Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 382 of 615 FirstFirst ... 282332372380381382383384392432482 ... LastLast
Results 5,716 to 5,730 of 9218
  1. #5716
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    59,721
    Looks like a super scary Antifa terrorist to me.

  2. #5717
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,025
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The biggest question in these cases is whether the cops knew the person had a record and whether it was relevant to the case. Because if they didn't, then mentioning it is moot when the cops shoot them. The cops just getting lucky to shoot someone with a record doesn't make the initial act of shooting someone without provocation ok. If a person is walking down the street and in that moment not bothering anyone and a cop shoots them, the incident doesn't become ok if we find out that three years prior he had murdered someone and never got convicted. The old two wrongs thing that everyone here's mother told them and all that.
    Yes. Digging up outside factors to make police conduct okay is crap and irrelevant to excusing their behavior. It seems that's not the case for Blake, but the police defense bringing up Floyd's health or drug use doesn't mean a cop didn't kneel on his neck. One can be valid and it's for a jury to decide, the other is irrelevant and should have been thrown out of court and probably should have caused a mistrial.

  3. #5718
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Racial profiling is ok if you offer them a job afterwards.

    Cool PR move that doesn’t mix the broader problem.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Is it racial profiling if the person fits the description????

    "Literally they said, white tank top, black shorts and they said that you had a beard."

    And I think we can assume they were looking for a black guy. So that would be four points of a description that fit this man.

    And, to you, that constitutes racial profiling.

    See, that's part of the overall problem. "Racial Profiling" is just like "sexual harassment." It's whatever the "recipient" says is is. Whether it actually is or not.

  4. #5719
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,047
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Yes, if somehow your ridiculous scenario was provable. If we know for a fact a cop chose to pull over a black driver instead of a white driver 100/100 times or whatever your premise. Bad cops should be punished. They currently can’t be though...
    Why couch your answer with "if my scenario was provable"? Because you wouldn't punish him.

    Could you prove with the information I provided that this cop has a racial bias? Yes or no?

  5. #5720
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,047
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    I stated previously that bad cops, for whatever the reason, need to be reprimanded. So do bad teachers but you can’t possibly fathom the teachers union having anything to do with that.
    Of course I realize that Teacher's Union have something to do with it. But you don't even realize a guy who pulls over a black man 100 straight times in an identical situation as a white man is a bad cop.

    It's why you keep saying "if we could prove it". Because even with that information, you don't think he's bad. So while Unions are bad, your mentality is every bit as bad at allowing bad cops to continue.

  6. #5721
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Leave it to someone like you to bring up a topic that was discussed to the death about a year ago……and then tell mer it is something I "won't let go" of?? Seems like you're the one that "won't let go" of something.

    And as far as seeing "too much corporate malfeasance to buy the 'we care' line" ; or that "it’s all businesses like Sluggo wants to believe? Not even close." ………did you ever think that maybe the problem is you??? Nah……couldn't be that.
    Yes, little old me is responsible for all the corporate malfeasance we've seen. I was responsible for Enron, or WalMart's wages, or Cigarette companies denial of cancer, or Energy companies denial of Global Warming.

    It was all me.

    Your head is buried so deeply in the sand, you've popped out in China.

  7. #5722
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Why couch your answer with "if my scenario was provable"? Because you wouldn't punish him.

    Could you prove with the information I provided that this cop has a racial bias? Yes or no?
    Jesus, yes, given the information you provided. It’s not that I doubt this guy is a racist. It’s that I doubt the ability to prove what you are staring as a fact.

  8. #5723
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,047
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Jesus, yes, given the information you provided. It’s not that I doubt this guy is a racist. It’s that I doubt the ability to prove what you are staring as a fact.
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why you don't believe in systemic racism. Because you don't think that someone pulling over a black man as opposed to a white one in identical scenarios 100 times in a row is enough evidence.

    So under your system, he would not be punished because as you say, there isn't any direct evidence. So your system is really no different than the Union one you despise.

    So why should we switch to your system?

  9. #5724
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Of course I realize that Teacher's Union have something to do with it. But you don't even realize a guy who pulls over a black man 100 straight times in an identical situation as a white man is a bad cop.

    It's why you keep saying "if we could prove it". Because even with that information, you don't think he's bad. So while Unions are bad, your mentality is every bit as bad at allowing bad cops to continue.
    Again, read my above message. The guy you are describing is a racist and should be fired. But yes, I think it would be difficult to prove an officer had a choice and chose to pullover a black person 100/100 times.

  10. #5725
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why you don't believe in systemic racism. Because you don't think that someone pulling over a black man as opposed to a white one in identical scenarios 100 times in a row is enough evidence.

    So under your system, he would not be punished because as you say, there isn't any direct evidence. So your system is really no different than the Union one you despise.

    So why should we switch to your system?
    My objection is with the ability to prove the officer had a choice in pulling over a black lawbreaker instead of a white lawbreaker. For some reason, this part of the equation seems like a given to you.

  11. #5726
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,047
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Again, read my above message. The guy you are describing is a racist and should be fired. But yes, I think it would be difficult to prove an officer had a choice and chose to pullover a black person 100/100 times.
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    My objection is with the ability to prove the officer had a choice in pulling over a black lawbreaker instead of a white lawbreaker. For some reason, this part of the equation seems like a given to you.
    Again, this is your problem. It is a given because of statistics. The chances of randomly selecting the same person 100 times in a row is somewhere around 1/2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. For all intents and purposes it is literally impossible to do. That it happened is proof enough, because it would never happen randomly.

    Until you can wrap your head around the idea that we don't need a smoking gun or video of an officer yelling the N-word to determine there is a racial bias in the system, your system will never fix the problem.

  12. #5727
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    My objection is with the ability to prove the officer had a choice in pulling over a black lawbreaker instead of a white lawbreaker. For some reason, this part of the equation seems like a given to you.
    I think you're cornered...

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  13. #5728
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    43,047
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    I think you're cornered...
    He's simultaneously trying to argue he would punish this guy and that there's not enough evidence to punish this guy.

  14. #5729
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Again, this is your problem. It is a given because of statistics. The chances of randomly selecting the same person 100 times in a row is somewhere around 1/2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. For all intents and purposes it is literally impossible to do. That it happened is proof enough, because it would never happen randomly.

    Until you can wrap your head around the idea that we don't need a smoking gun or video of an officer yelling the N-word to determine there is a racial bias in the system, your system will never fix the problem.
    If the officer is in a predominantly black area, I wouldn’t expect the numbers to equal the same population numbers across the US. In other words, if the area is 80% non white, I would expect the statistics to indicate those numbers.

    You’re also still missing the point. I have no issue with punishing any officer for any reason. In your hypothetical situation, you stated the officer had a clear choice between a black and white person. In that case, the numbers should be roughly 50%. My question is to how we know there was a choice.

  15. #5730
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,724
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    He's simultaneously trying to argue he would punish this guy and that there's not enough evidence to punish this guy.
    No. Once again, you’ve created an argument in your head that doesn’t exist.

    Do you watch Fox News so you can yell at Tucker Carlson?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •