Profiling for security

Why is it that when the FBI profiles serial murderers and rapists nobody
seems to care, but when we do the same in the airports for security ....
everyone is up in arms?

In article <16275-450DA0AD-637@storefull-3273.bay.>,
slv66@ (:\) Happy) wrote:

> Why is it that when the FBI profiles serial murderers and rapists nobody
> seems to care, but when we do the same in the airports for security ....
> everyone is up in arms?

The premise of your statement is wrong. No one cares if the FBI profiles
serial murderers and rapists at airports.

:) Happy wrote:
> Why is it that when the FBI profiles serial murderers and rapists nobody
> seems to care, but when we do the same in the airports for security ....
> everyone is up in arms?

Whatever are you talking about? The FBI profiles specific cases.
No one cares if the profile specific incidents of terrorism. And no
one
cares if the work up "typical" profiles in advance. The problem comes
when they choose to act on those profiles. We would care if
based upon their profiles of murderers, all folks with pets that
died were subject to extra scrutiny at basketball games.

I've had pets die, and have never had problems getting into basketball
games. Makes me wonder how your pets died........ You have something you
want to get off your chest?

:) Happy wrote:
> I've had pets die, and have never had problems getting into basketball
> games. Makes me wonder how your pets died........ You have something you
> want to get off your chest?

I would, but since your reading comprehension is obviously flawed,
not to mention a total lack of any useful posting skills, it would
almost
assuredly be a wasted exercise. God knows I don't need the practice.
Here's a thought for you to munch on. Jeffery Dahlmer had a poor
relationship with pets. Basketball games have been experiencing
elevated
levels of security as of late. The subject was profiling based upon
unrelated behaviors. Now think..........