Hey, like I said put the silly scenarios aside.You don't get to decide whats silly. You don't get to decide that someone doesn't "belong" in a certain neighborhood at a certain time. Going to work is not silly. Going to dinner is not silly. While the thought of being in some of those neighborhoods at 2:30 in the morning might scare you, it is in fact where some people live and they're used to it.
About the gun shows or walmart thing, we are talking about Chicago here. We cannot buy unless its out of state or at a gun store. There was an article written about a week ago that illustrated how 90% of the guns associated with shootings can be traced to sales from one Chicago gun shop.You're completely missing the point.
X is unconstitutional but its lets the police do their job better, so we should do X.
When X is "take your gun away" you're against it. When X is "ignore 4th amendment prohibitions and search anyone we damn well feel like" you're fine with it. The only changing variable is whether or not it affects you.
. You have to develop some good street cred. The cops assigned to do that job will be well trained not only in police work but in how to act appropriately in the community. Sorry man.There is no appropriate way to trample on someone's constitutional rights. This was done in new york and its resulted in blatant racial profiling, all indications are that chigacgo would be at best be the same.
I did a little digging and found that your claim of the tactic being unconstitutional is off.
Although it’s repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood, the right of police to stop and frisk individuals is beyond dispute.
That right was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio, an 8-1 decision in which the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Stop-and-frisk was also unanimously upheld under New York law in the 1996 decision of the Court of Appeals in People v. Batista.
So, it is plainly wrong to say that the procedure violates civil liberties at all, much less basic ones.
Hey, like I said put the silly scenarios aside.You don't get to decide whats silly. You don't get to decide that someone doesn't "belong" in a certain neighborhood at a certain time. Going to work is not silly. Going to dinner is not silly. While the thought of being in some of those neighborhoods at 2:30 in the morning might scare you, it is in fact where some people live and they're used to it.
About the gun shows or walmart thing, we are talking about Chicago here. We cannot buy unless its out of state or at a gun store. There was an article written about a week ago that illustrated how 90% of the guns associated with shootings can be traced to sales from one Chicago gun shop.You're completely missing the point.
X is unconstitutional but its lets the police do their job better, so we should do X.
When X is "take your gun away" you're against it. When X is "ignore 4th amendment prohibitions and search anyone we damn well feel like" you're fine with it. The only changing variable is whether or not it affects you.
. You have to develop some good street cred. The cops assigned to do that job will be well trained not only in police work but in how to act appropriately in the community. Sorry man.There is no appropriate way to trample on someone's constitutional rights. This was done in new york and its resulted in blatant racial profiling, all indications are that chigacgo would be at best be the same.
I did a little digging and found that your claim of the tactic being unconstitutional is off.
Although it’s repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood, the right of police to stop and frisk individuals is beyond dispute.
That right was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio, an 8-1 decision in which the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Stop-and-frisk was also unanimously upheld under New York law in the 1996 decision of the Court...
If it's getting to the point that it has to be debated on a Supreme Court level, then clearly there is more than a little disagreement. The 4th amendment isn't going to just up and go away because of two court decisions.
...
Stop being silly man. Stop twisting this into who "belongs" as you say and quoted. Tell me more about the BLATANT racial profiling in NY? You are reaching on this one because there was no blatant racial profiling, in other words no racism.
Look at the crime stats in the NY neighborhoods when stop and frisk was in enacted, huge drop in crime. Look at results not your political agenda.
People are upset at being stopped but what is the answer? Ove 90% of shooting and murder victims are...First, please stop being so dismissive. It doesn't help your particular argument or agenda.
Second I can tell you about the blatant racial profiling in NY? I've lived here all my life and have seen it first hand on multiple occasions. I've been in the west village and seen the police stop black and latino kids who are on their way somewhere while ignoring the drunken WHITE FRAT KIDS right across the street walking around with open bottles. Me and a friend were running to catch a bus and were damn near run down by a cop car two cops getting out GUNS DRAWN. Who said we matched suspects who had robbed a house in the neighborhood. The clarification call came back over the wire while they held us and the suspects were 2 WHITE MALES. They left without so much as a acknowledgement at the pure f**king TERROR of almost being shot because of mistaken identity. I've got at least 5 or 6 stories like that but I have the feeling that you'd dismiss my experiences as anecdotal or silly as you've already done further upthread. Listen, I've had guns aimed at me, put to my head by legitimately BAD PEOPLE and have never been as scared as I have when I've had police reach for their guns or aim them at me or my friends for no DAMN GOOD REASON.
Third, your bringing up these stats to defend your point but wont produce the stats.
Forth, please stop hammering the point about over 90% of shooting victims are minorities. It makes you come across as a person from
What is there to say? He believes the police are a gang, screams about WHITE FRAT KIDS drinking while blacks & browns are strolling peacefully on the other side of the street. Has 5 or 6 other stories where he has been held at gun point by the cops. Then there are the times he has been held at gun point by legit BAD people. I don't think he needs my compassion, he needs a therapist!
I do like that he hates the "don't snitch" mantra in the black community.YES, to all your questions regarding my personal experiences with the police. I've had my fair share of A hole cops. Deserved and undeserved.
I did a little digging and found that your claim of the tactic being unconstitutional is off.
Although it’s repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood, the right of police to stop and frisk individuals is beyond dispute.
That right was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio, an 8-1 decision in which the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Stop-and-frisk was also unanimously upheld under New York law in the 1996 decision of the Court...
Nice try. Five seconds of searching the internet indicates that the phrase "stop and frisk" in Terry vs. Ohio did NOT mean what you are arguing for:
Nor does People vs. Batista seem to back you up either.[/url]
But it is nice to see that you can plagiarize:
"Although it’s repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood, the right of police to stop and frisk individuals is beyond dispute.
That right was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio, an 8-1 decision in which the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Stop-and-frisk was also unanimously upheld under New York law in the 1996 decision of the Court of Appeals in People v. Batista.
So, it is plainly wrong to say that the procedure violates civil liberties at all, much less basic ones."
Seriously Aretas? Frakkin' Silive? I can't take you seriously anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did a little digging and found that your claim of the tactic being unconstitutional is off.
Although it’s repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood, the right of police to stop and frisk individuals is beyond dispute.
I already addressed this. The police require articulable suspicion to stop someone: that is they need to have a reasonable reason they believe that the person is committing a crime. They have to see the outline of a gun under the clothes, they have to see them taking a crowbar to a window etc. Stop and frisk does not meet that requirement. What they're doing is stopping people at 'random' (which winds up being mostly young black males) and justifying it with "furtive movement" or "changed direction at the presence of the officer" (which if you were getting stopped and patted down every time you saw a cop you'd go the other way too)
If someone wants to put your hands on you they either need dinner and a movie or need to be able to see something on you.
But it is nice to see that you can plagiarize:
"Although it’s repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood, the right of police to stop and frisk individuals is beyond dispute.
That right was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio, an 8-1 decision in which the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Stop-and-frisk was also unanimously upheld under New York law in the 1996 decision of the Court of Appeals in People v. Batista.
So, it is plainly wrong to say that the procedure violates civil liberties at all, much less basic ones."
Easy with the plagarism smear. I'm not an aspiring Fareed Zakaria.
I did say I was digging and posted what I found. You can stay on topic and not distract from the conversation.I'm failing to see how any of the links you posted under the "NICE TRY" response make stop and frisk unconstitutional.
Anyway, I have not seen one idea from you on how to get guns off the street and out of the hands of scum bags shooting at kids.
2012
Allegations? How about convictions? Where is the widespread abuse?
"The claims have been costly. The city recently paid $1 million in compensation for the fatal police shooting of Aaren Gwinn in 2008 and $90,000 for the police beating of 61-year-old dialysis patient Stretha Van Alston during a 2009 traffic stop."
You're right, it must be made up bullshiznit.
And, I am forced to note that, not knowing anything about Chicago, I mistakenly linked an article to the separate town of North Chicago. With a population of less than 40,000 people.
I'll be back to point out the passages in the links about Terry vs. Ohio after I get back from the grocery store, since you obviously have problems reading.
Link 1:
The outcome of this case causes repercussions that are not obvious to some. A police officer now has the right to detain and search any individual, without a warrant, or even probable cause, as long as he or she can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed."
Notice words like "reasonable suspicion" and "justify a suspicion."
Link 2:
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
Notice, words like (again) "reasonable suspicion" and "specific and articulable facts."
If you are trying to argue that the police have the right to stop and frisk you if you are acting suspiciously, then, yes, they do and have had that right since 1966 and I find it hard to believe that the Chicago PD are not already doing that.
If you (or more accurately Leddy) argues that the police have the right to Stop and Frisk (TM), i.e., randomly stop people on the street, then, at least for the moment, you are wrong.
Edited
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I have not seen one idea from you on how to get guns off the street and out of the hands of scum bags shooting at kids.
I have no interest in providing advice to the bourgeois state, or you, about making its machinery of repression more efficient.
While I have no illusions that the ghettos are full of violence and crime, personally, I don't see any answer short of full employment, legalization of drugs and all other "crimes without victims", and international proletarian socialist revolution.
But that's just me.
Vive le Galt!
You have no interest in the bourgeois state you live in? Your motives are division and strife. The coming revolution? When will you grow up? Another usefull idiot in the land of milk and honey. Pity.
You have no interest in the bourgeois state you live in? Your motives are division and strife. The coming revolution? When will you grow up? Another usefull idiot in the land of milk and honey. Pity.
Land of milk and honey? I think you have confused a biblical era euphemism for Israel for the modern United States. While there are many here who live lives of luxury, I think the 1 in 7 children who go to sleep hungry in this country might have a more... realistic view about how things really are.
You have no interest in the bourgeois state you live in? Your motives are division and strife. The coming revolution? When will you grow up? Another usefull idiot in the land of milk and honey. Pity.
If you expected something else from Comrade Anklebiter, you have not been paying attention.
Personally, I think it is hilarious that anyone who could possibly be posting their thoughts via computer on a messageboard of a role-playing game company could possibly accuse anyone else of being bourgeois.
Dripping with irony, intended or otherwise. But that includes me, too. Vive le Bizzaro Union!
|
Calling the police "a gang" does not help. I can't take you seriously.
To the last sentence you wrote, incase you missed it I started this thread because I care about my community.
It doesn't matter what you take seriously, or what mental gymnastics you go through to preserve your ideological narrative. The fact remains that people do not like the police and have a culture of such, especially in minority communities. Not only that, but this opinion is completely justified.
This is reality and we have to deal with what is actually the case, as determined through observing (what a novel concept). The police are going to have to shape up, and aggressively combat both their negative image, and their actual misbehavior.
It also does not matter whether stop and frisk reduces crime or not (I don't think that it does, statistics only show that arrests for things like possession of really small amounts of pot are up). It is pretty blatantly an excuse for the police to racially profile (which is illegal) and stop people with no legitimate probable cause (which is unconstitutional).
A huge number of people siding WITH criminals AGAINST legal authority and you see that as nothing but the police being in the wrong?
|
|
Anyway, I have not seen one idea from you on how to get guns off the street and out of the hands of scum bags shooting at kids.I have no interest in providing advice to the bourgeois state, or you, about making its machinery of repression more efficient.
While I have no illusions that the ghettos are full of violence and crime, personally, I don't see any answer short of full employment, legalization of drugs and all other "crimes without victims", and international proletarian socialist revolution.
But that's just me.
Vive le Galt!
Or just maybe your ghettos could NOT bake their brains and follow the law like the rest of us, just sayin......
You have no interest in the bourgeois state you live in? Your motives are division and strife. The coming revolution? When will you grow up? Another usefull idiot in the land of milk and honey. Pity.
Hee hee!
Anyway, I notice though, that you didn't address any of the issues.
I may be an idiot, but at least I can read.
Or just maybe your ghettos could NOT bake their brains and follow the law like the rest of us, just sayin......
Anyway, I have not seen one idea from you on how to get guns off the street and out of the hands of scum bags shooting at kids.I have no interest in providing advice to the bourgeois state, or you, about making its machinery of repression more efficient.
While I have no illusions that the ghettos are full of violence and crime, personally, I don't see any answer short of full employment, legalization of drugs and all other "crimes without victims", and international proletarian socialist revolution.
But that's just me.
Vive le Galt!
Well,
A) I don't live in a ghetto.
B) There are many, many people who don't live in ghettos who bake their brains out and EDIT: don't follow the law. This is one of those coded racist things that Man in Black is always talking about.
C) They could, you're right. Are you suggesting that when they don't, we should throw away our civil liberties?
Either way, any short glance at world history reveals that when mass numbers of unemployed, poor people are gathered together, they behave poorly. You could also look at the pretty obvious lessons of Prohibition. Or not, I don't care.
While I have no illusions that the ghettos are full of violence and crime,
Woops. This should read "I have no illusions that the ghettos are not full of violence and crime." I hope that's obvious.
|
|
Or just maybe your ghettos could NOT bake their brains and follow the law like the rest of us, just sayin......
Anyway, I have not seen one idea from you on how to get guns off the street and out of the hands of scum bags shooting at kids.I have no interest in providing advice to the bourgeois state, or you, about making its machinery of repression more efficient.
While I have no illusions that the ghettos are full of violence and crime, personally, I don't see any answer short of full employment, legalization of drugs and all other "crimes without victims", and international proletarian socialist revolution.
But that's just me.
Vive le Galt!
Well,
A) I don't live in a ghetto.
B) There are many, many people who don't live in ghettos who bake their brains out and EDIT: don't follow the law. This is one of those coded racist things that Man in Black is always talking about.
C) They could, you're right. Are you suggesting that when they don't, we should throw away our civil liberties?
Either way, any short glance at world history reveals that when mass numbers of unemployed, poor people are gathered together, they behave poorly. You could also look at the pretty obvious lessons of Prohibition. Or not, I don't care.
YOU are the one that said we need to legalize drugs to "reduce" crime in there. Implying that so many were drug users that making it legal was the only way to keep the cops away from them instead of expecting them to obey the law. YOU brought that up not me or anyone else. So which of us made this racist?
Personally, I think it is hilarious that anyone who could possibly be posting their thoughts via computer on a messageboard of a role-playing game company could possibly accuse anyone else of being bourgeois.
Well, while I can't deny that I laughed to myself while I wrote the post, I would point out that the word "bourgeois" was used to refer to the state--the government, the bodies of armed men who enforce class rule as Marx would put it (not Illinois, not New Hampshire)--not to any individual poster.
YOU are the one that said we need to legalize drugs to "reduce" crime in there. Implying that so many were drug users that making it legal was the only way to keep the cops away from them instead of expecting them to obey the law. YOU brought that up not me or anyone else. So which of us made this racist?
I never said you were racist.
What I did say is that your argument that if people in the ghettos would stop baking their brains and follow the law, like some mythical non-ghetto dwelling population that never does drugs and is always in accordance with the law, is the kind of example of racist codespeech that A Man in Black is always talking about.
You often accuse me of implications in my statements that aren't there.
People aren't getting shot every night because people are doing drugs. People are getting shot because the drug market is so lucrative because it is illegal. Please, go watch a movie about gangsters in the thirties, or Walking Tall, or whatever. I shouldn't have to explain why Prohibition failed to you.
But I must apologize to the rest of the thread.
I kind of realized the socialist revolution post would get a reaction (hee hee!), but it shouldn't derail from the highly stimulating lesson in Constitutional case history that Citizen Aretas was delivering.
|
|
YOU are the one that said we need to legalize drugs to "reduce" crime in there. Implying that so many were drug users that making it legal was the only way to keep the cops away from them instead of expecting them to obey the law. YOU brought that up not me or anyone else. So which of us made this racist?I never said you were racist.
What I did say is that your argument that if people in the ghettos would stop baking their brains and follow the law, like some mythical non-ghetto dwelling population that never does drugs and is always in accordance with the law, is the kind of example of racist codespeech that A Man in Black is always talking about.
You often accuse me of implications in my statements that aren't there.
People aren't getting shot every night because people are doing drugs. People are getting shot because the drug market is so lucrative because it is illegal. Please, go watch a movie about gangsters in the thirties, or Walking Tall, or whatever. I shouldn't have to explain why Prohibition failed to you.
I fully understand why prohibition failed, but by the same measure we could save a ton of money by dropping many laws. Think of how much we could save if we stopped arresting simple assault and dropped age of consent laws.....But then again is it really for the better to make things legal?
If you think that Prohibition failed simply because it was expensive, I would suggest you should go watch those gangster flicks again.
But, let's ignore all that. Drugs. Love or hate them, they're out there and people do them. You could treat them like a disease or you could treat them like a crime. If you decide to treat them like a crime, then you end up with the criminal gangs who deal drugs and the attendant violence that goes along with that.
Now, apparently, the crime has gotten so bad (I know, I know, this might not actually be true, but let's go with it) that many are thinking of establishing as police procedure violation of civil liberties allegedly granted by the US Constitution. (Despite all this talk about the 4th Amendment, we all know that I am no big believer in the sancrosanctity of that document; "Paper takes anything written on it" and all that.)
Yes, imho, it would be better to decriminalize recreational drugs than to contract civil liberties.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to point out a couple of cognitive word usage via textual criticism.
DISCLAIMER: some of the context below has been bolded per my emphasis.
What is there to say? He believes the police are a gang, screams about WHITE FRAT KIDS drinking while blacks & are strolling peacefully on the other side of the street. Has 5 or 6 other stories where he has been held at gun point by the cops. Then there are the times he has been held at gun point by legit BAD people. I don't think he needs my compassion, he needs a therapist!
I get it that it's conveniently customary to refer to Caucasians as white and African-Americans as blacks, but I couldn't help but notice that along the course of conversation, you shifted to label Latinos as browns.
I do like that he hates the "don't snitch" mantra in the community.
YES, to all your questions regarding my personal experiences with the police. I've had my fair share of A hole cops. Deserved and undeserved.
But here's the interesting thing: ShinHakkaider, who you were replying to, did not specify a color or a race with regard to the community:
Cops are simply just another gang except they're pretty much a gang with carte blanche to do what they want. Very few of them actually care about the neighborhoods they are stewards of. You know how you know the ones who care and give a crap? Those are the ones who actually stop and talk to you outside of trying to make an arrest. They talk to the kids, they talk to the old timers, the bodega owners. They build and earn respect and trust. I like those Officers.
On the other hand, you want to know what would start to sort things out in these neighborhoods? This stupid ass STOP SNITCHING crap. These a-holes are KILLING YOUR CHILDREN. They are killing people who aren't even in the game. Not only are they bad people they SUCK at being criminals. Why are you protecting them when they dont give a rat-ass about you, your safety of you or kids. These neighborhoods should be killing these people in the street. Seriously some corner kid gets shot? Some stick up kid gets shot? Who cares? But civilians are getting gunned down, kids are getting killed for no good reason.
ShinHakkaider was speaking in general terms about the communities in which the police offers are assigned to as stewards. He didn't specify a color nor racial class; he was generalizing communities in general with regard to the "stop snitching" archetypes that do more harm than good. It isn't isolated to a specific color and/or ethnicity.
I'm guessing it's because since ShinHakkaider acknowledged himself to be "[s]peaking ... as a silly negro who has lived in a few of those neighborhoods," labeling the community that the "stop snitching" archetypes as being a black one deems convenient to support your argument concerning the conditions as you reflect them to be in Chicago.
a) it could be possible that I'm completely being silly and no one else but myself is going to make this observation ...
- OR -
b) this is the kind of context that simply gives AMiB easy fodder to aggrandize you with further hyperbole.
I'm not making any specific accusation, but it's painful to watch the cognitive dissonance unveil in this thread (and other threads of similar ilk) over and over again. If this is an erroneous observation, then I would apologize. However, I would implore you to take a better look as to what you're composing before you hit Submit Post.
Thanks.
Addendum:
As for cops as gangs, see American Gangster (starring Russel Crowe) or Serpico (starring Al Pacino), which are based on true events.
Aggrandize means "to improve the position of" someone. You mean aggravate.
While aggravate would work in the narrative (and probably would have made better sense, admittedly), aggrandize also means to "enhance the reputation of (someone) beyond what is justified by the facts" or "to amplify." Since I mentioned hyperbole in the context, I admit there was slight rhetoric / word play involved. It doesn't necessitate the conclusion to be a positive one on the subject addressed.
Anklebiter's made the argument about Aretas's whistlewords, though, I don't really feel the need to repeat it.
True, but one can't ignore the Stormfront hyperbole. :)
Addendum:
As for cops as gangs, see American Gangster (starring Russel Crowe) or Serpico (starring Al Pacino), which are based on true events.
As an aside, while I wholeheartedly agree with Urizen on most issues, as a black nyer, I just can't give you American gangster. The movie just had too many fictionalized parts in it for me. As much as it irks me, do the right thing has a better look at cops as gangs, and training day as well.
I dislike using the "you're a racist" argument for two reasons:
1) It gets threads locked;
2) I think it's quite possible to grow up over the last thirty years reading certain magazines and listening to certain talk show hosts and use racist codespeak and never even realize that's what it is.
But, A Man in Black is right: take that Lee Atwater quote Comrade Jeff always has on hand and you can draw a straight line from that guy in the 1966 clip and certain arguments you sometimes hear about drug-addled, gang-banging, welfare-cheating ghetto residents.
As an aside, while I wholeheartedly agree with Urizen on most issues, as a black nyer, I just can't give you American gangster. The movie just had too many fictionalized parts in it for me. As much as it irks me, do the right thing has a better look at cops as gangs, and training day as well.Addendum:
As for cops as gangs, see American Gangster (starring Russel Crowe) or Serpico (starring Al Pacino), which are based on true events.
Oof. How did I miss Training Day?
As for American Gangster, I was primarily targeting on Josh Brolin's clique. May not be a gang in the classical sense, but he was running his own racket / protection / extortion scheme.
True, but one can't ignore the Stormfront hyperbole. :)Where's the hyperbole? When you are making the exact same arguments as someone on Stormfront, you've got a problem.
Exact? I'll give you that there are similarities that's difficult to suspend, but I wouldn't put it at face value using an absolute. As naive as it may be for me to say this, I doubt that the person is a card carrying active member of the site with his own registered account.
Unless that is the case, it's essentially hyperbole.
It doesn't mean that I disagree with your observation, though. But at this point, we're discussing semantics.
On that note, I'll concur with Comrade Anklebiter on his latest remark.
True, but one can't ignore the Stormfront hyperbole. :)Where's the hyperbole? When you are making the exact same arguments as someone on Stormfront, you've got a problem.
You and Urizen should take note of this. When you accuse someone of racist "whistle words" and accuse a person of racism where there is none you lost the debate. You guys are F'd up.
Yes, but according to you (above) to even bring up racism when discussing institutions that have well-documented histories of racist abuse when handing them unconstitutional powers to deal with majority black populations is "to divide and create racism where there is none," so, whatever.
Anything else to say about Terry vs. Ohio?
Ninja'ed
You and Urizen should take note of this. When you accuse someone of racist "whistle words" and accuse a person of racism where there is none you lost the debate. You guys are F'd up.
Greetings, argumentum ad hominem. We meet again.
I'm sure if Grand Magus ran a poll, the results may appear unfavorable.
But you have an uncanny ability to gravitate toward these racially institutionalized topics to affirm your consequent:
If B, then C.
C.
Therefore, B.
Maybe you'd be better off in a discussion about Paladins?
Although said tongue-in-cheek, I'm being sincere. You don't want this kind of perceived community master status.
As an aside, while I wholeheartedly agree with Urizen on most issues, as a black nyer, I just can't give you American gangster. The movie just had too many fictionalized parts in it for me. As much as it irks me, do the right thing has a better look at cops as gangs, and training day as well.Addendum:
As for cops as gangs, see American Gangster (starring Russel Crowe) or Serpico (starring Al Pacino), which are based on true events.
Oof. How did I miss Training Day?
As for American Gangster, I was primarily targeting on Josh Brolin's clique. May not be a gang in the classical sense, but he was running his own racket / protection / extortion scheme.
Fair point.
|
|
YOU are the one that said we need to legalize drugs to "reduce" crime in there. Implying that so many were drug users that making it legal was the only way to keep the cops away from them instead of expecting them to obey the law. YOU brought that up not me or anyone else. So which of us made this racist?Legalizing drugs instantly moots one of the main revenue sources for urban gangs, and the alternatives are a lot more labor-intensive, less profitable, and often more dangerous. It's happened before, with both alcohol and numbers/lotteries.
Now, what was racist was implying that only poor people living in the city (who are overwhelmingly black or hispanic) are significantly more likely to be drug users than anyone else, and that law-abiding people living in a s!@~ty situation are somehow responsible for getting harassed because of their neighbors.
People side with criminals against police enforcing these laws because they feel that they're unjust. Doing so is a major part of the US's creation myth.
I fully understand why prohibition failed, but by the same measure we could save a ton of money by dropping many laws. Think of how much we could save if we stopped arresting simple assault and dropped age of consent laws.....But then again is it really for the better to make things legal?This is where I get stuck on full legalization, though. I'm all for decriminalization, because punishing people for being on the raw end of a power imbalance is both unfair and not productive. On the other hand, do we really want to legalize opiates, cocaine, and amphetamines? Those are extremely addictive and extremely dangerous.
this is the kind of context that simply gives AMiB easy fodder to aggrandize you with further hyperbole.Aggrandize means "to improve the position of" someone. You mean aggravate.
Anklebiter's made the argument about Aretas's whistlewords, though, I don't really...
Actually HE implied that poor ghetto residents needed legalization to be protected from the police. i equally hate all drug use and find the poor crack smoker equal to the wealthy heroin addict or middle class raver.
I don't actually think that anyone here is posting on Stormfront, Freerepublic, etc. The point is that arguments cribbed from Blaze, Reason Magazine, Weekly Standard, and so on are indistinguishable from arguments made on straight up WP sites. When you are describing people in poor neighborhoods as baked out on drugs or asking what's wrong with white pride and do not think you are a racist, it's time to look to the company you are keeping. Arguments for institutional racism are racist, even if you yourself do not wish to be.
Would you think I was a huge racist if my handle was A Man In White? You see racism everywhere and with everyone who does not agree with you or you wish to smear. Then *poof* Race Card!
I'm a Greek/American and proud of my peoples accomplishments and history. I get inspiration from my Greek, European and American history so I can strive to do better for myself, my family and community.Taking pride in that is a great thing. Not to be diminished by race baiters like you who would call me and people like me racist or make me ashamed of my heritage.
This post started out of concern for the communities in my city that are suffering so much. It was a way to bring attention to the problem and hear ideas on what can be done to stop the violence, get guns off the street and stop punks from shooting people. Where are racist whistle words in that statement or the heart of this thread?
You mention publications that you believe are indistinguishable from white power sites. What do they have in common? Is having voter I.D., secure borders, enforcing immigration laws racist rhetoric to you?
...YOU are the one that said we need to legalize drugs to "reduce" crime in there. Implying that so many were drug users that making it legal was the only way to keep the cops away from them instead of expecting them to obey the law. YOU brought that up not me or anyone else. So which of us made this racist?Legalizing drugs instantly moots one of the main revenue sources for urban gangs, and the alternatives are a lot more labor-intensive, less profitable, and often more dangerous. It's happened before, with both alcohol and numbers/lotteries.
Now, what was racist was implying that only poor people living in the city (who are overwhelmingly black or hispanic) are significantly more likely to be drug users than anyone else, and that law-abiding people living in a s!@~ty situation are somehow responsible for getting harassed because of their neighbors.
People side with criminals against police enforcing these laws because they feel that they're unjust. Doing so is a major part of the US's creation myth.
I fully understand why prohibition failed, but by the same measure we could save a ton of money by dropping many laws. Think of how much we could save if we stopped arresting simple assault and dropped age of consent laws.....But then again is it really for the better to make things legal?This is where I get stuck on full legalization, though. I'm all for decriminalization, because punishing people for being on the raw end of a power imbalance is both unfair and not productive. On the other hand, do we really want to legalize opiates, cocaine, and amphetamines? Those are extremely addictive and extremely dangerous.
this is the kind of context that simply gives AMiB easy fodder to aggrandize you with further hyperbole.Aggrandize means "to improve the position of" someone. You mean aggravate.
Anklebiter's made the argument about Aretas's
An interesting point, Andrew. This explains much.
I don't actually think that anyone here is posting on Stormfront, Freerepublic, etc. The point is that arguments cribbed from Blaze, Reason Magazine, Weekly Standard, and so on are indistinguishable from arguments made on straight up WP sites. When you are describing people in poor neighborhoods as baked out on drugs or asking what's wrong with white pride and do not think you are a racist, it's time to look to the company you are keeping. Arguments for institutional racism are racist, even if you yourself do not wish to be.Would you think I was a huge racist if my handle was A Man In White? You see racism everywhere and with everyone who does not agree with you or you wish to smear. Then *poof* Race Card!
I'm a Greek/American and proud of my peoples accomplishments and history. I get inspiration from my Greek, European and American history so I can strive to do better for myself, my family and community.
Taking pride in that is a great thing. Not to be diminished by race baiters like you who would call me and people like me racist or make me ashamed of my heritage.This post started out of concern for the communities in my city that are suffering so much. It was a way to bring attention to the problem and hear ideas on what can be done to stop the violence, get guns off the street and stop punks from shooting people. Where are racist whistle words in that statement or the heart of this thread?
You mention publications that you believe are indistinguishable from white power sites. What do they have in common? Is having voter I.D., secure borders, enforcing immigration laws racist rhetoric to you?
Having pride in one's heritage is incredibly important, but when you refuse to allow others to have that same pride, there is a problem. Also, no culture is perfect, and as important as pride is, it should come along with the humility that comes from acknowledgement of past mistakes. Just as you point out other's flaws, you should accept the flaws of your own heritage as well.
You know the answer
Please, share. Side conversations are for PMs.
Actually HE implied that poor ghetto residents needed legalization to be protected from the police. i equally hate all drug use and find the poor crack smoker equal to the wealthy heroin addict or middle class raver.
But the "poor ghetto residents" are not exclusive to illicit drug usage (but I know you're aware of that because your following sentence affirms it).
I would like you to clarify, if you don't mind. You said all drug use. That's a sweeping broad generalization that can encompasses a lot of (un)scheduled classes that shouldn't deserve your ire. I assume you mean a certain class of drugs? I get the illustrative examples from the three social classes you provided, but I just wanted to be clear so I wasn't misconstruing you.
Thanks, Andrew.
Actually HE implied that poor ghetto residents needed legalization to be protected from the police. i equally hate all drug use and find the poor crack smoker equal to the wealthy heroin addict or middle class raver.
Actually, no, I didn't.
What I said was that, imho, to end crime in the ghettos would take drug legalization, full employment and international proletarian socialist revolution.
Please stop ascribing to me implications that aren't there. You do it all the time.