Replies

A really, really, really strange headline (but it's Newsmax, so to be expected.)

There's been no OFFICIAL profile, I believe, that's been made public.

Most profiles are for white males because almost all violent crime is committed by males, and there are a lot more whites in the country than anything else. Plain and simple. Gives you maximum odds of being right.

And we don't know who the perpetrator is, so one really can't say that profiling has "misfired."

. . . racial profiling is OK when it comes to trying to find the D.C.-area sniper

I don't think anyone is talking about racial profiling but rather it's sniper profiling, which has nothing to do with race.

Murdering strangers at random is as American as, well, french fries, Lowenbrau beer and the kind of 'Polska Kielbasa' you can buy at your local supermarket. In fact, you might say it's an American invention and a long tradition. I recall Peter Bogdanovich's first and arguably best film Targets, made in the late 1960s, which had a cameo by Boris Karloff, and concerned an alienated phone company worker (no info on his religious preferences,) who climbed a water tower and started shooting at cars passing by on a nearby freeway. There have been several similar cases in those days.

Consequently, aside from the media's obvious political preferences, the profiles being issued from zero evidence generally fit the profiles of the past culprits and sound, in this one case, more reasonable than the paranoid, myopic speculations about some mysterious, dark, mythical Muzzle slims. They haven't done it before, but we have!

They will never get the killer by profiling people. We all know the gun did it. They need to be profiling the gun. I suggest the Charles Shumer, Sarah Brady, et al, immediately demand a gun profiling taskforce.