Placing Black Hoodlums Above the Law
As the railroading of George Zimmerman makes clear, we are all equal, but black hoodlums are a lot more equal than half-Jewish “white” Hispanics. They may soon become more equal still:
When a 911 caller reported gunfire in the Ferndale community last month, he didn’t imagine that his description of the shooter would renew claims of racial profiling against the North Charleston Police Department.
The resident, who is black, told a dispatcher that the gunman had dreadlocks in his hair, but in an interview Wednesday with The Post and Courier, he said it could have been “twists, braids or dreads.”
A police officer was acting on that sole description when he decided to stop 17-year-old Carlton Pringle, who has braids, as he walked near the scene.
Pringle was shot when he pulled a gun on the police. Another innocent victim has been oppressed by discrimination; no doubt journalists are feverishly digging up cute pictures from when he was 10 years old.
It is one of the issues that Dot Scott, president of the Charleston chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, plans to present to U.S. senators Tuesday when she testifies and lobbies for a bill that would specifically prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement agencies nationwide.
The End Racial Profiling Act would bar “such targeting based on race or ethnic identity,” its sponsor, Sen. Ben Cardin, has said.
To place black hoodlums completely above the law and to facilitate our degeneration into total anarchy, it isn’t enough just to forbid police from noticing the skin color of suspects.
“Whether it’s a hoodie or dreads, those things are perceived to identify African-American males,” Scott said. “Whether those people are doing anything illegal or not, officers are stopping them, and that level of profiling can end up being deadly.”
Cardin, D-Md., introduced the End Racial Profiling Act last year, but he said the case of Trayvon Martin in Florida pushed his cause into the national spotlight.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1670, defines racial profiling as law enforcement agents “relying, to any degree, on race … in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities,” such as traffic stops or interviews.
This explicitly prevents police from focusing their attention on criminals who look like criminals. If cops don’t comply, they get looted by the government on behalf of the punks in the hoodies:
The bill states that such a law would open police agencies, officers and their supervisors to lawsuits from victims of profiling. Scott hopes that the fully developed law will have more teeth in allowing victims [i.e., hoodlums] to seek [social] justice.
Liberalism, the ideology of our ruling class, is a criminal creed based on the expropriation of other people’s property. What other kind of laws would you expect from a government by, of, and for criminals?
On a tip from Don M. Hat tip: Charleston Thug Life.
Can you give us a source saying he pulled a gun on the police? And if he was shot, that doesn’t fucking sound like he was put above the law.
Hells bells. And here I thought I was living in America, not some African hell-hole. Welcome to the United States of Zimbabwe — where blacks are above the law and whites pay for it all. Lawsuits, what a joke … why not cut to the chase, open the prisons and let out the one third of the population of black males in the country who are incarcerated, and have the government just give every one their own convenience store, so they can rob it any time they wish and sue if anyone looks at them the wrong way.
Nail, perhaps you shoudl avail yourself of the links that may be found in the post above to answer your question.
It must be wonderful to be suck a blissfully ignorant fuck. The article is about the LAW that will make it illegal to “profile” people who look like thugs. Read the whole article before you make yourself sound like a pompous ass.
CB, exactly who were your comments directed to?
I was watching “Campus Cops” last night and they had a scene where a group of white kids were assaulted and beaten on the street by another group of punks. The cop is asking one of the guys, who had a bloody nose:
Cop: Ok, what did these guys look like?
Kid: I don’t want you to think I’m racist or anything, but….they were black guys.
Disgusting that the guy had been brainwashed to preface his description of the attackers with that caveat.
Landru, unfortunately that is where we are.
It is fine to describe a suspect in a hold-up as “6 feet tall, white, wearing jeans and a red t-shirt”. But don’t you DARE give an accurate description of a suspect if they are of a protected race. Then it is PROFILING!
Thanks stanwee, there we have the intelligence of right in a NUT shell.
There’s NOTHING wrong with accurately describing a suspect, including their race.
Read the proposed law!
The legislation, Senate Bill 1670, defines racial profiling as law enforcement agents “relying, to any degree, on race … in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities,” such as traffic stops or interviews.
Can you explain how police interrogating a suspect has ANYTHING to do with routine or spontaneous investigations?
er “the right”.
Lao, you apparently are having trouble reading the posted article. Allow me to point out a few passages to you…
“A police officer was acting on that sole description when he decided to stop 17-year-old Carlton Pringle, who has braids, as he walked near the scene.”
“The End Racial Profiling Act would bar “such targeting based on race or ethnic identity,” its sponsor, Sen. Ben Cardin, has said.”
“Whether it’s a hoodie or dreads, those things are perceived to identify African-American males,” Scott said. “Whether those people are doing anything illegal or not, officers are stopping them, and that level of profiling can end up being deadly.”
And please point out where I said anything about INTERROGATION, Lao.
If they want to stop stereo typing they should stop committing crimes. Otherwise they should dress themselves like white people before they commit the crime.
In my opinion, this is all about getting Law Enforcement to turn a blind eye to crime.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to forsee that many unintended consequences will result from these politically correct appeasement policies.
The first and most obvious consequence will be that citizens will be afraid to accurately describe suspects and the police will be afraid to do their jobs by following up on descriptions of suspects that include race or ethnicity.
Trust me, if these hair brained polices becomes law the forgone conclusion will be that it will become too much of a gamble for police officers to stop and question any minorities.
Instead they will simply let these suspects walk.
Why would a police officer want to risk their careers and their reputations when they can be labelled racists and when they can be sued for everything that they have?
Police Officers should either be given immunity from this type of frivolous lawsuit, or the government should provide them with some type of malpractice insurance.
We will surely regret it if we cave into this type of political pressure.
they all look the same used to be a racist term…well they do all look the same wearin a hoodie , an XX large white T shirt with their boxers hangin out…
“What other kind of laws would you expect from a government by, of, and for criminals?”
Why, Obamacare, of course.
Next, no identifying prison jump suits!
Keep running with the term ‘black hoodlum,’ Dave. It really makes you look like a white shithead.
I had no trouble at all reading the article stanwee. I also had no trouble detecting a media source trying to connect two unconnected things.
The article said “Cardin has said”. Yes, he said those words, but not in reference to Pringle.
Here’s the source of that quote the article used . WE MUST PUT AN END TO RACIAL PROFILING
We must put an end to such targeting based on race or ethnic identity. I am pleased that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are investigating all the circumstances surrounding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, including the investigation that was conducted by local authorities.
Thanks for the H/T. Dot Scott has been attempting to terrorize the citizens and police departments of the Lowcountry for years. Most recognize her for the ignoramus she truly is.
So Lao, where did I say anything about interrogation, as you claimed that I did?
who let that dopey canadian fuckstick back in?
stanwee, I used the word interrogating, I never CLAIMED you used that word or “interrogation”. I asked a generic question that related back to the text of the proposed law I quoted and to your absurd comment @12:11.
Lao, my comment was directed at Landru and had NOTHING to do with interrogation. It was only about police suspects in crimes, which was also the gist of the original post about racial profiling.
That was a pathetic attempt on your part to change the subject and try to divert from the topic at hand.
Not seeing how this puts black hoodlums “above the law”. If someone is the victem of a crime and they describe the perp as balck with braids and baggy pants the cops can look for people fitting that description. If no one witnesses a crime the cops cant just decide to start detaining blacks or anyone else because they feel like it.
And if black hoodlums are “above the law” what about the mexican asian and white hoodlums? Are they all above the law or just the blacks?
oops “victim”
This law is a complete waste of time. No, not because it’s unconstitutional, retarded, etc, etc. The reason is much simpler. It’s ridiculously easy to get around.
Just like the media today will studiously avoid mentioning the race of a criminal if he’s black, or the religion if he’s Muslim, the police would only have to refer to the suspect as one “of undisclosed ethnicity”.
Just as it’s clear what race or religion is being discussed by the lack of description, it will be clear what race the suspect is by “avoiding” its mention.
“In pursuit of a male, late 20′s, 5″10′, ethnicity unclear, intersection of Main & Smith Streets”…
Cool, the law comes with unintended consequences built-in. Thanks for the convenience!
Too funny. stanwee figures that citing the actual proposed law is diverting from the topic at hand.
You have avoided noticing the sleazy way the article tried to connect Pringle with Cardin’s completely unrelated words.
Your suggestion that under this law, a suspect in a hold up could not be identified by their race is wrong and stupid.
Do you actually suppose that a police officer, told that a black bank robber had just run out the door, would spend his time chasing a white guy who happened to be outside?
As I have already made clear, the law itself talks about selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities,” such as traffic stops or interviews.
Lao, you work so hard being a jackass, when you already have us all convinced.
The discussion is about PROFILING, meaning that if a suspect is described as “hoodie, deadlocks, and looks black”, that it is considered profiling.
That is what is being discussed and that is what I was discussing with Landru.
In the future, if you are incapable of undering the context of the conversation, you should view that as an opportunity to shut up!
Just Obama’s Critical Race Theory in action which demands that blacks be given preference in criminal law like they already are given in constitutional law.
LOL!! Poor stanwee…threatened, as usual, by reality. A common affliction among the far right. I have no problem “undering (sic) the context of the conversation”.
stanwee sez: The discussion is about PROFILING, meaning that if a suspect is described as “hoodie, deadlocks, and looks black”, that it is considered profiling.
No stanwee, you are absolutely wrong.
I note you use the word “suspect”. You will search Cardin’s statement in vain to find that word. Likewise you will search the text of the proposed law in vain to find that word.
It is completely legitimate and logical for an assault victim to describe the race of their attacker. It is also completely legitimate and logical for the police to seek out and interview possible suspects based on that information.
What is NOT legitimate, under this proposed law, is for police to go on fishing expeditions based on race alone. A store is robbed. No suspect was seen. The local population is 50-50 black and white, but the police ONLY question blacks. THAT’S what this proposed law is talking about.
Lao, please read this first quote from the article above…
“The resident, who is black, told a dispatcher that the gunman had dreadlocks in his hair, but in an interview Wednesday with The Post and Courier, he said it could have been “twists, braids or dreads.”
A police officer was acting on that sole description when he decided to stop 17-year-old Carlton Pringle, who has braids, as he walked near the scene.”
So the subject was described, a corresponding suspect was identified and approached, and the crys of RACIOAL PROFILING appeared.
Like I said before, you are making a pathetic attempt to divert from the issue.
stanwee, re the “crys (sic) of RACIOAL (sic) PROFILING”, the article itself says:
Scott, who has led the Charleston NAACP branch for 12 years, said she was chosen to speak because of her past work on immigration reform. Scott hasn’t decided whether to specifically address Pringle’s case in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I’ve already demonstrated that the author of the article plays fast and loose with trying to make connections where none exist by citing quotes completely out of context.
Now, if, in her testimony, Scott specifically references the Pringle case and suggests the cop was engaging in racial profiling when he chose to approach Pringle because he had braids, I would say she was wrong. The cop acted on the only description of the suspect he had.
If there were ten white guys with “twists, braids or dreads” in the same area, that would be another story.
Oh, I SEE.
You can admit that I was right and what I said was correct, but you disagree with what Scott said, so that negates everything I said and makes you right???
It is pointless for us to continue this. You are clearly so invested in changing the facts to try and prove yourself right that you have twisted yourself into a knot.
Have a nice night, Lao!
So let me get this straight. Eyewitnesses to a crime state the perp is black, but with the “End Racial Profiling” law we can’t then act on that information and focus on black suspects, we have to include white suspects too?
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm
———————
Yes, lao, but as you know, as soon as the law is passed, any time law enforcement, based on a description of a BLACK perp in the area, starts stopping and questioning BLACKS, they’ll be accused of profiling and breaking this law.
As for your question:
Can you explain how police interrogating a suspect has ANYTHING to do with routine or spontaneous investigations?
———–
Yeah, when the police get a report of a black criminal in action, they start routinely interviewing blacks in the area that fit the description. They do so when they spontaneously see a black that fits the description in the area.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm
————–
The only problem is that the only racism injected into the Zimmerman case came from the media and Democrats/racists like Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Holder and, sadly, the family of Martin as well.
The fact Martin was black had NOTHING to do with this tragedy – it was just an unfortunate additional fact. Despite ongoing efforts to falsely portray Zimmerman as racist, the more the evidence comes out, the harder it is to make that false claim stick. ALL claims of racism were due to DELIBERATE falsification of KNOWN FACTS in the case.
So who’s engaging in trial by blog again?
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Your suggestion that under this law, a suspect in a hold up could not be identified by their race is wrong and stupid.
—————-
Actually yes, in theory you are correct, but in practice you’re dead wrong because that is exactly what the eventual effect of the law will be. That is how the Obamas, the Holders, the Jacksons and the Sharptons of the world will fight to ensure the law is applied if it manages to pass.
And you yourself admit that the law clearly states it will apply to “interviews” such as those which occur when the police are canvassing a neighborhood right after a crime, often with a partial description, where they now the suspect is whatever race and so the law, AS WRITTEN, would prevent them from conducting such “interviews” based on the known race of the suspected criminal.
You yourself have revealed that, even if you refuse to admit or understand it.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm
————-
The only reason lao is less threatened by reality is because he’s so far out of touch with it – as his posts more or less always prove. Here’s an example from his post:
“A store is robbed. No suspect was seen. The local population is 50-50 black and white, but the police ONLY question blacks.”
That’s a scenario that only exists IN LAO’S HEAD! When did it ever occur? The answer: NEVER! Nice how lunatic lefty lyin’ lib losers like lao make things up from scratch then try to claim they’re real world situations.
And lao, try to stay on topic. Pringle wasn’t stopped because of the color of his skin. He was stopped because his hair style matched that of the description AND it is likely that, among the people in the area at the time, ONLY his hair matched the description.
Furthermore would you agree the fact he tried to draw on and fire at an officer sort of helped make it clear that either he was the proper suspect OR at least he needed to be taken down? How is this even an issue here? He pulled a gun on a cop! He got what he had coming!
Just like Martin, who turned what was (arguing the false narrative of the left for a moment) a creepy stalking incident into a life or death struggle, this kid is the one who brought death on himself.
LOL!! stanwee leaves and bobby arrives. Time to do the dishes.
StanInTexas says: April 13, 2012 at 2:14 pm
It is pointless for us to continue this. You are clearly so invested in changing the facts to try and prove yourself right that you have twisted yourself into a knot.
————–
Lao’s MO never changes. We would be fools to expect him to actually be honest, to argue from facts, truth and logic instead of lies and emotion. It’s silly to think he will ever do that.
Stan didn’t leave Lao, Your mind-readin act still needs work.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm
LOL!! stanwee leaves and bobby arrives. Time to do the dishes.
—————
Another lie from lao, but should we expect less?
Stan didn’t leave, we posted at the same time. He’s giving up on you (and I’m already done with you on this thread too because you’ve already proven you’re just going to lie and showcase your own ignorance & stupidity) because you’re not worth the time or effort.
Bob, that is true. However is if imformation to occasionally remind the casual posters of the board what they can expect should they ever try to deal with him.
You and I expend little to no effort destroying Lao and his impotent little lies. I view it as a public service.
Anyone (but lao, apparently) surely would understand this quote from the linked story:
A police officer was acting on that sole description when he decided to stop 17-year-old Carlton Pringle, who has braids, as he walked near the scene.
It is one of the issues that Dot Scott, president of the Charleston chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, plans to present to U.S. senators Tuesday when she testifies and lobbies for a bill that would specifically prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement agencies nationwide.
Either get it or not, lao, I don’t care. Show your ignorance and stupidity all you want – I have better things to do that trip you up here over and over today.
StanInTexas says: April 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm
—————
Too true.
I’m done with him on this thread – he destroyed his own line of false logic this time.
Only idiots and Liberals (but, I repeat myself) would try to criminalize describing a suspect’s PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS to the police, and having the police act on that eyewitness information.
The pots are soaking, so let’s see what we have.
With that stupid, and totally wrong snuss comment, I see the far right festival of misinformation continues.
You should examine my comment @1:24 including the words of the proposed law, and the fifth paragraph of my comment @1:42
I live in SC. The bullshit from the NAACP is off the chart here. Pringle ran from this officer and pulled a weapon found to the scene. He was shot because HE PULLED A WEAPON ON A NCPD OFFICER. To bad he lived. He’s a p.o.s. human just like his buddies on charlestonthuglife.blog.com . If this is what any of you are justifying you fuckin stupid to. If your a gangster, thug, pulling weapons on police, you need to be handled. Don’t want to die? Get out the game. Like 2Pac said , Ride or Die. At least he admitted who he was. T. Martin was growing into a fine young p.o.s. Then he ran up and thugged up on an armed man. Na Na Na Na. Na Na Na Na Hey hey hey, good bye. Good riddance .
Re bobby, it’s always the same story, in this case, three comments worth of whining and three redundant comments that ignore, or are simply too stupid to understand, what’s already been posted.
The key point that has been ignored? The ACTUAL description of the proposed law:
Now given what I already discovered about the author of this article (see my post @12:50) I should have expected more mendacity.
Let’s just go to the S. 1670: End Racial Profiling Act of 2011
Here’s the description provided. Note the section in bold that was left out of the article and in blunt and his parrot’s piteous whining about this issue.
RACIAL PROFILING- The term ‘racial profiling’ means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.
I will now pause to laugh out loud.
Lao, your only proving the ignorance of liberal blacks. Loo at the death of David Atkins, killed for walking by an armed black man 22. David was walking his dog, he is mentally ill and has the mind of a 12yr old. He was 1/2 white 1/2 hispanic. Gunned down for being in this thugs way. He had a dog leash. No arrests as the thug is claiming self defence
“The officer gave no indication that he had seen a gun when he started chasing Pringle, but about 10 seconds later Dipaolo opened fire when he said Pringle turned and pointed a handgun.
Pringle received several gunshot wounds and remains hospitalized.”
The story never goes on to say that Pringle didn’t have a gun. Hell if he didn’t we would be hearing how the police shot a poor innocent unarmed black child. So he had a gun and he pulled it. Can’t say that has ever been a thought of something to do when I’m pulled over by a cop.
But that’s not the kicker !!
“As for the 911 caller, he insisted that Pringle fit the description of the shooter. The caller, who asked not to be identified because he feared retribution, applauded the police department’s tactics in fighting crime.”
PRINGLE WAS THE GUY !! This wasn’t a mistaken identity in that supposedly “all blacks look alike”. Pringle was identified by the 911 caller as being the guy he saw. WTF!
lima and goosy, the issue here is the profiling law, not some individual cases that have nothing to do with it.
Wyld Goose nailed it.
Now the spin from our liberal , communist, NAACP affiliate, Lao
LOL!!! Feel free to ignore reality, that is to say, suspects who have been identified by race are NOT subject to racial profiling considerations.
What would your preferred description be,
” looks like a dumb ass retard who’s pants do not fit, speaking a retarded sounding English slang made worse by poorly fitting gold teeth carrying a black handgun. ”
Now your going to say I racially profiled the Gun!!! Right. Come on
With snakes for hair!
@loa would it be ok for a bank teller to give the description a robber by saying that he (becuase he had a low male voice) was wearing blue jeans and a brown jacket, because the guys face was covered with a red bandanna and baseball cap, all she could see was his white hands and brown eyes?
Are you saying that is profiling rather then giving the description of the guy she saw?
Should the cops go out and start looking for only people wearing jeans, brown jackets and baseball caps, even though there was a description of brown eyes and white skinned hands?
If you, as witness, provides the authorities with the description you gave, no problem. The police can act on your description as they see fit.
I note that no racial designation was provided.
goosy, victims or other witnesses should describe EXACTLY who and what they saw.
Why don’t you just READ the Racial Profiling description that is part of the proposed legislation?
You can find it @4:13.
AWW……
HELLL………
NAWWWW……………
Dot…..is u stoopid?
A black reported gunfire by a black to the Police…..
The Police stop a suspect that fits the description……
The suspect show nough pulls a gun and gets his express ticket to “GANGSTA HEAVEN” punched….
Where’s the racial profiling?
Trayvons mother said she knows it was an accident, she knows he couldn’t turn back the clock. Her words on Today show. Until she was told that wasn’t allowed. Understanding I mean. Not by Them! She knows. Live by the sword, die by it. He thugged up and got put down. What’s wrong with that. I don’t understand. Simply reverse the colors and it’s everyday news. Except that most blacks aren’t involved in crime Prevention. Zimmerman isn’t a racist. The guys 1/2 Mexican and small. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It’s a fukin Duck!
“The bullets started flying, he said, as a result of an altercation over cigarettes among more than a half-dozen black teenagers.
When the shooting subsided, the group split and went separate ways. An officer stopped and started speaking with “maybe nine” of them north of the scene when Dipaolo encountered two, including Pringle, to the south, according to their radio communications.”
@loa Are you still glossing over the fact that they got the guy that was described by the 911 caller, and the caller even made a positive identification Pringles was the guy. Lots of people have tattoos, are you saying police aren’t allowed to profile for persons with a tattoo on their upper left arm, if that’s the description they are given?
I don’t want to sound racist, but such a law already exists. Why don’t they just cut to the chase and declare black people a protected species under the Endangered Species Protection Act of 1973?
That seems to me like where we’re headed.
Hey, bobdog – that would mean we could put them all in protective custody! Can you imagine how much the crime rate would drop?
SEC. 101. PROHIBITION.
No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in racial profiling.
Definitions
(7) RACIAL PROFILING- The term ‘racial profiling’ means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.
May I point out: “except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.”
You mean according to this, when the witness describes a black guy, the cops can actually profile by looking for a black guy? But if the witness says only dreadlocks or braids, the police can start looking for anyone with dreadlocks or braids in the area of the crime, except for any black persons with dreadlocks or braids because that would be racial profiling??
What a load of bovine fecal matter!!!
I identify most people by color & appearance. Side effect of vision.
The NAACP recently accused the N. Charleston police department of profiling blacks for tickets. The tickets were for windows tinted to dark. The Chief responded by saying it was Impossible to profile because, as the ticket states, they couldnt see into the vehicle, the reason they were pulled over to begin with.
It is always a race issue. Martin Luther, the only true Black leader who I believe was Not a racist, said ” Judge me not by the color of my skin, but by the context of my character.”
Which is exactly what everyone should do. If the Black leaders were to ask young black men to better people and stop killing everyone. Stop being a menace to society. Join the Civilized World. Get jobs, have families, pay Taxes ( wouldn’t that be nice for the rest of us) & be peaceful. Quit race baiting, race chasing, and destroying this nation.
United we Stand
Divided we Will Fall!
ALL OF US
The elite whites are using the rest of us as human shields.
You may point that out since that section is what I put in bold and is the section that pretty much everyone on the far right, yourself included, is ignoring.
goosy asks: You mean according to this, when the witness describes a black guy, the cops can actually profile by looking for a black guy?
Yes, but it’s NOT profiling, it’s seeking the described suspect.
But if the witness says only dreadlocks or braids, the police can start looking for anyone with dreadlocks or braids in the area of the crime, except for any black persons with dreadlocks or braids because that would be racial profiling??
NO, that would be stupid. Once again, if dreadlocks or braids is the description, then ANYONE with dreadlocks or braids, no matter what their race, can be looked for and it’s not racial profiling.
@loa your talking in circles. Pringles seemed to fit the description. He had dreadlocks. But unfortunately if this law was enacted, he would have cause to sue the police department for racial profiling, because according to this law, the cops would have to prove what they were or were not thinking. ei. “did the thought even pop into your mind that it might have been a black guy because of the description of dreadlocks?”
This law places the burden of proof on the police to prove they weren’t thinking the guy might be black because of the the description of dreadlocks. Pure thought police. Welcome to 1984
Lao, there aren’t any whites in that area, ever, but cops. I’m sure in China they don’t say he looked Chinese. The caller was black. It isn’t natural for her to describe his color. But she did POSITIVELY I. D. PRINGLE. Did you miss that part.
The officer did a fantastic job. And you are spinning this into profiling over breads vs dreads.
Have you ever considered your wrong on anything. I understand this much. You won’t go live or gang out where this shooting occurred. You can say hat you want. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, NAACP, RACIST. They hate white people. Reverend Wright hates white people. So everything is spun into race issues.
I hate people who are hating me. It’s natural. Have your people clean up their act. Because your bullshit is running thin. And most of us have had enough of it. We are Citzens, all of us. If ya thuggin in my hood and end up on the wrong side of my fence with crime on your mind. I’ll fill it with lead! I don’t care your color.
goosy, you are the one going in circles.
The racial profiling description is perfectly clear. …except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.
If the witness says “dreads” then dreads, or something like them is what cops look for, no matter what the race.
Do try to bear in mind the routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities that are specified. This does NOT apply to any situation where a suspect has been described.
lima, you obviously have your own agenda which has nothing to do with ANYTHING I have said. Have fun.
The suspect show nough pulls a gun and gets his express ticket to “GANGSTA HEAVEN” punched….
Where’s the racial profiling?
And where is the problem ?
By invoking the name of Pringle in regards to this profiling law, the NAACP believes the problem was the cop, and Pringle should still be loose on the street
@loa oh I see, you mean if a group of persons are loitering around looking to be up to no good, they can be approached by a cop to inquire what they are up to only if they white. Because otherwise that would be racial profiling.
Trust me, when I was in my early 20′s my friends and I were stopped plenty of times because we didn’t appear to holding a bible study. It was annoying, but none of us pulled out a gun and shot at the cop. ..and oh yeah, we were pasty whiteys! =O (what can I say, it was a goth phase)
ghost, I have pointed out that the author of the article either stupidly, or deliberately used quotes out of context (@12:50) and misrepresented how racial profiling is actually defined in the description of the law. (@4:13)
For that reason, getting caught up in the details of the Pringle case, or any other one, is unwise.
@2:05 I suggested that if Scott actually (and I emphasize that word deliberately) thinks the Pringle incident is an example of racial profiling, then I believe she is misinformed.
goosy, you keep on playing EXTREMELY dumb.
…you mean if a group of persons are loitering around looking to be up to no good, they can be approached by a cop to inquire what they are up to only if they white. Because otherwise that would be racial profiling.
NO, in the situation as you describe it, the cop can approach ANYBODY no matter what their race.
@loa, No that’s exactly the situation that would happen, if this law was passed, that would allow the lawsuit against the police and force the burden of proof on the cops that there was no racial profiling. You can not prove you weren’t thinking something.
goosy, your scenario described a group of persons are loitering around looking to be up to no good.
Under the proposed racial profiling law:
If the group is all white the cop can check all or some of them out.
If the group is all black the cop can check all or some of them out.
If the group is half black and half white, the cop can check all or some of them out. BUT, if the cop ONLY checked out the black guys in that group, THAT would be racial profiling.
@lao sooooo, your interpretation is that the new proposed law is useless because according to what your saying, it sounds like it’s everything the cops are currently allowed to do.
What I say on the other hand is this is yet more bureaucratic dung for lawyers to twist around to eventually turn it into a “thought control” burden for cops to prove they were not thinking racially.
Over all is BS. If you look like your up to no good, your going to be profiled. Funny thing happened when I stopped going out into public gothed out, I stopped getting stopped by cops.
It’s time for hand wringers to stop interfering and let the adults do their jobs and keep you safe all tucked in your bed at night. Now, that’s a good boy
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm- “Time to do the dishes.”
Make me a samwich as well, will you sweety? I’m in the bedroom on the ‘puter. I’ll give you something hot and sweet when you come in. Wear yo’ hear up in a bun. I like dat.
The purpose of this law is to drop already cash strapped police departments into a shark tank full of trial lawyers.
I find it funny after reading through all these comments that somehow Iao has had the time to sit here ALL DAY and fight every single person that’s had an independent opinion that happens to be the complete opposite of his. How is is that you, Iao, think that you are some sort of expert in the proposed law? Did you write it? I didn’t think so. So get off your fucking pedestal for a minute and question yourself.
I, unlike the rest of these people here, am not going to waste any of my time playing a tit-for-tat game with you, because I think you’re an arrogant sack of shit.
Bottom line is, if your ass looks shady, you should be stopped and questioned. If you look nervous, then your ass needs to be searched. I don’t give a shit what color you are. And Dot Scott can choke on her her proposal. Her people get away with enough shit as it is. Carlton Pringle is just ONE out of a long list of criminals in Charleston to have been taken down for acting like a piece of trash. One down – a couple thousand to go.
I read through this thread, and Wyld Goose is right – lao claims a ‘letter of the law’ argument, but never explains how what he is arguing is any different from what happens now.
The simple fact is that his argument is just a smokescreen from the way it will be applied in real life, the way the proposed new law reads notwithstanding. Because such a law is clearly unnecessary, it is purely formulated to figure out a way to give blacks privileged treatment.
You’ve taken a great many words to say nothing at all, lao. Pathetic.
btw, nice to hear you’ve expanded your dress sense, Goose!
It’s hilarious to watch poor lao, run the same old routines with someone else. You may go now douchebag. LOL!!
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm- “Do you actually suppose that a police officer, told that a black bank robber had just run out the door, would spend his time chasing a white guy who happened to be outside?”
Yo, he would if he knew what was good for him, dog. The popo Trayvonning the brutha would be like callin’ him “boy”.
So, we can profile criminals in every way except race? Oh my, that would be discrimination!
Uncle Pinko says:
April 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Keep running with the term ‘black hoodlum,’ Dave. It really makes you look like a white shithead.
Only in your eyes dipshit. You PC lotion hand she man born with nuts that never dropped. Welcome to the world gay boy.
Hollywood already ran with that term, only they call it “gangster rapper”, and they consider it a good and entertaining thing, similar to how the ignorant and uneducated blacks perpetuate a negative and depressing mentality by referring to each other as “niggas” as though it were a term of endearment.
Here’s what Hollywood holds up as icons of black hoodlums, err, I mean gangster rappers
http://www.50-cent.us/pictures/0010_0.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KzhwkZF0Z18/Sula5JfnkpI/AAAAAAAAAFs/RfnrOi0kBpQ/S1600-R/0500_eazy_e_a.jpg
https://marksy94.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/news-graphics-2007-_639366a.jpg
http://www.vibe.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/w520/images/gangster-rapper-1.jpg
Black children from broken homes who grow up idolizing these thugs will grow up to be the next generation of gang members and career criminals. Gangster rap is a degenerate, antisocial crime fantasy.
I know, I was done with lao on this thread and only stumbled on his subsequent comments by accident, but since I did I’ll do a roundup:
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm
————
With lao it’s always the same. Cherry picking, deliberate misinterpretation, outright lies, deliberately avoiding the fact that laws are often used in ways that go well beyond the original intent.
This proposed law is CLEARLY one that is ripe for abuse, if it ever gets passed.
Instead of soaking his pots, maybe lao should soak his head and hope he grows another brain cell – the last one he’s got is rather lonely and seriously is apparently not doing so well!
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Re bobby, it’s always the same story, in this case, three comments worth of whining and three redundant comments that ignore, or are simply too stupid to understand, what’s already been posted.
Did lao just describe virtually EVERY comment he makes here, or what? Funny how he sees himself in us, isn’t it?
I guess lao is too busy with his perpetual laughter (a clear sign of his mental instability) to realize, admit or accept that laws routinely wind up being abused well beyond their original intent and that this law is one that is ripe for abuse, which is one reason it likely will never pass.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 4:35 pm
lima and goosy, the issue here is the profiling law, not some individual cases that have nothing to do with it.
—————
Oh but that’s just the problem – once this ridiculous AND UNNECESSARY law is passed, EVERY case will suddenly “have to do with it”, even those that clearly have NOTHING to do with it. We know this even if lao doesn’t get it – but expecting him to get ANYTHING is pretty much a waste of time and effort as his unwanted presence here proves time and time again. Evidence his next post:
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 4:43 pm
LOL!!! Feel free to ignore reality, that is to say, suspects who have been identified by race are NOT subject to racial profiling considerations.
—————-
And yet those are EXACTLY the cases where this law will be invoked by the usual racists all the way up to Obama and Holder and their ilk. THIS IS WHAT LAO FAILS TO COMPREHEND. We already have plenty of laws that protect people’s civil rights, laws which we already see abused routinely and invoked in cases where they’re not applicable. The Zimmerman/Martin case is a great example – despite ongoing attempts to inject racism and create a civil rights issue in that case, none exists.
And remember, it’s lao that talks about the uselessness of redundant posts (when we make multiple attempts to explain to him the obvious things he’s missing). Yes, it is useless to try and reach him, see the next TWO (yes TWO) posts he makes:
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm
If you, as witness, provides the authorities with the description you gave, no problem. The police can act on your description as they see fit.
I note that no racial designation was provided.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 4:55 pm
goosy, victims or other witnesses should describe EXACTLY who and what they saw.
Why don’t you just READ the Racial Profiling description that is part of the proposed legislation?
You can find it @4:13.
——————————
The problem, of course, is that witnesses and the media are already under pressure NOT to provide racial information on fear that they will be attacked if the racial information they provide happens to be “the suspect is black” or “the suspect is hispanic” in many communities. We have as an example a case where, even lao admits, all they gave was that the guy had a hairstyle popular among blacks and there is a fuss being raised about profiling. And lao keeps giving US a hard time for bringing up the case – but who brought it up? That’s one of the little details lao loves to ignore and hope we don’t notice.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm
————–
Once again, lao sort of forgets even the arguments he (or people like him) made against the Arizona law, SB10 I think it was, the one where police were allowed, during routine contacts with people for whatever other reason, to ensure that their immigration status was proper. The law didn’t say anything about any profiling, but that was the way the law was attacked by the left even though the attack was completely unwarranted. In this case, with this law, since the people pushing it are already trying to use as examples of why they want the law cases where race wasn’t even a factor, it’s obvious that the law will be misapplied right out of the gate and just used as a club against anyone who dares mention that a suspect was black, anyone who dares approach or, God forbid, detains and interrogates a black who fits the description of the suspect, as that person will then be charged with “profiling” under this law DESPITE THE BOLDED SECTION LAO KEEPS WHINING ABOUT.
Does lao understand this? No, but why should we expect him to understand how the real world works? He’s too busy laughing maniacally in his mom’s basement, after all!
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 5:34 pm
goosy, you are the one going in circles.
—————
Says lao as he slows from the hyper-speed circles he’s running around himself, as he’s caught in yet another lie:
Do try to bear in mind the routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities that are specified. This does NOT apply to any situation where a suspect has been described.
It is ROUTINE to focus one’s attention on suspects of a given race when the race of a suspect has been given, yet lao admits that such routine focusing on suspects who fit the racial description are exactly what “the usual suspects” complain about and call “profiling” today. It is exactly this sentiment which the law attempts to codify, no matter how many frilly descriptions are hung on it to attempt to hide this fact.
The underlying problem, which lao hopes we never get to with his constant yammering about things even he knows are lies, is that profiling is not a serious problem – in the rare and declining instances where a weak case of potential profiling might be made, there are already more than adequate laws to deal with it. Furthermore, authorities who engage in profiling are inefficient and, if people are paying attention, will be fired, not re-elected, etc. anyway and the problem will solve itself.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm
lima, you obviously have your own agenda which has nothing to do with ANYTHING I have said. Have fun.
————–
That’s because lima and the others want to have a rational, adult conversation about the actual merits of the law, the need (or lack thereof) for it, etc.
And, as usual, lao just wants to throw sand in the gears, whine, then laugh maniacally. One wonders why he won’t just go away and do that where he’s not interfering with the ongoing ADULT conversations.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm
… getting caught up in the details of the Pringle case, or any other one, is unwise.
————–
Oh no! We can’t actually show how, in real life, even without the law, those who are ready to scream “profiling” are already working overtime!
We can’t possibly talk about REAL LIFE EXAMPLES of how this law will be abused to help punish those who do their job and go after legitimate suspects!
As usual, lao misses the point completely. That one dimensional thought process he’s stuck with is on display!
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 5:54 pm
goosy, you keep on playing EXTREMELY dumb.
———————-
We keep pointing out to lao that all of us, every single one, have that same complaint about him with virtually every post he makes, yet he still doesn’t get it. When he says it about someone else we pretty much just shake our heads and sigh. Just because lao does not (apparently cannot) understand what someone else says, well it doesn’t mean the post or poster was dumb – it just underlines how dumb lao is.
lao says: April 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm
—————-
What lao doesn’t get is that the first time a cop in such a situation approaches a black “the usual suspects” will invoke this law, if passed, and use it as a club to prevent said cop from doing his job. They already scream profiling when, clearly, none took place! Just look at the affidavit against Zimmerman! They accuse him of profiling based on what? The deliberately falsely presented 911 call that NBC edited to inject profiling?
This post pretty much sums it up, and I note lao did not respond:
Stephan the Original says:
April 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm
I read through this thread, and Wyld Goose is right – lao claims a ‘letter of the law’ argument, but never explains how what he is arguing is any different from what happens now.
The simple fact is that his argument is just a smokescreen from the way it will be applied in real life, the way the proposed new law reads notwithstanding. Because such a law is clearly unnecessary, it is purely formulated to figure out a way to give blacks privileged treatment.
You’ve taken a great many words to say nothing at all, lao. Pathetic.
———————
I like the way he summed lao up with a single word:
PATHETIC!
So AC, getting back to the actual topic.
If a victim or witness describes a suspect as “a black guy with dreadlocks or braids”, do you agree that the proposed racial profiling law does not prevent cops from questioning “black guys with dreadlocks or braids”?
LOL!! I see bobby has written another novel. No doubt he’ll have more comments forthcoming. I better make another coffee before I even think about reading it.
I can’t help but notice that one of his conclusions says You’ve taken a great many words to say nothing at all…
It’s impossible to parody bobby, he does it so well himself.
If a witness reports “a black guy with dreadlocks or braids” then that is a description of the suspect and constitutes reasonable suspicion for stopping black guys with dreadlocks or braids. If a witness reports a well-spoken English gentleman in a top hat, then police should be stopping all English gentlemen wearing top hats in the vicinity of the crime.
Pure racial profiling, which is stopping people for a racial reason and nothing else, is bad policing which does not produce quality felony arrests. The problem should be handled locally by outraged taxpayers sick and tired of ineffective police tactics wasting their money and making communities less safe.
I don’t believe we need laws against profiling thugs, such as individuals wearing hoodies, sagging pants, gang colors, etc., in areas where crimes are perpetrated by people who choose to express themselves in similar fashions. Being black is not a choice, whereas looking like a hoodlum is a choice.
The problem with this law is that a hoodlum who looks like a thug and who wears gang colors can sue a police department for stopping him. He’ll claim he was stopped for being black, when in reality the beat officer stopped him for fitting the non-racial profile of criminals in the area.
The lawsuit might not succeed, but it still clogs up the court and runs up legal bills for a police department. That money is better spent putting more officers on the street, rather than more lawyers in the courthouse.
Yes, I do have a problem with racial profiling. It makes me less safe and does not contribute to quality felony arrests. Racial profiling might turn up something minor like a bag of weed or a traffic warrant. With all the burglars and career criminals out there, police should not be stopping their patrols on fishing expeditions for extremely minor offenses. Rather, they should be looking for evidence of felony crimes, such as vehicles casing neighborhoods, or ongoing gang activity.
This bill cannot solve the problem claimed. It will empower the lawyers while doing no good.
The bill is too broad of a statutory solution for what is a local, procedural, and institutional problem. The way to end racial profiling (which is claimed to occur far more often that it really does) is for taxpayers to hold police chiefs and sheriffs accountable for taking felons off the streets. In an organization, shit rolls downhill, and by holding the CLEO accountable, he will hold his subordinates accountable for bringing in dangerous felons instead of bringing in statistics.
Re AC @7:44 am
First paragraph = absolutely correct.
I asked: If a victim or witness describes a suspect as “a black guy with dreadlocks or braids”, do you agree that the proposed racial profiling law does not prevent cops from questioning “black guys with dreadlocks or braids”?
While you don’t mention the law, your statement appears to agree with my query.
Second paragraph = I mostly agree. This addresses the issue of “do we actually need a racial profiling law” vs racial profiling is bad policing and is ineffective and should be common sense law enforcement.
Third Paragraph = Depends on the racial demographics. If white and black “thugs” are all wearing hoodies etc. then there’s no reason to distinguish one from the other.
Following paragraphs amplify on what was already mentioned.
I did address the proposed law.
The proposed law opens the door to a tsunami of senseless lawsuits against police departments in the event that an innocent officer stopped a hoodlum for looking like a race-neutral hoodlum, but the hoodlum feels as if he were stopped for being of a specific race.
If a hoodie, sagging pants, or gang colors are badges of criminal affiliation in a specific area, then police should be checking up on those people. Citizens who don’t want scrutiny shouldn’t dress like the criminals plaguing their neighborhoods.
In some areas, the criminal uniform has become a sports jersey, and it’s often not the local team. If crimes are being committed by youth wearing out of town jerseys, then police need to pay more attention to that demographic.
Racial profiling complaints should be handled by internal affairs. If an officer stops a minority for being a minority, and nothing else, he should be brought up in an IA disciplinary hearing for wasting time and damaging community relations.
The minor inconvenience of a short and impermissible racially profiled stop should not justify jackpot justice and the feeding of greedy lawyers.
This law will ensnare many more innocent police than guilty ones.
Re bobby @7:32 am.
Wading through bobby’s disjointed, sneering and redundant screeds is tedious.
bobby, if you actually read and paid attention to what was said previously, you’d be in a far better position to offer logical comment. See AC’s remarks for example.
What is your response to this query? If a victim or witness describes a suspect as “a black guy with dreadlocks or braids”, do you agree that the proposed racial profiling law does not prevent cops from questioning “black guys with dreadlocks or braids”?
Grasping that very basic understanding of the proposed law will at least eliminate stupidity like this:
Bob Roberts says: April 13, 2012 at 2:14 pm
So let me get this straight. Eyewitnesses to a crime state the perp is black, but with the “End Racial Profiling” law we can’t then act on that information and focus on black suspects, we have to include white suspects too?
Look at that woman just to the (viewer’s) right of Scott in the photo – the one who appears to wake up scowling and go through the day with that expression permanently affixed.
OH, and lao lies again:
lao says: April 14, 2012 at 7:36 am
I can’t help but notice that one of his conclusions says You’ve taken a great many words to say nothing at all…
It’s impossible to parody bobby, he does it so well himself.
—————
Those were not my words. They were the words of Stephan the Original.
They were 100% accurate, as lao shows again.
Especially because most of “my words” in that post were me quoting lao with appropriate discussion of his nonsense.
lao says: April 14, 2012 at 8:19 am
Grasping that very basic understanding of the proposed law will at least eliminate stupidity
————
We agree. If only YOU could get to a basic understanding of the proposed law, which is being proposed not to address a problem that exists, but rather to give minorities a club with which to beat those who are merely doing their job into submission.
Apparently lao is deliberately ignoring the parallel attempts to prevent fair and honest discipline of minorities in schools and the ongoing claims that minorities are somehow not treated equally in the criminal justice system when in fact it’s just that they commit more crimes and, perhaps, do so in ways that are more certain to get them caught at it.
Re my question @8:19 am.
bobby sez: We agree.
Love the royal “We”.
Do try to answer less ambiguously since it’s not at all clear if “We” agree that your own quoted statement displayed stupidity regarding understanding the implementation of the proposed racial profiling law.
Since we both agree that profiling based on race is not an effective police tactic, then why do you believe pressure from local taxpayers and media is ineffective at ending the practice in the places where it is happening?
If the proposed law is passed, trial lawyers will rake police departments over the coals, burning up money on legal fees and settlements which will take officers off of the streets.
This law will reduce officer employment (and union dues) and reduce overall police presence.
If a police officer makes an inappropriate sexual advance towards a citizen, that officer can be disciplined through IA. Why is IA insufficient for stopping racial profiling? How is this a federal issue, when the primary regulator of police and sheriff’s deputies is each of the 50 states?
AC, I never claimed to believe pressure from local taxpayers and media is ineffective at ending the practice in the places where it is happening?
If local taxpayers and media are applying such pressure, great.
I don’t totally disagree with your other points and I think some of the concerns you raise are valid.
My emphasis has been on the total misrepresentation of how the law would be applied, exemplified by bobby’s absurd remark.
So let me get this straight. Eyewitnesses to a crime state the perp is black, but with the “End Racial Profiling” law we can’t then act on that information and focus on black suspects, we have to include white suspects too?
This was one of many such comments made above.
The law is way too broad and way too centralized. It’s like NCLB, a federal non-solution to what is a local problem. How is NCLB working out?
Lao:
“My emphasis has been on the total misrepresentation of how the law would be applied, exemplified by bobby’s absurd remark.
‘So let me get this straight. Eyewitnesses to a crime state the perp is black, but with the “End Racial Profiling” law we can’t then act on that information and focus on black suspects, we have to include white suspects too?’
This was one of many such comments made above.”
“…relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure”
Em, Lao, yes, the words “relying, TO ANY DEGREE” does mean that if the suspect is described as black male in jeans and white shirt and the police stop only black males in those clothes to question, but NOT white or other males in those clothes, then they would be “relying on race, TO ANY DEGREE”. That is exactly what those words mean. They would be required to eliminate the “black male” part of the description and would be charged with racial profiling unless they demonstrated that they also stopped non-black males fitting the rest of the description. It is disengenuous to pretend otherwise.
Had the used a term like “relying solely on race”, that would be a different matter (such as in stopping any black male vs only ones wearing jeans and white shirt). This one uses “to any degree”, which, as I said, forces the police to eliminate the race of the person as an actionable element of the suspect’s description, because…one more time to pound this home…to not do so would “rely on race, TO ANY DEGREE”.
Sorry, but you need to pay attention landru. You are totally wrong.
See my posting @4:13 yesterday which provides the COMPLETE definition of racial profiling as contained in the proposed law. Please take special note of the section that I bolded.
To save scrolling and hunting, here it is.
RACIAL PROFILING- The term ‘racial profiling’ means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.
lao says: April 14, 2012 at 9:00 am
Love the royal “We”.
———————-
I was referring to the several people who clearly agree with me on this and other threads regarding your nonsense.
No “royal” about it. But there you go, lying again. You had to know I wasn’t using the “royal” we as I was QUOTING SOMEONE ELSE who feels the same way about you and THAT WAS WHAT YOU LIED ABOUT when you said I said it.
“WE”, meaning most everyone else here at moonbattery, sees right through you, finds your arguments lacking, and “WE” are TIRED OF YOUR LIES. Why don’t you find some other freeway to play on?
lao says: April 14, 2012 at 9:18 am
My emphasis has been on the total misrepresentation of how the law would be applied, exemplified by bobby’s absurd remark.
————–
My remark is not absurd, it is RIGHT ON TARGET. Unlike you, we’re not willing to let this ridiculous, absurd, UNNECESSARY law be passed because we already know, from daily experience, that it will be used inappropriately.
That’s the whole idea behind passing it.
lao says: April 14, 2012 at 10:32 am
——————-
and
lao says: April 14, 2012 at 10:37 am
——————-
We already have a current prime example, the Zimmerman case, to demonstrate how, when racists demand it, the laws are deliberately and systematically misapplied.
Zimmerman was not originally arrested or charged because competent authorities had determined he committed no crime. Then the racists got involved. Competent authorities lost their jobs and clowns took their place. The affidavit against Zimmerman is PATHETIC. Comical but for the fact a man’s future lies in the balance.
The Zimmerman affidavit ripped to shreds. And he used some of the same arguments I did… how about that!
Why it’s so bad even moonbats are speaking out against it! Even moonbats realize how ridiculous and wrong it is to fall for the Passion of St. Skittles.
We are smart enough to understand they’ll ignore that last bit of the law, just like you cherry pick regularly, even if you aren’t.
lao says: April 14, 2012 at 8:19 am
Re bobby @7:32 am.
Wading through bobby’s disjointed, sneering and redundant screeds is tedious.
———————
Oh, but I remember you lying and saying you never do. Or are you lying now?
Which is it, lao?
You’re such a joke.
Plus your one dimensional thinking is showing again.
One of our biggest problems with government, if you’d been paying attention, is legislative creep. Often also manifested through judicial creep. Take, for instance, the “commerce clause”, now the basis for an attempt to force us to buy things we don’t want to buy. Do you really believe those who wrote that clause intended for government to be able to force us to buy what we don’t want to buy?
In any case, I’ve just been checking in and I have to go live a REAL LIFE instead of. like lao, sitting around in my mom’s basement staring at a tiny little monochrome screen all day & night. So go ahead, lao, try to actually come up with a cohesive argument and maybe I’ll respond to it later.
MORE multiple posts full of the usual whining from bobby.
Allow me to demonstrate that bobby is in denial of reality.
Bob Roberts says: April 13, 2012 at 2:14 pm
So let me get this straight. Eyewitnesses to a crime state the perp is black, but with the “End Racial Profiling” law we can’t then act on that information and focus on black suspects, we have to include white suspects too?
The actual description of racial profiling in the proposed law is:
RACIAL PROFILING- The term ‘racial profiling’ means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.
Referring to his @2:14 remark quoted above, @11:10 am bobby says: My remark is not absurd, it is RIGHT ON TARGET.
Thanks bobby for once again allowing your own words to demonstrate you don’t have a clue.
Lao, you are a waste of time. One more time….if the description of a robbery suspect is black male, wearing white shirt and jeans, and the police stop only black males wearing those clothes, but NOT white, asian, etc males wearing those clothes, did they or did they not use “race, TO ANY DEGREE” in choosing who to stop and question? That’s a simple yes or no question. The ONLY answer is YES!
The second part that you think is so important uses the words “a person..linked to a crime”. “A person” is singular. “Linked to a crime” means connected to in some specific way. It’s another way of saying the police need to have information that specifically connects person A with the crime, separate from persons B and C. If person A, B, C are all black males wearing jeans and white shirts, and they have nothing more to go on, they could not stop all three. That’s why the words “A person” (singular) and “linked to a crime” are used.
landru, re your first paragraph, OF COURSE the police used race, because the race of the suspect was specified by a victim or witness.
Re your second paragraph, you have described a “person” “linked to a crime”, “a black male, wearing white shirt and jeans.”
If the police discover three black males, all wearing white shirts and jeans, it’s completely legitimate for the police to question all three.
Your statement that the police “could not stop them” is totally wrong.
In focusing on “any degree” you are ignoring in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities
“Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities” do NOT include seeking actual suspects of a crime based on the description of a victim or witness.
That is made abundantly clear by this section: except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.. The description clearly says racial profiling does NOT apply to a described suspect.
In other words, your scenario of a suspect described as “a black male wearing white shirt and jeans”, where three people fit that description, is covered under the “except” portion. Racial profiling does NOT apply.
Let’s take race out of this for a second.
Suppose that police in a solidly middle class suburb began profiling everyone with tattoos because of few burglaries perpetrated by tatted up career criminals.
The tattoo dragnet would eventually ensnare many veterans, 99% bikers, the PGR, trampy chicks, and others who pay their taxes, mow their lawns, and would never think of committing felonies.
Do we need a law against profiling people with tattoos?
Of course not. Any cop who profiles based on tattoos needs an attitude adjustment from his CO. Gang or prison tattoos are one thing, but the mere presence of tattoos does not indicate that somebody is a dirtbag. The majority of people with tattoos are not felons.
There are hundreds of other stereotypical characteristics of dubious value other than race, ethnicity, tattoos, etc. We don’t need a law to cover each and every one. What we do need is accountability in police brass and work rules which don’t allow union lawyers to keep bad cops with bad attitudes on the street.
Here’s a practical example of another problem with this law: should police be able to profile a pimped out hooptie? When you see a $1500 car with a $2000 stereo system, $3000 of interior work, and $5000 worth of gaudy, oversized rims, there is a good chance that driver is at least either tangentially involved with an illegal source of income or associated with people who value such automobile choices.
The vast majority of people who do this to their cars are black. If this law goes through, a lawyer could argue that profiling a hooptie pimpmobile is a way to profile blacks by proxy. It’s ridiculous, because the occupants of these vehicles do deserve extra attention, but a lawyer seeking a judgment will claim otherwise.
lao, do you believe cops should be able to profile cars with “drug dealer” written all over them, metaphorically, of course, even if such a style is typically confined to a specific race or subculture? Is pulling over pimped out hoopties a form of racial profiling by proxy?
AC, once again, you are describing a suspect and the “except” clause applies. Your example is pretty contrived because you are suggesting the ONLY identifying information is that the perp had tattoos.
As for “drug dealer” cars, absolutely police should be able to check them out. The proposed law is talking about generic fishing expeditions that target random people in a racial group. It is NOT talking about investigations where an officer has legitimate probable cause to investigate someone, no matter what their race.
No, I’m not describing specific suspects.
I’m describing vague generalities like tattoos and hooptie pimpmobiles. Please pay close attention to the points I’m raising.
You missed the point about the cars. The vast majority of the monstrosities I described are driven by blacks, with most of the remainder being driven by Hispanics (not Jewish white Hispanics).
If a cop pulled over every hooptie pimpmobile which committed a traffic infraction, probably 90%+ or 95%+ of the drivers would be minorities. That cop could be thrown under the bus for racial profiling under the law.
On the other subject, suppose some dickhead cop in your community were hassling everybody with a tattoo. Would you support a law to stop this, or would you feel it is best handled internally within the department?
Profiling including a racial component can, very occasionally, be somewhat general and specific.
While I maintain that including race in a general profile is a bad idea, and race should only be used to identify specific suspects, it can be an important part of certain profiles.
Suppose you are a beat cop in South Central LA. If you see a black male in a blue hoodie, is that enough to keep an eye on him? If you said no, you’d be ignoring what are the colors of an almost exclusively black gang. People in South Central know not to indiscriminately wear blue hoodies.
If you want to blame somebody for ruining the blue hoodie for the law abiding citizens of LA, you can blame liberal darling and executed quadruple murderer Stanley “Tookie” Williams
AC, unlike many here, I believe you understand the difference between fishing expedition racial profiling and the police seeking a suspect who has been described as a particular race.
Obviously, a cop who “profiled” and hassled anyone with a tattoo IS a dickhead. I already expressed sympathy for your suggestion of a community or internal response.
Pulling over a pimpmobile that actually committed a traffic infraction is completely legitimate and it doesn’t matter if the majority of the drivers are minorities, the cop had cause.
I believe the description of racial profiling that has been provided SHOULD be clear enough to anybody. Even so, I expect some will continue to completely distort what the intention is. AC, I don’t include you in that comment. I have outside biz to attend to. I MAY revisit this in four hours or so, otherwise, I won’t get back until tomorrow. Happy trails.
The problem with pulling over pimpmobiles for minor traffic infractions is the same thing that happens when they pull over beater cars in housing project HIDTAs for traffic violations: since the majority of drivers in those situations are minorities, the statistics of traffic stops strongly suggest a racial link.
Correlation is not causation, but the general public doesn’t understand that.
This law would allow allegations of racial profiling by proxy to derail legitimate police tactics, which is why I believe IA to be a better vehicle for rooting out racist police than a lawyer-infested courtroom.
Indeed, racist cops can explicitly target minorities by claiming to be targeting something else. Any law tight enough to stop the slim minority of racist police will ensnare many more good, honest police doing honest police work, while on the other hand, any law loose enough to let honest cops do their jobs will be too permissive to stop the very few racist police. This is why we need local community scrutiny and a common sense IA department in police forces. It is very hard to legislate common sense, and even harder to apply it in a courtroom full of lawyers.
A cop working narcotics interdiction would have no problem explaining his profiling of pimpmobiles to an IA board. He would have a harder time explaining it to a judge or a racially loaded jury, and even if he does, it would still cost the department tens of thousands (or more) in legal fees. One lawsuit with legs, later dismissed, can still run up enough in legal bills to take one or more officers off of the streets. This makes us all less safe.
This law is reactionary legislation introduced during a media feeding frenzy by a politician seeking exposure. The politicians pushing this do not have a good understanding of criminal justice issues.
Where were the hearings? Where is the expert testimony?
This is not being thought through very well. Combating racism by public servants is a noble cause, but this legislation goes about it in the wrong way.
Sorry AC your claims @1:16 are misguided.
Check out the date when the legislation was posted – October 6, 2011.
S. 1670: End Racial Profiling Act of 2011
Heading back out immediately.
I stand corrected. This nonsense is merely coming to the forefront after the shooting.
Nonetheless, encouraging nuisance lawsuits is not a good way to stop racial profiling while maintaining the effectiveness of police departments.
AC, those promoting this nonsensical law are simply using any and all inappropriate, unrelated events they can think of to justify their actions.
Laws tend to be used in ways never admitted by those pushing them. This proposed law is ripe for abuse.