Replies

“Look, you suggested it would be wise to study this guy. For the life of me, I can’t see a reason for it unless it was to gain a way to prevent further crimes like this.”

Bingo.

“Some crimes you can’t prevent. You are left with conviction and sentencing.”

Before you can convict, you must catch. Profiling helps catch criminals. It is not of interest to you, I get that.

“Look, if we’re going to talk about what seems silly and pointless, let’s just accept that so far you have understood nothing that pertains to this case.
I find that less than fantastic.”

Silly and pointless to you because you don’t get it.
It is quite normal for ego-centric humans to have difficulty admitting that they don’t understand something.

It appears that the mental giants on this thread have been unable to grasp the distinction between understanding something and defending something.
One can be done without the other.

Look, you suggested it would be wise to study this guy. For the life of me, I can’t see a reason for it unless it was to gain a way to prevent further crimes like this.

Bingo.

Yes, bingo. Except that you can't prevent this sort of crime. In practical terms you would have to have profiles of every person who wanted to go to these slopes. Then you would have to set up a review process before people could go to the slopes. And then you would have to deny some of them access based on your profiles that at best can't actually depict what WILL happen, only what could possibly happen. In practical terms you would have to have some policing agency involved, to deny access and enforce. Talk about your police state level situation...

And then what do you do with foreigners who travel to Vail as well? They would have to be screened too.

And yet, you don't seem to want to acknowledge this reality.

Some crimes you can’t prevent. You are left with conviction and sentencing.

Before you can convict, you must catch. Profiling helps catch criminals. It is not of interest to you, I get that.

Look, we're talking about a guy on the slopes who was caught within moments. No, it is not of interest to me that you profile this guy. It's pointless.

As far as we know, this guy didn't have a record. So your profiling would have to include 100% of the populace, not just people who had a criminal history.

Look, if we’re going to talk about what seems silly and pointless, let’s just accept that so far you have understood nothing that pertains to this case.
I find that less than fantastic.

Silly and pointless to you because you don’t get it.

What's to get? There is no rational basis for desiring this person be profiled. He's 41 years old. He evidently has had a clean record. How would a profile of him have prevented this crime?

You've already tried to trash me for saying you'd have to involve the police to make sure this guy couldn't participate on the slopes. And then there's the other people. You'd have to do the same thing with every one of them. Your premise gives new meaning to silly and pointless, and yet here you are trying to put me down for pointing out what an exercise in futility this would be.

It is quite normal for ego-centric humans to have difficulty admitting that they don’t understand something.

So far, you have been unable to understand my point of view here. Let me break it down for you.

To have prevented this crime, you would have had to...

1. either have a profile on record for every citizen and non-citizen who wanted to vacation at Vail, or develop one for the people you didn't
2. you would have had to have a reporting process in place so that you would know who wanted to attend
3. you would have to have a massive staff in place to review and develop profiles
4. this massive staff would have to be reviewing the profiles of every person wanting to attend all other public places (If it makes sense for Vail, it would make sense for every public venue)
5. some law enforcement agency would have to enforce the pass/fail determinations
6. one simple mistake in someone's life (meaning just about every human on the planet), would be barred from visiting Vail
7. any person with a young child would have to be barred from the mountain, since this person might over-react as this father did
8. Vail would fail as an enterprise, because nobody would be able to go there, because they 'might' be a threat

It appears that the mental giants on this thread have been unable to grasp the distinction between understanding something and defending something.

Can't tell you how much I appreciate the inferrence you might think I was a mental giant. I don't actually, but what the hey...

One can be done without the other.

Yes it can, if it is logical to do so. Here it clearly isn't.