What kind of profilign are you talking about? I think we should profile suspicious behaviors. Are you talking about just skin color?

I disagree. Probable cause is a legal conclusion that must be decided in court. The fact that not all cases where probable cause is used end up in court does not change the fact that probable cause is a discretionary tool of the police that must be adjudicated, on a case by case basis, to determine its proper application.

Your defintion of probable cause assumes that, when it is exercised, it is always right. Not so. Probable cause, by defintion, is not certain. When it appears police have abused their discretion in applying probable cause, the courts properly get involved to decide the matter. Training police in profiling does not remove the court’s job in deciding whether the police have acted properly.

I have asked you to make a firm statement as to where you stand on the proper use of profiling. I have demonstrated that your view of probable cause works, theoretically and practically, within my desire for profiling yet you have focused solely on pedantic arguments that add nothing to the larger issue.

Unless you formulate a reasoned opposition to my arguments, which as I have demonstrated would be counter to what you have written so far, then I will consider this discussion settled and that we are in agreement regarding the need for profiling.

Legitimate is what makes probable cause. That’s a tautology.

So then we’re in agreement. Train police officers to recognize high-risk passengers based on multiple factors, not just gender or skin color, and use this probable cause to stop them, ask them questions, and if necessary, detain them further.

Stop random searches as they are ineffective and a waste of police resources. Do not search everyone because not only would it be cost prohibitive but it would also crush public transportation logistically. Search only those passengers who possess the factors associated with a security threat.

You still have not answered how legitimate profiling techniques violate your definition of probable cause. If anything, they serve as support to your wishes. Do you agree?

My position is that when you have probable cause to search a person, go ahead. Otherwise, let them get to work.

“In your pursuit of striking down my statements on probable cause you have given support to my position on profiling.”

Depends. I want to ‘profile’ suspicious behavior, which is basically what probable cause means. Others want to profile skin color. That ends up getting brazilian electricians shot.

So your position is that probable cause should not be expanded to all passengers because it is, I presume, unreasonable or unfair to assume guilt of all for the bad acts of the few. Okay, that’s a reasonable argument.

However, such an argument directly supports the main point which is profiling. If we are only concerned with the suspicious individual, then we are left with the question: how do we efficiently spot the suspicious individual?

In your pursuit of striking down my statements on probable cause you have given support to my position on profiling. As you have pointed out, expanding probable cause is unnecessary if all that’s required is individual suspicion. Profiling is an efficient means for spotting suspicious behavior.

Because I think we should search the millions of people on public transit everyday based on individualized suspicion, and not some decree that once one is in public transit there is a diminished expectation of privacy.

Why does that create a substantive difference in the way we should search passengers on public transportation?