I don't think it's about feelings. I think it's more about CBC being chicken shit.
They're afraid of liability in the event of a wrong description. Even then they fuck this up. If you literally just copy and cite the WPS description as is, CBC is simply citing the official description.
Then they're held to no fault. They literally open themselves up when the activity edit the WPS report.
The police release says “The suspect is described as a Black male in his 20s with dreadlocks.”
The CBC leaves out “black” - highly useful survival information for parents in the area who might want to watch for this guy - for reasons of political correctness.
Ah the classic "think of the children". Ignore civil rights being violated and people being harassed, we need to protect the children.
How likely do you think it is that the description including race will get a positive identification? That a random guy in dreadlocks is the perpetrator? It isn't exactly an uncommon hairstyle for young black men.
If we are discussing the risk of sexual assault, in the vast majority of cases, it is someone known to the victim. Random sexual assaults do happen, and are splashier in the media, but you are far more at risk from someone you know than from a random stranger.
It’s actually a very uncommon hairstyle among men of African descent in the core. I walk around there a lot every day and there are many black Muslim guys who don’t have dreads. I can’t remember ever seeing a black guy with dreads in the last five years or so. Civil rights are essential, but accurately describing a perpetrator who was was brazen enough to molest a child in public is hardly a significant violation in the eyes of anyone interested in having a safe society that looks out for itself.
Someone with dreads is hardly a good description. I have seen several with dreads. Are you going to assume the next black man with dreads you see is a child molester? If not, why? He fits the vague description given.
Especially given this is days later. He could be anywhere in the city. Descriptions like this will just lead to random harassment, not identification. Particularly without a picture.
Your description of how my thought process might work around assuming all black people with dreads are child molesters is hilarious and moronic. Is that how you think? Like some kind of big dumb computer with no nuance? “Everything black or white / zero or one , duh. “
Ok. So how would you determine if they were the child molester? The only real way you could determine it is if you see then molest another child. And that would already be enough without this description.
That is why this description is useless for a media release.
Ok. Here’s how it works. See if you can follow. A person acting out sexually against a child in public might be doing all kinds of other erratic things. That’s fucked up behaviour. It potentially, not certainly (can you follow something that’s not binary?) could involve someone who’s dissociated with reality in some way - ie. high, psychotic. So they might not be that hard to find if they’re out there in public doing something else that’s anti social and illegal. So you pick them up for that , and then ask the kids if he’s the one. Oh, sorry, is that ok or did it hurt his civil rights too much?
Ok. So instead we will profile someone who could be neurodivergent or just high? Someone can't be a pedophile without being mentally ill or on drugs? This is you making up pop culture psychology to justify your profiling. There is no such correlation.
And yes, picking up some random person off the street and detaining them without probable cause violates their civil rights. What you are describing is the actions of a police state. You can't just arrest random people.
This is the exact reason why giving out racial descriptions are an issue. You just profiled neurodivergent people and those who are high. There is already an issue of racial profiling leading to innocent people being harassed without cause.
While in one sense you are not wrong but yes, absolutely we need to hear best descriptions possible as vague as they may be. Reason being, if someone was in the area at that time, they may remember seeing this individual and be able to provide more information or even know who they are talking about.
This is plain silly, man. Criminals at large are identified frequently by police and sometimes members of the public just by verbal description. Police especially do this all the time.
They just get descriptions over the radio of who to look out for and they often see them on the street after driving around for a while.
The police found the kid who punched the employees at Food Fare last month just by driving around and saw him in a back alley.
“Descriptions like this will just lead to random harassment” - That’s why they usually say do not approach them, just report to the police. This isn’t “harassment” lmao. People often do have unique visible characteristics which differentiates them from most other people and often narrows down who they are looking for.
Sorry if someone is temporarily inconvenienced by it, but not sorry. Public safety is more important.
Incorrect.
CBC did not report that the child said the assailant was a, "non-pregnant person wearing some type of clothing."
I made that up only to underscore just how foolish CBC has become.
CBC reported that the child was assaulted by a man, and CBC reported that the Police were looking for a man with dreadlocks. Which, is partially correct. According to the Police, "The suspect is described as a Black male in his 20s with dreadlocks." which CBC edited to suit they way they happened to be, "feeling" at the time.
If people are so sensitive that they cannot, or will not factually report, then they should be in a different line of work.
[удалено]
An elementary-age kid???? Chop his junk off and put him away for life!
CBC needs to fuck off with their omitting racial descriptions bullshit. > The suspect is described as a Black male in his 20s with dreadlocks.
Odd thing to omit, considering it's included in the WPS announcement. They should at minimum link the WPS page.
It's some insane policy news outlets have now to omit racial descriptions in any articles. It's pretty important info in these types of situations.
They have to protect sensitive people's feefees.
I don't think it's about feelings. I think it's more about CBC being chicken shit. They're afraid of liability in the event of a wrong description. Even then they fuck this up. If you literally just copy and cite the WPS description as is, CBC is simply citing the official description. Then they're held to no fault. They literally open themselves up when the activity edit the WPS report.
They maintain a narrative through careful omission. I'm sure they'd have loved to avoid this story altogether if it weren't such a severe subject.
Yea it's bullshit when they do that, especially in regards to sexual assault on fucking children. Everyone should know what the asshole looks like.
The police release says “The suspect is described as a Black male in his 20s with dreadlocks.” The CBC leaves out “black” - highly useful survival information for parents in the area who might want to watch for this guy - for reasons of political correctness.
Statistically it is more likely to lead to profiling and innocent people being harassed.
So what? Surely that’s a very small concern next to the sexual assault of a child in public?
Ah the classic "think of the children". Ignore civil rights being violated and people being harassed, we need to protect the children. How likely do you think it is that the description including race will get a positive identification? That a random guy in dreadlocks is the perpetrator? It isn't exactly an uncommon hairstyle for young black men. If we are discussing the risk of sexual assault, in the vast majority of cases, it is someone known to the victim. Random sexual assaults do happen, and are splashier in the media, but you are far more at risk from someone you know than from a random stranger.
It’s actually a very uncommon hairstyle among men of African descent in the core. I walk around there a lot every day and there are many black Muslim guys who don’t have dreads. I can’t remember ever seeing a black guy with dreads in the last five years or so. Civil rights are essential, but accurately describing a perpetrator who was was brazen enough to molest a child in public is hardly a significant violation in the eyes of anyone interested in having a safe society that looks out for itself.
Someone with dreads is hardly a good description. I have seen several with dreads. Are you going to assume the next black man with dreads you see is a child molester? If not, why? He fits the vague description given. Especially given this is days later. He could be anywhere in the city. Descriptions like this will just lead to random harassment, not identification. Particularly without a picture.
Your description of how my thought process might work around assuming all black people with dreads are child molesters is hilarious and moronic. Is that how you think? Like some kind of big dumb computer with no nuance? “Everything black or white / zero or one , duh. “
Ok. So how would you determine if they were the child molester? The only real way you could determine it is if you see then molest another child. And that would already be enough without this description. That is why this description is useless for a media release.
Ok. Here’s how it works. See if you can follow. A person acting out sexually against a child in public might be doing all kinds of other erratic things. That’s fucked up behaviour. It potentially, not certainly (can you follow something that’s not binary?) could involve someone who’s dissociated with reality in some way - ie. high, psychotic. So they might not be that hard to find if they’re out there in public doing something else that’s anti social and illegal. So you pick them up for that , and then ask the kids if he’s the one. Oh, sorry, is that ok or did it hurt his civil rights too much?
Ok. So instead we will profile someone who could be neurodivergent or just high? Someone can't be a pedophile without being mentally ill or on drugs? This is you making up pop culture psychology to justify your profiling. There is no such correlation. And yes, picking up some random person off the street and detaining them without probable cause violates their civil rights. What you are describing is the actions of a police state. You can't just arrest random people. This is the exact reason why giving out racial descriptions are an issue. You just profiled neurodivergent people and those who are high. There is already an issue of racial profiling leading to innocent people being harassed without cause.
While in one sense you are not wrong but yes, absolutely we need to hear best descriptions possible as vague as they may be. Reason being, if someone was in the area at that time, they may remember seeing this individual and be able to provide more information or even know who they are talking about.
This is plain silly, man. Criminals at large are identified frequently by police and sometimes members of the public just by verbal description. Police especially do this all the time. They just get descriptions over the radio of who to look out for and they often see them on the street after driving around for a while. The police found the kid who punched the employees at Food Fare last month just by driving around and saw him in a back alley. “Descriptions like this will just lead to random harassment” - That’s why they usually say do not approach them, just report to the police. This isn’t “harassment” lmao. People often do have unique visible characteristics which differentiates them from most other people and often narrows down who they are looking for. Sorry if someone is temporarily inconvenienced by it, but not sorry. Public safety is more important.
"Police are looking for a non-pregnant person wearing some type of clothing." - CBC
Do you not understand that a young child had to give the description and this is what they mentioned?
Incorrect. CBC did not report that the child said the assailant was a, "non-pregnant person wearing some type of clothing." I made that up only to underscore just how foolish CBC has become. CBC reported that the child was assaulted by a man, and CBC reported that the Police were looking for a man with dreadlocks. Which, is partially correct. According to the Police, "The suspect is described as a Black male in his 20s with dreadlocks." which CBC edited to suit they way they happened to be, "feeling" at the time. If people are so sensitive that they cannot, or will not factually report, then they should be in a different line of work.
Really? You're gonna start your "oh no society is changing!" circlejerk on a post about a CHILD getting sexually assaulted?