizes too large with a picture of Tupac on it (and yes, I mean white or black) walking out of a known crack house, you don't think that would send up a red flag? But what if someone was wearing that while NOT walking out of a crack house?

If they're not doing anything wrong, then a cop has no reason to bother them.

But if they ARE doing suspicious activities, then wearing the attire does nothing but further validate the suspicion.

Again, back to the original point, laws like this are ways for cops to get their foot in the door.

usafpilot07 wrote: stratoaxe wrote: Again, back to the original point, laws like this are ways for cops to get their foot in the door.   Does that make them right?

Is it right to restrain a cop's ability to use experience to investigate suspicious activities?

pb125 wrote: stratoaxe wrote: Again, back to the original point, laws like this are ways for cops to get their foot in the door.   Haha might as well have said "I don't know how to respond to the owning that was just handed to me. So I'll just change the subject."

Way to quote half the post...

I was responding to what he what he said. He said that by passing the law wearing "gangster" attire IS a suspicious attire, which, as I responded, brings us full circle back around to the original point.

But keep trying.

usafpilot07 wrote: stratoaxe wrote: usafpilot07 wrote: stratoaxe wrote: Again, back to the original point, laws like this are ways for cops to get their foot in the door.   Does that make them right?  Is it right to restrain a cop's ability to use experience to investigate suspicious activities? And yet, the only way you connect clothing to suspicious activities is that "people wear that type of clothing walking out of crack houses." I guess we should pass laws concerning the behaviors of men wearing suits, as that would be the easiest way to crack down on those high-class, expensive prostitution rings ran within "Massage Therapy" businesses.

Are you trying to ask for more examples?

As for your suit comment, if a cop needs to question a guy in a suit, do what you gotta do.

We can keep running around the subject all night, but you're not addressing the issue at hand here.

Even the entertainment business has connected saggy clothes and long tees with being a gangster or thug that goes around and shoots others or does many other illegal acts. If anybody feels so bad about the police trying to make this a law, you should have gone after the entertainmnet business first for making those of color wearing big saggy clothes for acting like gangsters all the time. Also, where did this way of dress start? From the penetentiary. If you don't want to look like your going to be doing something illegal, why dress like you are already in prison? By the way, it all started with people in prison being "open" for "fun" with the same sex.

Close enough, Snopes accredits it to the sagging pants inmates wear in prison. Either way, why associate yourself with prison inmates?

It goes back to my original point. It's a trend that's based on defiance of the law, and just being a thug. We're not talking bagging, loose, or low riding jeans here, we're talking three sizes too large and pulled down below your underwear line.

usafpilot07 wrote: So colored people are the only ones who wear saggy pants?

In a movie with Jamie Kennedy, Jamie's father was running for governor and the father's assistants had proposed a plan to "scare the black out of him." Looks like you got some complaining to do to the industry USAF.