[Sale off] THE SCARIEST THING IN THE WORLD IS A QUITE SMILING REDHEAD FACE MASK

In some aspects, it is considered a violation of human rights; therefore, acts then started to develop (12). For example, the United States introduced the Subsequent End of Racial Profiling Acts to Congress in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2009, but they Racial profiling, by definition, is recognized as the use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense. The scariest thing in the world is a quiet smiling redhead The controversy of racial profiling is prominent all over the United States, as well as the rest of the world. Being as controversial as it is, the issue of racial profiling was discussed by two different authors, each addressing their own conflicting viewpoints. James A. Kowalski and J. Angelo Corlett each wrote an article presenting their opinions on the issue, using very different yet somewhat similar writing techniques. Kowalski, a dean of the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine in NYC, wrote the article, “Racial Profiling is Morally Wrong and Based on False Assumptions.” He holds the strong belief that racial profiling is morally wrong, and should not occur in society. On the contrary, J. Angelo Corlett wrote the article, “Racial Profiling is Morally Justifiable in Certain Circumstances.”

Click to get it on Dnstyles

or Ethershirt

and Justablink

The scariest thing in the world is a quiet smiling redhead face mask

 Corlett, a professor of philosophy at San Diego State University, a strong believer in racial profiling, argues that the act of racial profiling can be beneficial at times. While both articles were persuasive and informative, there were prominent differences, as well as similarities in the writing styles. There were multiple similarities through the use of rhetorical strategies and patterns such anecdotes and classification and division.  The scariest thing in the world is a quiet smiling redhead  Key differences in the two opposing articles, however, is the authors’ use of exemplification and Racial profiling has been one of the most controversial and prevalent topics in today's society. This form of harassment is demonstrated when certain ethnicities are being targeted by the law enforcements. An example of this can be expressed when police are targeting people with colored skin because they suspect them having some type of illegal substance, or suspect them of crime, which they have not committed. Racial profiling needs to stop before it gets out of hand, or cause violence. Law enforcements are mistreating blacks and Latinos by racial profiling. In the article “Jim Crow Policing,” by Bob Herbert, demonstrates many statistics on how many blacks, and latinos were stopped by the police. The article “Racial profiling has destroyed public trust in police.

How to get it?

 Cops are exploiting our weak laws against it,” by Ranjana Natarajan, explains where law enforcements are using excessive force on a black male, named Eric Garner. In “Racial Profiling in Preschool,” by Editorial Board, expresses how black adolescents are given harsher punishments than others. Based on the analysis of strong textual evidence and the conducted research, it is clear that racial profiling is an unnecessary policing strategy because there are many possibilities such as unjustified deaths, the isolation of individuals, and irrational accusations.  The scariest thing in the world is a quiet smiling redhead  An indication that disproves the claims that racial profiling is an essential policing tactic centers on the idea that it can lead to unreasonable accusations. In the article, Jim Crow Policing, Herbert states “Several plaintiffs detailed how their ordinary daily lives were interrupted by cops bent on harassment for no good reason” (Herbert 11). This shows that police are making things up to get citizens in trouble. Police say they stop people for wearing “inappropriate attire for the season”, which is unacceptable, since the first amendment depicts the idea that you have the right to free expression, that means that the government can not forbid us from believing what we want, or what we want to wear. Sometimes police are not wrong about suspicious attires, for example wearing a bomber jacket to the airport on a warm day. In these cases, the statistics shows that the police suspension on people.

Homepage: Dnstyles