A neighbor of the Jihadist killers in San Bernardino noticed that something suspicious was going on next door, but said nothing about it out of fear of being labelled a "racist." Here's the story:
Neighbors of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook told ABC Wednesday that they noticed "suspicious activity" at Farook's home recently, but did not report it for fear of being called racist....Aaron Elswick -- a neighbor of Farook's mother in Redland -- said that another neighbor told him "they had I guess been receiving packages -- quite a few packages within a short amount of time, and they were actually doing a lot of work out in the garage."
"She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it," Elswick explained, "but she said she didn't want to profile."
When the authorities finally searched the house, too late for the 14 murder victims, they found an arsenal of automatic weapons and what amounted to a bomb factory.
Unfortunately, it turns out that Mr. Elswick has more to fear than merely being branded a racist. As noted, he might realistically have feared an investigation by Attorney General Lynch.
President Obama says he abhors "gun violence." Having helped mold a culture in which people are cowed from reporting the possibility that Middle Eastern neighbors could be stockpiling AK-47's, my guess is that his abhoring has just begun. But don't count on his asking Ms. Lynch to change her watch-your-mouth priorities.
P.S. Liberals would often tell us that, if we start to curtail our freedoms out of fear, the terrorists will have won. This turns out to be true, just not in the way they wanted us to believe.
Setting aside the comments about political correctness, what is actually suspicious about the described behavior? Receiving packages and working in the garage? That certainly isn't PC for a warrant, and I can't image what law enforcement agency would find the information actionable, even in combination with what was known about the background of these folks.
This illustrates a larger point about profiling: even if it succeeds in some tiny percentage of cases in preventing crime or terrorism, it also produces vast numbers of false positives that waste law enforcement resources and divide communities. Consider, for example, how many hundreds of thousands of American families could be described as "kind of suspicious" if the bar is so low that receiving packages, around this time of year, satisfies the criteria for suspicion.
It would be nice to go on the wayback machine to look at DoJ's "see no evil" approach with respect to the NBPP's threats and racial slurs against voters with its new "anyone says anything bad about Muslims we're going to investigate" approach.
Too bad our lamestream media won't provide readers with the "compare and contrast."
I will give a direct response to your concerns, but first I would like a direct response to this:
Fearing being labeled a racist, a neighbor who correctly suspected that something amiss was going on in that house decided to say nothing.
How did that work out?
I think that the first commenter has a point. The problem, of course, is that sometimes "profiling" is effective. For example, young white kids on Austin and Lake in Chicago at 2 am--easily could be heroin buyers. in this particular case--my guess is that this might have been prevented. It seems also that the DHS vetting of the woman wasn't as good as it should be.
Bill, I think that those of us on the law and order side need to concede that there have been abuses (e.g., cash seizures on Texas roads where it appears Hispanics were profiled). The liberals, of course, need to admit that some of their claims about racial profiling (e.g., NJ speeders) were incredibly overhyped and wrong. Of course, it will be a cold day in hell.
federalist --
I am not, for the moment, going to analyze the first commenter's discussion, but I will (as promised) if he gives a straightforward response to the question I asked him.
More generally, let me say this. You're on the money in saying that those of us on the conservative side need to be intellectually honest above and beyond what we see from the Left. Candor is a virtue unto itself, and, beyond that, it is needed to win over people in the middle who are willing to take a fair look at both sides.
What candor means is, among other things, a willingness acknowledge the weaker points in one's own arguments, and to admit the costs of what you propose as well as tout its benefits.
(The utter absence of balance is one thing that impeaches, for example, the sentencing reform advocates. They relentlessly tout the costs of incarceration while they either dismiss, filibuster, or simply lie about its benefits).
So I see what you're saying. The problem, as I have found out from years of Internet debating (you have found it out as well) is that if you allow the opposition to change the course of the conversation to ONLY what it wants to talk about, you'll never get an answer to what YOU want to talk about.
I know for a fact that you have had this done to you time and again. On SL&P, for example, you will set forth a legal discussion, typically with considerable precedent and case citations, and the other side then -- disappears! They just head off into the silence of cyberspace. Unable or unwilling to debate you, they just hide.
What this means is that I have to practice the discipline I preach to others. I have to be honest by being willing to debate fairly and face questions, while reserving my prerogative equally to ask that my questions be answered. This is one reason I prefer (and I undertake) live debates at law schools and in Congressional briefings. No one gets to hide. If you can't answer, everyone will see it.
One of the reasons it's a pleasure to contribute to this blog is that Kent, Mike Rushford and Steve Erickson are honest in a way one seldom sees in blogging. It's a standard that deserves to be followed, while trying to do what I can to encourage the other side to answer questions rather than hide and/or evade.
Our first commenter has the markings of a sensible person, that's true. But the discussion is going to include, not just the costs of giving intuition-based tips to the police (a lot of false positives and wasted time, among other things), but the costs of NOT giving them.
Sorry for the long answer, but your comment triggered some things I've been meaning to say for a while.
"I know for a fact that you have had this done to you time and again. On SL&P, for example, you will set forth a legal discussion, typically with considerable precedent and case citations, and the other side then -- disappears! They just head off into the silence of cyberspace. Unable or unwilling to debate you, they just hide."
Or, like Professor Berman, endlessly pivot.
I tend to call them out. But you're right--they won't debate, and they preen and posture.
>How did that work out?
It was a disaster, no question. But your post seems to assume that reporting the packages would have made a difference. As I said above, I can't imagine what law enforcement agency would have taken that report seriously, since the information suggests nothing about criminality.
It's easy to say in retrospect that such and such a thing was a "warning sign" even if those "warning signs" actually have no value in predicting future incidents. To the extent that your post suggests that it could be valuable to report all kinds of minor actions carried out by individuals even if those reports might be perceived as offensive, I disagree. Offensiveness, to me, seems beside the point. Such reports are simply not useful if their content is nothing more than profiling divorced from a particularized reason for suspicion.
Thank you for your direct answer.
This is what I think should have happened:
First, no one should feel intimidated from talking with the police, or talking at all, by the fear of being labeled a bigot. If the person is in fact a bigot, he can and should be called out for it. If he's not, what we're giving in to is a culture of fearful silence based on someone else's presumed (or, sometimes, real) sensitivities. That might be acceptable for six year-old's. It is not acceptable for adults who want to live in freedom.
Second, you are correct that tips like the one the neighbor decided not to give will, far more often than not, lead nowhere. But that is not in my view the end of the inquiry.
In the neighbor's position, I would have gone up to a cop in my local McDonald's or Denny's (or what have you) and said, "I don't know if this is worth your time, but the guy next door and his wife have been out in their garage receiving a bunch of large packages, more so than seems right to me, even at Christmastime. They appear to be Middle Eastern. I can't put my finger on anything specific, but it doesn't feel right to me. Now I might be freaking out, but what with this business in Paris, I felt like I should say something and let you decide if it's worth having a look."
At that point the cop might have a number of responses. He could say, "Well, there are a lot of Middle Eastern people around here, and it's not illegal to get packages." He might have said, "Thanks for your time, I'll ask my sergeant what he thinks." He might have said, "Just keep an eye on it, but right now it doesn't seem like there's enough to warrant my going out there." Or he might have said, "OK, maybe I'll knock on their door just to tell them they have a concerned neighbor and ask if everything is OK."
I was never a policeman, so I don't have a feel for which of those is most likely. It probably varies with the time of day, the officer's workload, what mood he's in, his general disposition, how he sizes you up (as a kook or a serious person), and a whole bunch more.
In the event he were to decide to go to the house, any number of things might have happened. Maybe no one would be at home. Maybe someone answers and says, thanks for coming by, we're fine. Maybe when the door gets opened, he sees a machine gun next to a six month-old. Maybe the person who opens the door has a pistol, figures the jig is up, and blows his head off.
I have no way of knowing.
So, yes, the huge majority of the time, a tip like this will come to nothing. But no one should be silent out of fear of PC stereotyping. Finally, in my view, a lay citizen should leave it to a cop to decide what if anything happens next.