That picture was all wrong. You need a forty of Old E...
This is a discussion on Tattoos, Percings and Other Profiling Techniques within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Ram Rod, That picture was all wrong. You need a forty of Old E......
That picture was all wrong. You need a forty of Old E...
Your choice how you look. My choice how I react. All other things being equal, your appearance could flip the scene from yellow to red in my mind. It would be an extreme situation, but what do you expect? That someone anti social (given the grooming) and aggressive (given the t-shirt) should get a pass? Try to look at it from someone else's point of view, instead of defending your costume.Nothing personal, but you should be looking more at how a person acts and talks rather than looks. It is what is inside the head that makes the person, not the appearance.
Appearances, yep, they'll fool you.
I look like an older, overweight (working on it) version of RamRod. No tattoos or piercings. Couldn't see how long his hair is, mine is at the middle of my back, almost always tied. Full beard. I ride a customized Sportster on occasion, otherwise I'll be driving a black Lincoln (car doesn't fit the look, get odd reactions from border guards at US/Canada borders).
My appearance will likely fool the amateur profilers, but they don't worry me, they're usually wannabes (occasionally clueless LEO's but that's rare in my experience).
Sixto and Hopyard hit on the real things to watch in their earlier posts. Attitude. The eyes. Body language. Those are the real tells (though as Hopyard says, the real dangerous ones are those that know how to fool you).
I've known bikers and tattooed/pierced construction workers of all types. Some were real bad news. Some were the nicest most helpful SOB's you'll ever meet.
Me? Not perfect. Clean enough history to get the pass to work in nuclear power facilities on several separate occasions, and to get a security clearance to have worked construction for the State Dept. on classified areas of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. I guess the government thinks I'm trustworthy enough.
ETA: BTW, in many ways, I'm more conservative than most. Can't tell that by looking at me either.
Regards, T Bone.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". Benjamin Franklin
Yeah----pimpin' aint easy. ;) The shades stay.
Ram Rod, 'fess up. You use this stuff, right?
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.
No way. I pull them out one by one. At least you all have a face to go with the user now. Next time you give me the "eyeball", say something so I'll know it's you.
Ram Rod....his sunglasses are hiding the teardrop tattoo at the corner of his eye.
He deserves extra close scrutiny.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
Some folks know only what they know and have been around, and have little to work on otherwise when out of their own zone or element.
Ones base of experience might work for one 'type' of person in a given area but may and likely will nto elsewhere.
For example I see now days people everywhere with tattoos including today a guy at my local Barnes & Noble with 'sleeves' (both arms covered in tats up to the wrist) and the gal working the childrens area had three including the ankle, neck, and one just above her tailbone. All were highly visible. It used to be that only criminals and military and 'freaks' had tats. Now days everyone and their grandma has one or five. As well placement no longer means much such as on the neck, face, chest/breast, or hands/fingers. These used to be strictly for criminals and associated persons. Not any more.
Same goes for many other profiling methods from clothing to address of residence to profession to you name it and of course ethnicity too.
I've found that with assessment things matter most as based on a single persons actions as relative to a given situational atmosphere. Something happened today in fact that I plan to post about which reinforces this, and the guy he had no tats.
Profiling works IMHO because people apply it and don't keep track of how many times they were wrong, against the one time they were right. 20 or 200 false positives are worth less than one Ah hah...see I told ya! moment.
Apply those same odds to gambling or say ones own health care conditioning and then the math becomes crystal clear as being long odds at best.
I'm 37, have no tats of any sort, have never been in the system (which in itself was an amazing feat and against the odds), have "impeccable" credit per statement to me by my long time banker last week toward my looking into a high six figure personal line of credit, I love to wear suits and will at any given even remote chance to do so, and on any given day I can be dressed down or up as applicable to my expected surroundings be it town, country, city, or wherever.
Also when to my own immediate benefit it is prudent to do so I'll also modify and 'street' my speech pattern and intonation as well. As much is just another form of camouflage to which I and many others purposefully play into and against profiling for means of personal gain and benefit as well as survival.
IMHO profiling is a shell game for suckers.
Tattoos have become mainstream. Lots of regular folks have them now.
I've got three myself. The latest is "Molon Labe" across my upper back. (I had considered getting a Spartan warrior underneath that as a full back piece, but as much as just the lettering hurt, I'm not so sure about that any more....)
I am, however, a firm believer in the idea that tats should be able to be covered by normal work attire. If I want to show mine off, I wear a tank top.
I also wear a goatee, and shave my head in the summer. And, yes, in my avatar pic, I was using that Just For Men hair dye. Thinking about doing it again, too -- it's about 3/4 gray.
Don't think of the screening as an attempt to catch contraband. Think of it instead as an attempt to send a message to the terrorists. And the message is, "No matter who you recruit, there's a good chance we'll catch them before they can do any harm anyway. Better not try." So the apparently-stupid lack of profiling is actually an attempt to stop terrorism, but not at the individual level. It's just sending a message. (Lots of folks online like to decry this as "security theater," thinking its purpose is to soothe & lull the public into thinking they're protected; while it does do that, the intended audience is probably not the public, but the terrorists.)Now the real question is: Why aren't we allowed to profile terrorists at the airports? Of all the suicide bombers, hijackers, etc. none of them were little old ladies. But the last time I went through the airport, I saw a couple of little old ladies and elderly men have to go through the "extra screening", while a bunch of young middle easterner men were allowed to walk right through. That doesn't make sense to me.
A doctor friend of mine opines that 80% of his patients under the age of 30 have tats, "mostly where you can't see them..."Tattoos have become mainstream. Lots of regular folks have them now.
Wouldn't know, myself... I did see some amazing ink this weekend, people-watching in the city. Some of it was awesomely good (a full-colored parrot on a guy's shoulder caught my eye...) and some of it was amazingly bad (look, kid, just because you can get a drunk buddy with a needle to make a mess of your skin doesn't mean you should). And not to be judgemental or anything, but I do kind of think that it doesn't matter how rebellious you're feeling that weekend, or what your sexual orientation might be; if you're female and get a giant, tri-colored tatoo of a nude woman performing lascivious acts on your lower leg, someday you're likely to regret it ... *shudder*
My website: Cornered Cat