Dicey, Comrade Freehold:
While, on the one hand, I have severe reservations about not just the theory of "privilege" but more importantly, to what purpose is this theory for; Otoh, I doubt Citizen R.'s mockery would ever make me second-guess anything, especially when it comes to race.
On the other other hand, amusing poetry slam performance making its rounds on Facebook.
To which I responded, "I love A Tribe Called Quest!"
|
Dicey, Comrade Freehold:
While, on the one hand, I have severe reservations about not just the theory of "privilege" but more importantly, to what purpose is this theory for; Otoh, I doubt Citizen R.'s mockery would ever make me second-guess anything, especially when it comes to race.
On the other other hand, amusing poetry slam performance making its rounds on Facebook.
To which I responded, "I love A Tribe Called Quest!"
half mock half bonafide fact. Being tall thin and attractive is more privilege giving than anything. It is more likely to make you wealthy, well treated and is damn near a prerequisite to be a world leader.
half mock half bonafide fact. Being tall thin and attractive is more privilege giving than anything. It is more likely to make you wealthy, well treated and is damn near a prerequisite to be a world leader.Dicey, Comrade Freehold:
While, on the one hand, I have severe reservations about not just the theory of "privilege" but more importantly, to what purpose is this theory for; Otoh, I doubt Citizen R.'s mockery would ever make me second-guess anything, especially when it comes to race.
On the other other hand, amusing poetry slam performance making its rounds on Facebook.
To which I responded, "I love A Tribe Called Quest!"
Right but its not going to cut your chances of going to prison by 90%
Right but its not going to cut your chances of going to prison by 90%half mock half bonafide fact. Being tall thin and attractive is more privilege giving than anything. It is more likely to make you wealthy, well treated and is damn near a prerequisite to be a world leader.Dicey, Comrade Freehold:
While, on the one hand, I have severe reservations about not just the theory of "privilege" but more importantly, to what purpose is this theory for; Otoh, I doubt Citizen R.'s mockery would ever make me second-guess anything, especially when it comes to race.
On the other other hand, amusing poetry slam performance making its rounds on Facebook.
To which I responded, "I love A Tribe Called Quest!"
Depends on how you use it.
It's a great information gathering tool.
The biggest single advantage of being a straight, white, and male is that I have no resulting chip on my shoulder. Not caring about what other people think of me on account of my race, gender, and sexuality is indeed a powerful thing. It's available to anyone, but no one telling me in my formative years that someone else has privilege unavailable to me helped me think that way.
Also, I've seen a few people in here comment on race and crime. Not only do I have a Master's degree in Criminology (which is pretty much a hundred ways to tackle that particular question), but I am an active police detective. Any criminologist will tell you that the primary reason that blacks (especially males between 16 and 24) are disproportionately imprisoned is because of disproportionate criminal activity. Check the Uniform Crime Reports published by the FBI; if you don't trust official sources, the National Crime Victimization Survey shows the same demographics in commission as it does in those arrested. Post-1980, most criminologists argue about the underlying reasons for the disproportionate involvement in crime.
I've long argued that the robbery/embezzlement "disparity" is not simply the violent nature of the former. Violence is the primary reason that robbery is treated more seriously than theft. (In Texas, one has to steal $100,000 non-violently to be the equivalent of stealing $0.01 violently; or $200,000 in the case of serious bodily injury or exhibition or use of a deadly weapon.) However, I believe that it is the random nature of violent crime. The public at large understands the fear of being violently robbed, and understands it in a visceral way. The public understands the anxiety of being stolen from in a white collar way, but it feels far more insulated. It's not race that's the question. The whole notion reminds me of an argument in Manning Marable's first book from the 1980s in which he argues that our criminal justice system was developed in response to racial crime patterns; that is, that robbery and murder are taken more seriously than prostitution and jaywalking (not kidding) because whites commit the latter more often than blacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. Any criminologist will tell you that the primary reason that blacks (especially males between 16 and 24) are disproportionately imprisoned is because of disproportionate criminal activity.
So how does that explain areas like drug offenses, where the use of illegal drugs is about even but convictions are much higher for blacks?
I think space is a big part of it (to catch my friends from highschool smoking pot for example, the cops would have had to row out onto an island in the middle of the hudson river...) but I can't help but notice that stopping black people and searching them without cause is OK but doing that to white people will get you fired.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest single advantage of being a straight, white, and male is that I have no resulting chip on my shoulder. Not caring about what other people think of me on account of my race, gender, and sexuality is indeed a powerful thing. It's available to anyone, but no one telling me in my formative years that someone else has privilege unavailable to me helped me think that way.
Also, I've seen a few people in here comment on race and crime. Not only do I have a Master's degree in Criminology (which is pretty much a hundred ways to tackle that particular question), but I am an active police detective. Any criminologist will tell you that the primary reason that blacks (E tspecially males between 16 and 24) are disproportionately imprisoned is because of disproportionate criminal activity. Check the Uniform Crime Reports published by the FBI; if you don't trust official sources, the National Crime Victimization Survey shows the same demographics in commission as it does in those arrested. Post-1980, most criminologists argue about the underlying reasons for the disproportionate involvement in crime.
I've long argued that the robbery/embezzlement "disparity" is not simply the violent nature of the former. Violence is the primary reason that robbery is treated more seriously than theft. (In Texas, one has to steal $100,000 non-violently to be the equivalent of stealing $0.01 violently; or $200,000 in the case of serious bodily injury or exhibition or use of a deadly weapon.) However, I believe that it is the random nature of violent crime. The public at large understands the fear of being violently robbed, and understands it in a visceral way. The public understands the anxiety of being stolen from in a white collar way, but it feels far more insulated. It's not race that's the question. The whole notion reminds me of an argument in Manning Marable's first book from the 1980s in which he argues that our criminal justice system was developed in response to racial crime patterns; that is, that robbery and...
uh huh.
So how does that explain areas like drug offenses, where the use of illegal drugs is about even but convictions are much higher for blacks?I think space is a big part of it (to catch my friends from highschool smoking pot for example, the cops would have had to row out onto an island in the middle of the hudson river...) but I can't help but notice that stopping black people and searching them without cause is OK but doing that to white people will get you fired.
Terry v. Ohio gives a reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, which includes a frisk that often turns up contraband. Searches incident to arrest (for warrants or minor violations, for instance) also often turn up contraband. The main reason for disproportionate arrests in drug cases is because of location, just as you say. This is especially true for marijuana, which has an easy probable cause standard because of the notable scent. Most middle-class folks who use drugs do so in the comfort of their home, rather than carry the contraband around with them from place to place. Combining that with the disproportionate involvement in other crime and high-suspicion behavior like loitering results in disproportionate arrests.
Before anyone mentions the crack/powder disparity as proof of a racist criminal justice system, I offer this: it was the Congressional Black Caucus who asked for the disparity in the 1980s.
So how does that explain areas like drug offenses, where the use of illegal drugs is about even but convictions are much higher for blacks?I think space is a big part of it (to catch my friends from highschool smoking pot for example, the cops would have had to row out onto an island in the middle of the hudson river...) but I can't help but notice that stopping black people and searching them without cause is OK but doing that to white people will get you fired.
Terry v. Ohio gives a reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, which includes a frisk that often turns up contraband. Searches incident to arrest (for warrants or minor violations, for instance) also often turn up contraband. The main reason for disproportionate arrests in drug cases is because of location, just as you say. This is especially true for marijuana, which has an easy probable cause standard because of the notable scent. Most middle-class folks who use drugs do so in the comfort of their home, rather than carry the contraband around with them from place to place. Combining that with the disproportionate involvement in other crime and high-suspicion behavior like loitering results in disproportionate arrests.
Before anyone mentions the crack/powder disparity as proof of a racist criminal justice system, I offer this: it was the Congressional Black Caucus who asked for the disparity in the 1980s.
Yeah, they played right into the CIAs hands on that one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Terry v. Ohio gives a reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone
Which is a lot higher in white areas than black ones. If a cop put his hands on someone's pot smoking bundle of joy in my lovely little corner of suburbia for "furtive movement" not only would the pot get tossed out of court but they would own the police station within a week.
Big part of the problem with arguing that the legal system was set up in response to crime based on races is that the disparity between violent and nonviolent crime predates the United States, and might even predate European contact with the slavers in Africa. Plus, the American court system was set up in a period of time when violent crime was primarily committed by white people. Of course, given that African Americans were property during that time, it really didn't benefit them much.
So, pretty much, the court system wasn't set up in response to them; they were utterly ignored when setting it up. Which is probably part of why the disparity exists; the court system was never intended to help African Americans. And a badly-designed system that includes you in some way is a lot easier to fix than one that never was meant for you in the first place.
|
|
Terry v. Ohio gives a reasonable suspicion standard to stop someoneWhich is a lot higher in white areas than black ones. If a cop put his hands on someone's pot smoking bundle of joy in my lovely little corner of suburbia for "furtive movement" not only would the pot get tossed out of court but they would own the police station within a week.
must be an odd place you live in. i have lived in cities 90% white and not even 50% and in both you get caught you get the punishment regardless of race.
|
|
Big part of the problem with arguing that the legal system was set up in response to crime based on races is that the disparity between violent and nonviolent crime predates the United States, and might even predate European contact with the slavers in Africa. Plus, the American court system was set up in a period of time when violent crime was primarily committed by white people. Of course, given that African Americans were property during that time, it really didn't benefit them much.
So, pretty much, the court system wasn't set up in response to them; they were utterly ignored when setting it up. Which is probably part of why the disparity exists; the court system was never intended to help African Americans. And a badly-designed system that includes you in some way is a lot easier to fix than one that never was meant for you in the first place.
The system is set to punish you if you commit a crime. i do not see how color matters at all in this. How does it need to be tailored to blacks to be more "fair"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
must be an odd place you live in. i have lived in cities 90% white and not even 50% and in both you get caught you get the punishment regardless of race.Terry v. Ohio gives a reasonable suspicion standard to stop someoneWhich is a lot higher in white areas than black ones. If a cop put his hands on someone's pot smoking bundle of joy in my lovely little corner of suburbia for "furtive movement" not only would the pot get tossed out of court but they would own the police station within a week.
"don't do the crime if you can't do the time" works great if everyone's using a public defender. If you have the funds to hire your own lawyer, you're probably going to see some disparity based on finances, and there is a real disparity there with respect to race and ethnicity.
Which is a lot higher in white areas than black ones. If a cop put his hands on someone's pot smoking bundle of joy in my lovely little corner of suburbia for "furtive movement" not only would the pot get tossed out of court but they would own the police station within a week.
I would not say that the standard is higher in wealthy areas than poor areas - though I will readily state that geographic locations play into the totality of the circumstances. That is, acting suspiciously in an area well-known for drugs and prostitution tends to be looked at with more suspicion. You may call that splitting hairs, but I am explaining a race-neutral reason for what you claim. I've arrested plenty of wealthy folks. I've arrested many more poor folks, simply because they're the people who we deal with most often. As for your second claim, I will allow you some hyperbole, but I think it is a little silly to think that a mimisdemeanor arrest that fails to meet probable cause (through an improper search or any other reason) would result in a successful lawsuit. That is, unless one of two conditions occur: that the jurisdiction is a settlement-heavy jurisdiction, or that the impropriety was the result of corruption or malice.
Freehold is correct. Generally speaking, being able to afford bond and an attorney will result in more favorable outcomes. That said, many of those who can't also have more significant criminal histories than those who can afford to, which compounds their predicament. Class is far more important than race in determining outcome. I would rather be a wealthy black man with no criminal history than a poor white man with one. This is true of the criminal justice system as well as the rest of any other part of our society.
|
|
"don't do the crime if you can't do the time" works great if everyone's using a public defender. If you have the funds to hire your own lawyer, you're probably going to see some disparity based on finances, and there is a real disparity there with respect to race and ethnicity.must be an odd place you live in. i have lived in cities 90% white and not even 50% and in both you get caught you get the punishment regardless of race.Terry v. Ohio gives a reasonable suspicion standard to stop someoneWhich is a lot higher in white areas than black ones. If a cop put his hands on someone's pot smoking bundle of joy in my lovely little corner of suburbia for "furtive movement" not only would the pot get tossed out of court but they would own the police station within a week.
That is still more an economic disparity than racial. does kobe or OJ need better treatment to get a fair trial than my poor white ass? Most of the "racial disparity" is a lie and is nothing more than economic disparity. The fact that more black are impoverished is a different matter that needs a different solution.
The system is set to punish you if you commit a crime. i do not see how color matters at all in this. How does it need to be tailored to blacks to be more "fair"?Big part of the problem with arguing that the legal system was set up in response to crime based on races is that the disparity between violent and nonviolent crime predates the United States, and might even predate European contact with the slavers in Africa. Plus, the American court system was set up in a period of time when violent crime was primarily committed by white people. Of course, given that African Americans were property during that time, it really didn't benefit them much.
So, pretty much, the court system wasn't set up in response to them; they were utterly ignored when setting it up. Which is probably part of why the disparity exists; the court system was never intended to help African Americans. And a badly-designed system that includes you in some way is a lot easier to fix than one that never was meant for you in the first place.
That's... complicated. It's more a case of historical discrimination colliding with modern equality movements to create a case where it is entirely possible the current issue is one that cannot be fixed easily. I am not saying we do not have the capacity to fix it rapidly; just that most people view a societal restart procedure followed by a genetic reseeding to be a last resort at best. For obvious reasons.
Pretty much, before the civil rights movement really got going, it was not uncommon for the courts to discriminate against African Americans, even sometimes finding one who spoke out too much or who defended themselves as being against the established order enough that they might violently oppose it. Some even prophesied that, if not "kept in their place," some African Americans would actually get violent and organize to use violence to get what they want. Others simply viewed African Americans as lesser. But, basically, the laws were abused, misused, and sometimes outright ignored by the courts to keep African Americans in-equal. Note that there were arguments against that prophesy I mentioned, specifically that African Americans would act like the whites if given a chance.
And then we come to the Civil Rights era. Where, just like with feminism, an ugly earlier prophesy ended up coming true. It wasn't true of all of the groups, but there were some who actually were violent... Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made a lot of effort to get them to stop so his nonviolence movement (which was also the more successful movement) could gain advances without being shadowed by the actions of the more violent movements. This was also a time of television coverage everywhere... so there was a lot of coverage of both sides of the fight, though King's group still ended up victorious.
Unfortunately, the shadow also remained; many of those who said African Americans would be inherently more violent if given a chance towards equality walked away feeling vindicated in their beliefs by the more violent groups. Law enforcement also didn't trust the new equality; it had been given reason by those more violent groups to believe that the new equality would mean new crime. Sadly, that belief has since been vindicated as well, though it is because of that law enforcement attitude and the inherited spirit of standing up for oneself from the civil rights era that led to it. Add in socioeconomic factors that were not fixed by the aftermath and you get the current situation.
Note that, at current, the situation cannot be fixed; all we can do is lay the foundations for future solutions.
Note this is relying on memory; there are oversimplifications galore and some of my info may be wrong.
And if you're curious about the feminism bit, it's simple: Every single accomplishment feminism has made was used against Suffragists as an argument against women getting the right to vote. Look them up sometime; they're both hilarious in how ridiculous they are and strangely prophetic in that they were right about some of what came to pass.
Now, how is the feminism bit relevant? It illustrates how it is that America doesn't actually completely solve its problems; ultimately, the movements to solve the major problems end up proving the people who opposed those solutions right in some way, which in turn only gives them more fuel for more fighting. Thus, the current racial issues, people accusing Affirmative Action of being racist, and disproportionate crime rate among African Americans and how there's no solution to that which will be effective in the short-term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not say that the standard is higher in wealthy areas than poor areas
Then you're being dishonest. You know damn well what works in harlem is NOT going to fly in the burbs much less on wallstreet.
though I will readily state that geographic locations play into the totality of the circumstances. That is, acting suspiciously in an area well-known for drugs and prostitution tends to be looked at with more suspicion.
Except that illegal drug use is fairly standard across the board.
You may call that splitting hairs
Electronmicroscopy.
but I am explaining a race-neutral reason for what you claim.
Even typing can you do it with a strait face?
I will allow you some hyperbole, but I think it is a little silly to think that a mimisdemeanor arrest that fails to meet probable cause (through an improper search or any other reason) would result in a successful lawsuit.
Its a little but not much. The cop is going to have to outright lie in most cases, which is substantially riskier than making a judgement call like furtive movement.
That is, unless one of two conditions occur: that the jurisdiction is a settlement-heavy jurisdiction, or that the impropriety was the result of corruption or malice.
Rich white neighborhood with a lot of lawyers? WHo woulda thought...
Houston generally doesn't settle unless it is an unwinnable case, while Chicago settles frequently. Guess who receives more cases and spends more money on settlements?
An area being known for street-level drug sales is absolutely relevant for determining the totality of the circumstances. Nothing happens in a vacuum. You don't see drug dealers selling dope on the corner of Suburbia Drive at Main Street. The legal standard is no different from place to place, but the facts on the ground make it easier to meet the legal standard in some places over others.
As for the suggestions that we lie to get what we want, you are unequivocally wrong. (I say that as an aggregate statement; there are individuals who break the rules, but no more or less than the population as a whole. It is also a quick route to getting fired and arrested to falsify anything in this job.) I think it is fair to say that I spend more time with cops than you do (I hope), and I say that my integrity is absolutely intact. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An area being known for street-level drug sales is absolutely relevant for determining the totality of the circumstances.
Ok, so wallstreet is an area known for financial crimes. Lets throw them all up against the wall and look through their briefcases for evidence and cocaine. Hey, he looked guilty! And then around day 10 of this when the guy thats had his face pancaked up against the glass doors of the Leimond brothers building 3 times goes "Oh s$#! the cops" then you have him for furtive movement and looking guilty.
The legal standard is no different from place to place
The actual standard is.
but the facts on the ground make it easier to meet the legal standard in some places over others.
Especially black male facts.
As for the suggestions that we lie to get what we want, you are unequivocally wrong.
Ya'll are unequivocally on tape more and more these days getting caught at it.
(I say that as an aggregate statement; there are individuals who break the rules, but no more or less than the population as a whole.)
Which is very problematic given the power you people have.
Houston generally doesn't settle unless it is an unwinnable case, while Chicago settles frequently. Guess who receives more cases and spends more money on settlements?
An area being known for street-level drug sales is absolutely relevant for determining the totality of the circumstances. Nothing happens in a vacuum. You don't see drug dealers selling dope on the corner of Suburbia Drive at Main Street. The legal standard is no different from place to place, but the facts on the ground make it easier to meet the legal standard in some places over others.
Then how are the users in suburbia getting their ish?
As for the suggestions that we lie to get what we want, you are unequivocally wrong. (I say that as an aggregate statement; there are individuals who break the rules, but no more or less than the population as a whole. It is also a quick route to getting fired and arrested to falsify anything in this job.) I think it is fair to say that I spend more time with cops than you do (I hope), and I say that my integrity is absolutely intact. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
I think bnw is a bit harsh here, as it would be wiser to say no one - cop or civilian - is omniscient. It's very possible that some real dirty dealings are being done around you by coworkers and you aren't aware. Be as intolerant as you wish towards bad cops, but it's quite hard to catch one in the act as a fellow cop, in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body count
Do you think someone who breaks the law and starts insider trading shouldn't be arrested? The real issue there is that the body created to investigate such occurrences is filled to the brim with people who are often close personal friends with these lawbreakers and are often loathe to drop a dime on them.
So you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body count
To be cursed by the devil is to be truly blessed.
|
|
So you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countDo you think someone who breaks the law and starts insider trading shouldn't be arrested? The real issue there is that the body created to investigate such occurrences is filled to the brim with people who are often close personal friends with these lawbreakers and are often loathe to drop a dime on them.
All criminals should face justice. That said, wallstreet criminals really rarely leave corpses, almost never do drive bys and do not often at all riddle the wrong house with bullets. Street criminals that some seem to think deserve less attention DO
|
|
So you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countTo be cursed by the devil is to be truly blessed.
Well if protecting the gangbangers to focus on the evil rich makes you so holy have the guts to tell that to folks at the funerals of some innocent drive by victims. "Hey sorry your son is dead some stock broker snorted a line at home and we were too busy getting him to address the gangs"
|
|
As for the suggestions that we lie to get what we want, you are unequivocally wrong. (I say that as an aggregate statement; there are individuals who break the rules, but no more or less than the population as a whole. It is also a quick route to getting fired and arrested to falsify anything in this job.) I think it is fair to say that I spend more time with cops than you do (I hope), and I say that my integrity is absolutely intact. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.I think bnw is a bit harsh here, as it would be wiser to say no one - cop or civilian - is omniscient. It's very possible that some real dirty dealings are being done around you by coworkers and you aren't aware. Be as intolerant as you wish towards bad cops, but it's quite hard to catch one in the act as a fellow cop, in my experience.Not to mention a long tradition of protecting fellow officers.
Not questioning DM Barcas's individual integrity here, but the idea that cops as a whole root out their bad apples quickly, rather than protect them, is nonsense.
Sadly true and the only thing i really hold against them. they SHOULD be more about the integrity of the system than protecting a criminal in blue
All criminals should face justice. That said, wallstreet criminals really rarely leave corpses, almost never do drive bys and do not often at all riddle the wrong house with bullets. Street criminals that some seem to think deserve less attention DOSo you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countDo you think someone who breaks the law and starts insider trading shouldn't be arrested? The real issue there is that the body created to investigate such occurrences is filled to the brim with people who are often close personal friends with these lawbreakers and are often loathe to drop a dime on them.
If you want, I can change that. Make it as high as you want. I just need you to agree to hand over a small trifle... nothing you'll miss at any point in your life. In fact, some have lived quite a bit better without it.
Also, have any preferences for which war you want the body count to match?
|
|
All criminals should face justice. That said, wallstreet criminals really rarely leave corpses, almost never do drive bys and do not often at all riddle the wrong house with bullets. Street criminals that some seem to think deserve less attention DOSo you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countDo you think someone who breaks the law and starts insider trading shouldn't be arrested? The real issue there is that the body created to investigate such occurrences is filled to the brim with people who are often close personal friends with these lawbreakers and are often loathe to drop a dime on them.If you want, I can change that. Make it as high as you want. I just need you to agree to hand over a small trifle... nothing you'll miss at any point in your life. In fact, some have lived quite a bit better without it.
Also, have any preferences for which war you want the body count to match?
yeah because any given banker is as guilty for a war as a gangbanger that pulls the trigger. You class warfare guys really are getting silly about stretching reality to fit what you want.
Well if protecting the gangbangers
I realize this is a fantasy gaming site, but in what world do you live? There's no connection at all between anything I (or anyone else usually) says and your criticism of my position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All criminals should face justice. That said, wallstreet criminals really rarely leave corpses, almost never do drive bys and do not often at all riddle the wrong house with bullets. Street criminals that some seem to think deserve less attention DOSo you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countDo you think someone who breaks the law and starts insider trading shouldn't be arrested? The real issue there is that the body created to investigate such occurrences is filled to the brim with people who are often close personal friends with these lawbreakers and are often loathe to drop a dime on them.
except that you seem to have no problem with wall Street folk who break the law not being caught because the police really aren't looking into them. The bolded comment seems more than a bit hollow as a result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if protecting the gangbangers to focus on the evil rich makes you so holy have the guts to tell that to folks at the funerals of some innocent drive by victims. "Hey sorry your son is dead some stock broker snorted a line at home and we were too busy getting him to address the gangs"So you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countTo be cursed by the devil is to be truly blessed.
See above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah because any given banker is as guilty for a war as a gangbanger that pulls the trigger. You class warfare guys really are getting silly about stretching reality to fit what you want.All criminals should face justice. That said, wallstreet criminals really rarely leave corpses, almost never do drive bys and do not often at all riddle the wrong house with bullets. Street criminals that some seem to think deserve less attention DOSo you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countDo you think someone who breaks the law and starts insider trading shouldn't be arrested? The real issue there is that the body created to investigate such occurrences is filled to the brim with people who are often close personal friends with these lawbreakers and are often loathe to drop a dime on them.If you want, I can change that. Make it as high as you want. I just need you to agree to hand over a small trifle... nothing you'll miss at any point in your life. In fact, some have lived quite a bit better without it.
Also, have any preferences for which war you want the body count to match?
I'm not arguing for class warfare. I'm merely trying to help simplify the crime divide more so that those criminals on Wall Street are more likely to face justice.
But, then, I can see how ending one life via a bullet might be considered by you to be more heinous than ruining thousands of lives through bankruptcy via fraud, which could help prevent them from having money for necessary medical care that insurance doesn't cover and end up ending hundreds of lives prematurely. But, then, it's not like the Wall Street types are pulling the trigger themselves... they're just making it impossible to save those lives is all.
After all, one death is a tragedy. Hundreds of deaths are a statistic. And everyone knows that killing hundreds or even millions through actions that cause intentional harm isn't evil. Just ignore all of those pesky, insignificant people who say otherwise.
Edit: I am not being sarcastic in this, either.
|
|
except that you seem to have no problem with wall Street folk who break the law not being caught because the police really aren't looking into them. The bolded comment seems more than a bit hollow as a result.All criminals should face justice. That said, wallstreet criminals really rarely leave corpses, almost never do drive bys and do not often at all riddle the wrong house with bullets. Street criminals that some seem to think deserve less attention DOSo you are fighting against the police to protect the crack dealer because hes black but you want the wallstreet guy crucified for class warfare agendas. I might see some sanity in that when wallstreet starts competing for body countDo you think someone who breaks the law and starts insider trading shouldn't be arrested? The real issue there is that the body created to investigate such occurrences is filled to the brim with people who are often close personal friends with these lawbreakers and are often loathe to drop a dime on them.
Proper protocols to catch every form of criminal need to exist but those protocols are not the same. For the street crime you need street cops. for financial crimes you need to follow the money trails. To say that both should be pursued in the same fashion ignores reality, and yes higher priority NEEDS to go to violent crime and areas that it is common.
thejeff and BNW: I work for the largest police agency in Texas. I can say with certainty that those who break the law in colors get caught and prosecuted. I've seen it up close and personal. I have conducted the investigations at times (in regards to any criminal behavior that would normally be investigated by my division; administrative issues are investigated by Internal Affairs, which also conducts proactive investigations). Do you really think that there is a wide-ranging conspiracy to shield me from knowing about illegal activity? Or is it more likely that it is not nearly as widespread as you might think.
Suburban and professional folks tend not to carry it around with them. If they do, it is in a surreptitious manner, such as in the wallet, that would go unnoticed unless actually arrested. Folks in business suits also generally don't attract the attention of the police, as any crime they may be conducting is behind closed doors. Manner and location of crime matters. However, my pool of person knowledge is lower here. I have arrested professionals, but far less often than the "traditional" criminal. I can't recall ever finding one with drugs, except maybe one or two on a DWI (and that was prescription rather than cocaine), while drugs (generally crack) is common for the latter. But perhaps there is a group of cocaine-carrying professionals that I have not come into contact with. Maybe they get it delivered. They were smart enough to make lots of money, so one would think they are better at shielding their drugs from police search and seizure.
Mr.Freehold: I have arrested and charged people for financial crimes (ranging from over $100K to $400K) before. There is a reason I work murders. They are generally easier to prove. They require ungodly amounts of time, manpower, and resources. With a finite amount of law enforcement attention, the public would generally prefer to make the killers our primary focus. (I made an earlier post outlining why I think this is.)
Holy shiznit! 37 new posts! Huzzah!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and yes higher priority NEEDS to go to violent crime and areas that it is common.
Why? This is what I always wonder about.
Okay, so you're going to have 10 cop cars and a helicopter come down hard on some guy who stuck up a 711 for a couple hundred bucks. He has directly impacted a single business in a less than significant way.At the same time, when wall street breaks the law and does skeevy stuff, millions of people are robbed of their pensions, millions more are out of work because of economic downturn.
In the end I guess I just don't value 1 single human life more than the livelihood of millions of others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff and BNW: I work for the largest police agency in Texas. I can say with certainty that those who break the law in colors get caught and prosecuted. I've seen it up close and personal. I have conducted the investigations at times (in regards to any criminal behavior that would normally be investigated by my division; administrative issues are investigated by Internal Affairs, which also conducts proactive investigations). Do you really think that there is a wide-ranging conspiracy to shield me from knowing about illegal activity? Or is it more likely that it is not nearly as widespread as you might think.
Suburban and professional folks tend not to carry it around with them. If they do, it is in a surreptitious manner, such as in the wallet, that would go unnoticed unless actually arrested. Folks in business suits also generally don't attract the attention of the police, as any crime they may be conducting is behind closed doors. Manner and location of crime matters. However, my pool of person knowledge is lower here. I have arrested professionals, but far less often than the "traditional" criminal. I can't recall ever finding one with drugs, except maybe one or two on a DWI (and that was prescription rather than cocaine), while drugs (generally crack) is common for the latter. But perhaps there is a group of cocaine-carrying professionals that I have not come into contact with. Maybe they get it delivered. They were smart enough to make lots of money, so one would think they are better at shielding their drugs from police search and seizure.
Mr.Freehold: I have arrested and charged people for financial crimes (ranging from over $100K to $400K) before. There is a reason I work murders. They are generally easier to prove. They require ungodly amounts of time, manpower, and resources. With a finite amount of law enforcement attention, the public would generally prefer to make the killers our primary focus. (I made an earlier post outlining why I think this is.)
I'm concerned that you are going after low hanging fruit.
|
|
and yes higher priority NEEDS to go to violent crime and areas that it is common.Why? This is what I always wonder about.
Okay, so you're going to have 10 cop cars and a helicopter come down hard on some guy who stuck up a 711 for a couple hundred bucks. He has directly impacted a single business in a less than significant way.At the same time, when wall street breaks the law and does skeevy stuff, millions of people are robbed of their pensions, millions more are out of work because of economic downturn.
In the end I guess I just don't value 1 single human life more than the livelihood of millions of others.
people can recover financially, talk to me when you can raise the dead
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
half mock half bonafide fact. Being tall thin and attractive is more privilege giving than anything. It is more likely to make you wealthy, well treated and is damn near a prerequisite to be a world leader.
yeah because any given banker is as guilty for a war as a gangbanger that pulls the trigger. You class warfare guys really are getting silly about stretching reality to fit what you want.
Excuse me, excuse me...I was just skimming through the thread and I had to butt in here. I see in this post you are responding to Comrade Freehold, Citizen Janus, maybe, I don't know, Citizen Wolf. Hardly the "class warfare guys" around these parts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
people can recover financially, talk to me when you can raise the dead
So it's okay to steal?
Is there really no amount of economic devastation that, to you, is equivalent to a single death? Is white collar crime so insignificant to you that literally billions being swindled deserves the same amount of investigation as a single violent death?
See that baffles me.
[Reads DM Barcas's posts]
Which reminds me, I've been meaning to read How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America for...oh...a long time now.
I was kind of hoping Citizen Guest would have returned a whiles back about the John McWhorter stuff and the Congressional Black Caucus. But he didn't, so I'm glad Officer Barcas brings it up.
So, the crack laws couldn't have been racist because the CBC backed them. Well, I'll admit that I haven't delved any further into that spectacular act of black misleadership since it last came up, but I had a thought:
Booker T. Washington vociferously supported the races being "as separate as the fingers." Does that mean Jim Crow wasn't racist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah because any given banker is as guilty for a war as a gangbanger that pulls the trigger. You class warfare guys really are getting silly about stretching reality to fit what you want.Excuse me, excuse me...I was just skimming through the thread and I had to butt in here. I see in this post you are responding to Comrade Freehold, Citizen Janus, maybe, I don't know, Citizen Wolf. Hardly the "class warfare guys" around these parts.
Also, do you mean the banks that routinely back both sides of a conflict?
It continues to baffle me that one can't see the connection between banking and wars when it's so plain to me.
yeah because any given banker is as guilty for a war as a gangbanger that pulls the trigger. You class warfare guys really are getting silly about stretching reality to fit what you want.Excuse me, excuse me...I was just skimming through the thread and I had to butt in here. I see in this post you are responding to Comrade Freehold, Citizen Janus, maybe, I don't know, Citizen Wolf. Hardly the "class warfare guys" around these parts.
Yeah. Someone once asked me how best to observe equality of the classes. I gave them directions to a graveyard and told them the only equality that will ever exist between the classes can be found there.
Doesn't mean I don't hold respect for you for what you're trying, though. You might someday succeed. I'll enjoy admitting I'm wrong on that day.