GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,118
The forest is right in front of you ... If only someone didn't plant all those trees you would see it. You keep making this about a single incident when it is so much bigger than that.
Feds: Ferguson PD Targets African Americans
- Thread starter BGIF
- Start date
The forest is right in front of you ... If only someone didn't plant all those trees you would see it. You keep making this about a single incident when it is so much bigger than that.
Redbar
Well-known member
- Messages
- 3,531
- Reaction score
- 806
But this incident validates the point of view that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the only real racist and that black people and reverse racism??? are the real problem and the real power when it comes to questions of race in America nowadays. So.....bang that gong.
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
The forest is made up of individual trees. If the individual trees are an illusion, so then is the forest.
GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,118
Oh, so there is no racism because the story that was told after the shooting in Ferguson was false? Got it.
The trees are there you just want to talk about each of them individually instead of acknowledging that there is a word for the phenomenon of many trees that grow in close proximity. Further you seem to give special consideration to your favored white oaks and show only disinterest in the black oaks . You refuse to see that they are all part of the same forest. And in our little extended metaphor of racial bias it is clear that there are more instances of black oaks than whites but in your selective way you can choose to ignore that fact. You want to act as if those who see things differently than you are somehow attacking you personally as an advocate of the majestic white oak. Nobody is arguing that the narrative about hands up don't shoot was a false one but you seem stuck on that argument ... Choosing blame over progress. If you allow yourself to take a step back you will see as the DOJ report did a panaramic view revealing that there are many many more black oaks in this awful forest. But you just stand in the shaded woods and never allow the sun to touch your face. It is sad and desperate to choose dark indignation over enlightenment and reality. This is why progress is so elusive.
Last edited:
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
No. The false story merely indicates that there is not some nationwide trend of white police officers murdering young black kids simply because of the color of their skin. I have never denied that prejudice exists. What I have said is that I don't believe that there is a nationwide Law Enforcement effort to kill black kids. But it *is* my belief that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson purposely portray these incidents as just that, in an effort to raise funds for themselves, so that they don't have to work real jobs in order to live in relative luxury.
I'm not sure if you have a degree in Psychology, but if you do? I suggest you pursue getting a refund, because it appears that it was money wasted.
Single incidents have been used by both police and the populace to justify their position on what really amounts to profiling.
Does anyone seriously doubt that the police in many areas are more suspicious of blacks than of whites? Likewise, does anyone really believe that middle-aged whites get stopped late at night as frequently as teenagers?
Let's face it. The police have a profile that includes blacks. It also includes Hispanics, Native Americans, people of Middle Eastern descent, and teenagers of all races.
How often do the police make a stop when no crime has been committed? More frequently than we would like to admit. Based on their profiles they are hoping to catch someone driving under the influence, in possession of drugs, etc. If the stopped party is polite and cooperative they are usually allowed to leave after being given some phony reason for the initial stop. If they resist, a physical confrontation or arrest can result.
In Ferguson, it appears the officer involved had information involving theft at a local carry-out. Reports seem to indicate that he was justified in making a stop. The results were tragic. It is not the best case to argue that many police officers are racist.
But can anyone blame blacks (especially young black males) for being suspicious of the officer's motives. Racial profiling does exist, and many of those young black males have been the victim of racial profiling.
The problem is really one of making unjustified stops based upon race and/or age. If there has been no crime, do the police really have adequate justification for questioning someone based solely upon that person's race and/or age.
Let me provide three examples of unwarranted stops from my own local community as anecdotal evidence. In all three incidents, no crime had been reported.
1. Local black woman was stopped while driving home from work following her 8-hour work shift at the local YMCA. The police had no reason to stop her. She was not speeding. She was not driving erratically. She had not been drinking. No local crimes had been committed by black women. Hundreds of white women do the same thing daily and are not stopped.
2. My 21-year old son was stopped drving home from the local carry-out at 11:30 p.m. He had borrowed my car to go pick up a bottle of Pepsi. He had not been drinking. He was not driving erratically. After the local police checked to make sure he hadn't been drinking and had no drugs, they made up some excuse about the light that illuminates the rear license plate being out. Had I driven to the carry-out that night to pick up the Pepsi, I seriously doubt I would have been stopped with such a lame excuse.
3. My ex-wife lives about two blocks from the local McDonald's. My son's bi-racial friend frequently hung out with my son before going to work his shift at McDonald's. On this particular afternoon, my son's friend was late for work and was running the two blocks to McDonald's wearing his McDonald's uniform. He was stopped by the local police and questioned about where he had been and where he was going. Would a white teenager wearing a McDonald's uniform have been stopped running towards the nearest McDonald's and questioned about his where-abouts.
This sort of racial profiling exists and occurs on a regular basis. When it stops, you will see an end to opportunists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. While it is allowed to continue, the profiled groups will remain suspicious of the police.
Does anyone seriously doubt that the police in many areas are more suspicious of blacks than of whites? Likewise, does anyone really believe that middle-aged whites get stopped late at night as frequently as teenagers?
Let's face it. The police have a profile that includes blacks. It also includes Hispanics, Native Americans, people of Middle Eastern descent, and teenagers of all races.
How often do the police make a stop when no crime has been committed? More frequently than we would like to admit. Based on their profiles they are hoping to catch someone driving under the influence, in possession of drugs, etc. If the stopped party is polite and cooperative they are usually allowed to leave after being given some phony reason for the initial stop. If they resist, a physical confrontation or arrest can result.
In Ferguson, it appears the officer involved had information involving theft at a local carry-out. Reports seem to indicate that he was justified in making a stop. The results were tragic. It is not the best case to argue that many police officers are racist.
But can anyone blame blacks (especially young black males) for being suspicious of the officer's motives. Racial profiling does exist, and many of those young black males have been the victim of racial profiling.
The problem is really one of making unjustified stops based upon race and/or age. If there has been no crime, do the police really have adequate justification for questioning someone based solely upon that person's race and/or age.
Let me provide three examples of unwarranted stops from my own local community as anecdotal evidence. In all three incidents, no crime had been reported.
1. Local black woman was stopped while driving home from work following her 8-hour work shift at the local YMCA. The police had no reason to stop her. She was not speeding. She was not driving erratically. She had not been drinking. No local crimes had been committed by black women. Hundreds of white women do the same thing daily and are not stopped.
2. My 21-year old son was stopped drving home from the local carry-out at 11:30 p.m. He had borrowed my car to go pick up a bottle of Pepsi. He had not been drinking. He was not driving erratically. After the local police checked to make sure he hadn't been drinking and had no drugs, they made up some excuse about the light that illuminates the rear license plate being out. Had I driven to the carry-out that night to pick up the Pepsi, I seriously doubt I would have been stopped with such a lame excuse.
3. My ex-wife lives about two blocks from the local McDonald's. My son's bi-racial friend frequently hung out with my son before going to work his shift at McDonald's. On this particular afternoon, my son's friend was late for work and was running the two blocks to McDonald's wearing his McDonald's uniform. He was stopped by the local police and questioned about where he had been and where he was going. Would a white teenager wearing a McDonald's uniform have been stopped running towards the nearest McDonald's and questioned about his where-abouts.
This sort of racial profiling exists and occurs on a regular basis. When it stops, you will see an end to opportunists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. While it is allowed to continue, the profiled groups will remain suspicious of the police.
GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,118
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2025!
- Messages
- 31,509
- Reaction score
- 17,368
That video is pretty damning, but you also have to wonder why the guy ran the stop sign with a cop car behind him if something wasn't up. The officers definitely look to be out of line here, approaching the car with weapon drawn and then the subsequent beating. I could understand if they ran the plates and the guy had some prior history, but it sounds like he had a clean record for his 57 years. It would be nice to see the whole video, but it certainly looks like he didn't need to be hit. If I had to guess the coke may not have been planted there based on the fact he ran the stop sign right in front of a cop, but because of the cop's actions the charge will probably be dropped.
GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,118
I'd think if I had coke in my car, I'd be following every traffic law on the books. Who knows, but they certainly didn't know if he had coke in his car when they punched him in the head 16 times and kicked him while he was down. In the news report it was stated that the cops said the suspect said he would kill them as they approached his car. That does not look plausible either.
Last edited:
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2025!
- Messages
- 31,509
- Reaction score
- 17,368
Yeah, who knows, in any case based on the video that's available I would have to side with the driver on all counts and nuke the officers. It would be nice to see the whole video though, but regardless it definitely looks like excessive force was used.
Attorney: Inkster cops lied about cocaine after beat down
By Robert Allen, Detroit Free Press 1:41 p.m. EDT April 2, 2015
By Robert Allen, Detroit Free Press 1:41 p.m. EDT April 2, 2015
VIDEO: Conyers wants federal probe of the Floyd Dent arrest - News - AM 590 - WKZO Everything Kalamazoo
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ngeVgB9y_3A?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
According to the reporter in the video a District Judge after watching the video threw out the resisting arrest charges. The drug charge is still pending.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ngeVgB9y_3A?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
According to the reporter in the video a District Judge after watching the video threw out the resisting arrest charges. The drug charge is still pending.
Voices of Ferguson: Residents speak ahead of key vote - CNN.com
By Moni Basu, CNN
Updated 10:18 AM ET, Tue April 7, 2015
Video interviews at the link.
By Moni Basu, CNN
Updated 10:18 AM ET, Tue April 7, 2015
Video interviews at the link.
greyhammer90
the drunk piano player
- Messages
- 16,819
- Reaction score
- 16,078
There's a NEW THREAD on the South Carolina Shooting ,,,
There's a NEW THREAD on the South Carolina Shooting ,,,
http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/leprechaun-lounge/259480-south-carolina-cop-charged-murder.html
There's a NEW THREAD on the South Carolina Shooting ,,,
http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/leprechaun-lounge/259480-south-carolina-cop-charged-murder.html
Ferguson makes history with city council vote - CNN.com
By Moni Basu, CNN
Updated 3:57 AM ET, Wed April 8, 2015
By Moni Basu, CNN
Updated 3:57 AM ET, Wed April 8, 2015
Ferguson voters make history and increase turnout
Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY 3:26 a.m. EDT April 8, 2015
Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY 3:26 a.m. EDT April 8, 2015
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
A silver lining?
(Even though the cost seems too high.)
(Even though the cost seems too high.)
ulukinatme
Carr for QB 2025!
- Messages
- 31,509
- Reaction score
- 17,368
irishff1014
Well-known member
- Messages
- 26,509
- Reaction score
- 9,283
Surprise surprise.
Veritate Duce Progredi
A man gotta have a code
- Messages
- 9,358
- Reaction score
- 5,352
Are PD depts allowed to sue/counter-sue individuals?
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
I don't know, but there ought to be a provision in cases like this, whereby the people bringing the suit are obligated to cover all of the legal expenses of the defendant, it they are not found liable. And, since the people bringing these suits are usually poor individuals, anyway............ then the attorneys for the plaintiff ought to be required to cover any expenses that the family cannot. Maybe that would keep the ambulance chasers at bay a little more.
Attorneys would never take the cases of the poor then. Too much risk financially.
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
Or they wouldn't encourage the poor to take on longshot cases, just to get their own names and mugs in the news.
GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,118
Wouldn't this discourage the not so long shot cases too? It would dramatically increase the power of law enforcement and we have evidence that suggest that would not be the way to go.
kmoose
Banned
- Messages
- 10,298
- Reaction score
- 1,181
No. I did say "in cases like this".......... For the love of God, the black Attorney General of the United States of America said that the shooting was justified! This is a completely worthless pursuit. They are going to lose, and it's not even going to be close. This is akin to some 7 on 7 Texas High School football team taking on the New England Patriots. And my post was mostly hyperbole, to point out the ridiculousness of this frivolous lawsuit.
Last edited:
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
Actually, I would like someone really knowledgeable to jump in, but I was taught that the American Justice system had several levels to it, Criminal, Civil, and Private, each which was necessary to provide Justice to all citizens.
My understanding always has been though an action of an individual or an entity may not be illegal as codified in any criminal code, it may in fact violate some civil or private statute. And that was the full right of any citizen to pursue.
So I am wondering, if we suspend a millennium of tradition in law, what would we really get?
Seems to me that allowing a broad number of people to exercise their rights in civil and private matters is analogous to right to carry legislation, both have the same end in mind, a well "armed" citizenry is a safe one.
Except of course in dealing with this concept in the law no one need get shot.
(For the record, I carry.)
My understanding always has been though an action of an individual or an entity may not be illegal as codified in any criminal code, it may in fact violate some civil or private statute. And that was the full right of any citizen to pursue.
So I am wondering, if we suspend a millennium of tradition in law, what would we really get?
Seems to me that allowing a broad number of people to exercise their rights in civil and private matters is analogous to right to carry legislation, both have the same end in mind, a well "armed" citizenry is a safe one.
Except of course in dealing with this concept in the law no one need get shot.
(For the record, I carry.)
Last edited: