profiling

Sat Apr 14 13:00:57 UTC 2012

Another CNN legal analyst says he's not sure whether "profiled" means
"racially profiled" or not.

That suggests to me that nobody is yet quite sure what "profiled" means
without being linked to a word like "racially" or "ethnically."

In my limited recollection, "profiling" was originally applied (in the
'90s) to the unknown perpetrator of a known crime. "FBI profilers" showed
up on TV to speculate, Sherlock-style, about the characteristics of a
criminal "deduced" from hints at the crime scene. ("The killer was probably
male, at least 5'4" tall, perhaps with brown hair and brown eyes,
conceivably left-handed, and almost certainly had a working knowledge of
crossbows.")  That "profile" would then lead viewers or other characters in
the story straight to the perp. Case closed!

Next stage:  based on statistical probabilities drawn from real criminals,
law enforcement began to "profile" people they met on the street as more
likely to be perps than, say, they themselves were.  This led to "racial
profiling."  But here the movement is from real individual to possible
crime, rather than from real crime to suspect.

Now, it would seem, anybody can "profile" anybody else just by being
suspicious of them based on a "hunch": odd walk, peculiar fashions,
non-mainstream race, funny way of pronouncing "tomato."

JL

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: profiling
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks, counselor. Sounds like each side will have some 'splainin' to do
> (as they say more and more on TV).
>
> JL
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Baker, John <JBAKER at stradley.com> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Baker, John" <JBAKER at STRADLEY.COM>
> > Subject:      Re: profiling
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Specifically, prosecutors allege that Zimmerman said "these assholes,
> they
> > always get away" and "these fucking punks."  The Affidavit of Probable
> > Cause is available at various places on the Internet, including
> > http://www.scoutmastersandbox.com/Zimmerman_Probable_Cause_Document.pdf.
> >
> > The Florida stand-your-ground law is at
> > http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All.  News
> reports
> > indicate that the state has the burden of proof to show that the
> defendant
> > does not have a valid defense under the statute; I haven't confirmed
> that.
> >  The statute states in part that a person is justified in the use of
> deadly
> > force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably
> believes
> > that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
> harm
> > to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission
> of a
> > forcible felony.  Fla. Stat. 776.012.  It's not clear to me how Zimmerman
> > could possibly make that showing, when apparently Trayvon Martin was a
> much
> > smaller unarmed kid, but we haven't heard Zimmerman's defense yet.
> >
> > The statute also says that the stand-your-ground defense is not available
> > to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself or
> > herself, unless:
> > (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or
> > she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or
> she
> > has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the
> > use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the
> > assailant; or
> > (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the
> > assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires
> to
> > withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or
> > resumes the use of force.  Fla. Stat. 776.041.  The Affidavit of Probable
> > Cause alleges that Zimmerman "confronted" Martin, so prosecutors are
> > probably going to argue that Zimmerman provoked the use of force.
> >
> > A complicating factor for Zimmerman:  Normally it's better if a defendant
> > doesn't take the stand, because appearing as a witness allows the
> > prosecution to introduce otherwise extraneous evidence to attack your
> > honesty.  However, Zimmerman probably would have difficulty in asserting
> a
> > self-defense claim if he does not testify.
> >
> >
> > John Baker
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> > Of Jonathan Lighter
> > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:57 PM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: profiling
> >
> > Since the law presumes Z innocent, won't the state have to prove to a
> jury
> > that M *didn't* jump him from behind  and then, catching sight of the
> gun,
> > *didn't* try to get it away from him, making him fear for his life?
> >
> > BTW, the state does not allege that Z used the
> > materializing-dematerializing "racial epithet," but that he spoke instead
> > of "these assholes" and "punks."
> >
> > JL
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> > > Subject:      Re: profiling
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > At 4/13/2012 03:36 PM, victor steinbok wrote:
> > > >That's not the only bidirectional issue. Under Florida law, it is
> > possible
> > > >for both people in a confrontation of this sort to claim self-defense
> > > under
> > > >the Stand Your Ground statute, but only one of them would win the
> > lottery.
> > >
> > > Do you win the lottery if you're the survivor in this duel in this OK
> > > corral state, or do you win the lottery if you're the victim and go to
> > > Heaven?
> > >
> > > Joel
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org