@ucbalumnus , of course prejudice is a huge issue in these “say something, see something” initiatives. Race (or perceived race), gender, disability (especially psychiatric disability), and religion, and combinations thereof are massive, disproportionate targets of these initiatives. Because they encourage largely “gut-based” reporting, they also play heavily to people’s prejudices. Otoh, people do the same things when they 20/20 hindsight profile the perpetrators of major crimes–“of course someone should have noticed–they were Muslim immigrants”; “of course someone should have noticed–he had autism”; “of course someone should have noticed–he was a socially awkward guy who couldn’t get a girlfriend.” every profile of a famous perpatrator is also the profile of thousands and thousands of innocent people who will never commit a crime. But we don’t notice the thousands and millions of people who live their lives without hurting others and so we have unearned confidence in our ability to accurately see those who will. For example, a vast, vast majority of people with mental illnesses will never engage in violence–and indeed aren’t more likely to–but we often talk about restricting the rights of those with mental illness because of a small minority of mentally ill people who do commit horrible, violent acts. Same thing with Muslims, black men, Japanese-Americans during WWII, etc.