Posted on 07/16/2013 7:27:16 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Progressive faith leader Jim Wallis joined in on issuing commentary in the wake of the George Zimmerman acquittal. In a Huffington Post blog piece entitled, “Lament From a White Father,” he alleged that, had shooting victim Trayvon Martin been white, he would still be alive today. Wallis also pleaded with Caucasians — and parents, in particular — to “listen, to learn, and to speak out” about the tragic death.
Race, he contended, was at the center of the incident from the start.
“If my white 14-year-old son Luke had walked out that same night, in that same neighborhood, just to get a snack, he would have come back to his dad unharmed — and would still be with me and Joy today,” Wallis wrote. “Everyone, being honest with ourselves, knows that is true.”
The Sojourners leader went on to call it “a political, legal and moral mistake” not to ensure that the trial focused upon race, as he believes that this was the root cause that inevitably led to Martin’s death. In fact, Wallis overtly accused Zimmerman of having racially profiled the 17-year-old victim.
“[Martin Luther] King’s dream failed on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Fla., when George Zimmerman decided to follow Trayvon Martin because of the color of his skin,” he added. “This led to a confrontation in which a child was killed by an adult who got away with it, because of the way Florida laws were written and interpreted.”
Wallis went on to say that “racial profiling is a sin in the eyes of God” and he described the “systematic injustice” that he believes is at play in American society — a system that he contended puts African Americans at a disadvantage. He described the case as providing a window into “an utterly segregated society.”
While Wallis called for the acceptance of the verdict, the faith leader also said that the case’s meaning must be explored, particular when it comes to its societal impact.
He would be just as dead and it wouldn’t have made a blip beyond the local station.
He's also right about the case providing a window into an utterly segregated society - but what he fails to realise is that it is the constant emphasis placed on race by, amongst others, one Jim Wallis, which is exacerbating and deepening the divide.
Profiling is simply an exercise of inductive reasoning. It only becomes a problem when the induction is applied as deduction. In other words a trait that is exhibited disproportionately in a class is then thought to exist in every or most of that same class.
Cool. As an atheist I’m free to profile everybody!
Yes, but his contention is that the same set of circumstances would NOT have occured. He thinks that if George Zimmerman had seen Luke Wallis walking down the street he would have thought “white kid, no problem” and left him alone. Unfortunately, there’s no way of proving or disproving this thesis, so it appeals to those who are utterly convinced that racism is alive and well. Actually, they’re right. Racism IS alive and well. Its just not where they think it is.
There is no such thing. It would be pointless and idiotic to ‘profile’ race. Race is assumed one of the most directly observable characteristics of a human – and generally, there would be no reason to construct a profile to predict or classify race. While it is true that some misclassification is present in the everyday typing of race by visible characteristics – for the most part no one needs to use a scorecard or profile to make a pretty good guess at race.
A profile is a tool, a template, a scorecard, against which to compare individuals and assess the probability that they are involved in something you want to scrutinize and interdict (drug smuggling, terrorism, etc.). It is not a perfect predictor – just an efficient screening device. To be minimally efficient it needs to be only slightly better than random chance assignment.
Before 9/11/2001 there was a need to screen air travelers and border crossers for drug courier activity. Hence, there were ‘drug courier profiles’ – models that aimed to sort out the mass of air travelers or border crossers and rank them on the probability that they were drug couriers. These models were based on actual experience of persons stopped in airports or at border crossing stations. You build a model with multiple variables (origin-destination pair, elapsed trip time, time at destination, method of payment, country of origin, number of days in advance of flight payment is made, etc.) which, taken together, form a predictive score than can be used to segment high probability (…of being a drug courier) from low probability.
The entire purpose of profiling is to focus limited police, border patrol, DEA or FBI (and now DHS and TSA) resources on those who are most likely to be drug couriers (or terrorists, or illegal aliens, etc.)
The use of the term ‘racial profiling’ has been an attempt by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et. al. to make an issue out of something that does not exist. It is really a very silly thing to assert that such a thing exists or is a serious issue. To allow the continual trafficking of such a false label in the major media without challenge is shameless.
If police were arbitrarily stopping individuals simply because they are black – they are not using a profile. And if they are using a properly constructed profile – they may be stopping black people – but not because they are black. Rather it would be because other observable characteristics were highly correlated with criminal behavior.
In lieu of statistical or neural network derived models – judgmental models have to do. A rational development of a judgmental model is accomplished by taking the common characteristics of known terrorists/criminals and generalizing them as characteristics in a model or scorecard to screen people for likely terrorists/criminals.
The ignorant reflex against "profiling" is just that. When Jesse Jackson walks down the street he is profiling. When he makes a selection from a display of produce at the grocery store he is profiling. When he helps select a college for his child to attend, they are profiling alternative schools. Which is to say, profiling is discrimination. Not invidious racial discrimination, but simply the process of making choices between alternative sets of products, assumptions, travel paths, etc., etc., etc. People do this all the time and to dumb down and devalue language by using the term profiling for something it is not is just stupid.
Who the hell is Jim Wallis and who cares? If anything Jim, your dissent is sinful because it is full of LIES!
LOL quite so. The left believes in profiling just as much as anyone else. They just believe that people of certain races religions or cultures are off limits.
Last I heard he was quite ill.
I about had it with him for having the shameless indecency of calling Marvin Olasky a liar. Olasky reported that Sojourners got money from Soros, and as it turns out they in fact got more than $300,000 from Soros; so Wallis was the one who lied.
He also was one of the over-the-top Sarah Palin maulers, almost as bad as Andrew Sullivan. I just don't "get" that. Anybody can disagree politically, but this screeching, vein-popping level of malicious contempt?
I can't begin to wrap my head around that.
Ranting insults at your fellow countrymen, without any actual basis in reality for those insults, is a symptom of this neurotic personality, who might like to be accepted as a "Faith Leader," but is a living negation of any behavior inspired by traditional Faith.
William Flax
heh. Nobody ever showed that racial profiling occurred in the Martin case.
Profiling is more of a sin than assaulting someone, I guess.
Yep - see this 2004 thread: Jim Wallis vs the truth.
Well isn’t he special?
Absolutely repugnant. Has Wallis ever apologized?
At least the article doesn't call him a Christian. +1 for accuracy in reporting.
Race, he contended, was at the center of the incident from the start.
But since we can not convict Trayvon Martin for anything we only have one witness who was present at the shooting.
Although it is a case of self defense, was it necessary?
The case is closed, Trayvon Martin is dead, but could it have been handled different?
Why could,nt Zimmerman defend himself?
Was it because he had a hand in his pocket on the gun in which he did not really want to use and also did not think to let go of until the gun was the only defense left?
And what was he saying to get attacked in the first place?
We do not know that Trayvon Martin was up to anything except to exercise his freedom to walk where he pleased on a public road.
It is well established that Zimmerman was following him, any one would resent being followed even by the police.
I doubt if there is any one particular action that would have prevented this, but all any one has to do is to read of the police killings of people who did nothing for it to be justified.
So if there is any one thing, it would be police state mentality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.