ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
doser, to town:
apparently not :idunno:
apparently not :idunno:
Are black on white attacks justified?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
- Status
You didn't quote me when you threw that out, so I wasn't alerted on the post. I don't typically read your posts, so seeing that you'd posted something that wasn't linked in a way to suggest it was to me didn't draw me back into the thread.
Cruc wrote, "Probable cause is a protection from police overstepping their bounds." By which he meant it was established to keep police from overstepping their bounds. But in point of fact, probable cause establishes what those bounds are, creating both a center line for police and for citizens under their protection and scrutiny.
Cruc's phrasing was in keeping with the rest of his post, which was a hostile, anti-police bit of assumptive nonsense. It was skewed down to the grammar of it and off center.
'Probable cause' was put in place out of the sole concern of police bothering people for no reason. And there should be penalties for departments who scrutinize someone and are unable to show probable cause
lain:Not having blind subservience and praise for police has become synonymous with being 'anti-police'. Go figure- if you criticize feminism, you're a 'misogynist', if you have qualms with racial issue, you're 'racist', if you are concerned about immigration, you are a 'xenophobe'..
And yet, the very same people have the NERVE to bring up 'fascism' :AMR:
That's why everyone else laughs at the 1st World, and I don't see any reason to not be laughing with them because it's all ridiculous.
Again, that's part of your negative spin. You could say the Constitution is a writing reflecting the fear of people relating to the state. I think there's some truth in it, but not the whole truth. Laws define the limits of right and the appropriate conduct of restraint in relation, for the most part.
Like what? If you harass someone without cause you're probably going to be penalized for it, civilly or professionally.And there should be penalties for departments who scrutinize someone and are unable to show probable cause
Nothing of the sort. Your rhetoric was assumptive and hostile. Here it is again:
What you did with that wasn't offer a criticism, it was a polemic.
Completely depends on the language you use. So no, it's not being critical that makes you unreasonable, it's being unreasonable in your criticism and rhetoric.
Qualms with racial issue? Like what, particularly and how put?
Supra.
It's a lot like atheists around here. None of them believe in God, but some of them are hostile and irrational about it and some are completely reasonable and can advance their argument without calling us sheep or deluded. The ones that can't have issues
Not something I do, so you'll have to take that up with whoever does.
All you do with that is illustrate the problem of people with simplistic reads on ideas and people. Overreaching is the calling card of people who haven't sufficiently considered their own objection.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
how could police be prevented from overstepping their bounds if those bounds weren't defined?
town said:
umm, ok
in order to prevent cops from overstepping those bounds, right?
in point of fact, they're the same thing
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
'Probable cause' was put in place out of the sole concern of police bothering people for no reason. And there should be penalties for departments who scrutinize someone and are unable to show probable cause
Not having blind subservience and praise for police has become synonymous with being 'anti-police'. Go figure- if you criticize feminism, you're a 'misogynist', if you have qualms with racial issue, you're 'racist', if you are concerned about immigration, you are a 'xenophobe'..
And yet, the very same people have the NERVE to bring up 'fascism' :AMR:
That's why everyone else laughs at the 1st World, and I don't see any reason to not be laughing with them because it's all ridiculous.
from Cornell Law:
| Probable Cause DEFINITION Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS Although the Fourth Amendment states that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause", it does not specify what "probable cause" actually means. The Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the meaning of the term on several occasions, while recognizing that probable cause is a concept that is imprecise, fluid and very dependent on context. In Illinois v. Gates, the Court favored a flexible approach, viewing probable cause as a "practical, non-technical" standard that calls upon the "factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men [...] act".1 Courts often adopt a broader, more flexible view of probable cause when the alleged offenses are serious. APPLICATION TO ARRESTS The Fourth Amendment requires that any arrest be based on probable cause, even when the arrest is made pursuant to an arrest warrant. Whether or not there is probable cause depends on the totality of the circumstances, meaning everything that the arresting officers know or reasonably believe at the time the arrest is made.2 However, probable cause remains a flexible concept, and what constitutes the “totality of the circumstances” often depends on how the court interprets the reasonableness standard.3 A lack of probable cause will render a warrantless arrest invalid, and any evidence resulting from that arrest (physical evidence, confessions, etc.) will have to be suppressed.4 A narrow exception applies when an arresting officer, as a result of a mistake by court employees, mistakenly and in good faith believes that a warrant has been issued. In this case, notwithstanding the lack of probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not apply and the evidence obtained may be admissible.5 Unlike court clerks, prosecutors are part of a law enforcement team and are not "court employees" for purposes of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.6 APPLICATION TO SEARCH WARRANTS Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered.7 For a warrantless search, probable cause can be established by in-court testimony after the search. In the case of a warrant search, however, an affidavit or recorded testimony must support the warrant by indicating on what basis probable cause exists.8 A judge may issue a search warrant if the affidavit in support of the warrant offers sufficient credible information to establish probable cause.9 There is a presumption that police officers are reliable sources of information, and affidavits in support of a warrant will often include their observations.10 When this is the case, the officers’ experience and training become relevant factors in assessing the existence of probable cause.11 Information from victims or witnesses, if included in an affidavit, may be important factors as well.12 The good faith exception that applies to arrests also applies to search warrants: when a defect renders a warrant constitutionally invalid, the evidence does not have to be suppressed if the officers acted in good faith.13 Courts evaluate an officer’s good faith by looking at the nature of the error and how the warrant was executed.14 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause |
You're using rhetorical slight of hand. I haven't argued the point you're raising. What I noted was that his advance was incomplete and aimed as part of a larger attempt to taint, set out fully here:
So I filled in the missing bits, moved him off of his singular and negative approach in rebuttal.
The fact that a Latino kills a black kid and people like BLM go after whites tells you all you need to know about the matter- they can pretty much say or do anything and white liberals are going to defend them.
It's insanity, really- over and over again, and we go through the same nonsense over and over again. There is no argument to be had- they lost it before they even began
It's insanity, really- over and over again, and we go through the same nonsense over and over again. There is no argument to be had- they lost it before they even began
The fact that you're still making statements that underscore an inability or unwillingness to distinguish the actions of some from a greater cause, to distinguish the rule, tells me you have issues when it comes to race that you need to deal with, but will likely won't. That you think only liberals are concerned with the root of the BLM cause, an inequity/disparity in treatment by the criminal justice system, is as sad as it is supportive of my conjecture.
I don't have issues with race. I have issues with white liberals and people who play the race card. I've had plenty of conversations with the black people I know and we pretty much share the same consensus.
That is, even black people think you all are idiotic :chuckle:
Methinks your question answers itself. Its too bad that a president has never given a speech taking the Macro view of slavery throughout human history. In fact, all nations of all colors and races have had slaves since the beginning (although it came in different forms), but it was America that came and set the mechanism into place to end it. People should remember that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, the British Empire abolished slavery throughout its realm in 1833. We had to have a Civil War to manage it a few decades later.
Beyond that, Americans never owned whites, never built an economic empire and engine on the backs of those whites, who were never mutilated, raped and even murdered with impunity. Thanks for illustrating a new axiom: those who fail to understand history are doomed to misrepeat it.
I believe you believe that, but that your rhetoric makes a different statement. Your confused blanketing of a movement with stereotypical notions fueled by anecdotes speaks to it clearly enough.
That's by and large an extension of the root of your problem. The comfort you appear to draw from painting with an overly broad brush. It breeds contempt and error.
For instance, I'm not a liberal. I'm against abortion. I'm a gun owner. I believe that properly regulated capitalism is the superior economic engine for social justice and meaningful equality. In fact, I am both registered as a Republican in my state and mostly vote for conservative candidates.
You mistake my contempt for the irrational polemics of racists and ill-considered, one thought fits all proponents of an element of conservative thinking as liberalism because you're a demonstrably lazy thinker. It's easier for you to just dismiss and blanket declare any opinion that challenges you as being of a disreputable piece. But in the end I'm no more a liberal than you are a progressive.
People that mistake a blunt insult with humor typically have their reward. That is to say, you're a creature of great ironic depth, if unintentionally.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I notice that a lot of people use the argument you're presenting as a 'go to' to avoid any particular deduction on anything, which is one of the gambits that keeps problems unsolved.
Contempt is something that BLM produces, and nothing more. It is not a movement to actually solve anything, it's to encourage white guilt and justify crime.
Conservatism and Liberalism are abstracts. Most people are a mixture of both even if they do not realize it. I measure my standing as 70% Right and 30% Left. It's the zealots on both ends I don't like, only the far Right is the lesser of the evils.
The more one experiences, the less they have to think to gather insight. I'm no fool with the black community, or the criminal community as well- I know the dynamics therein and it's cringing to watch other people act as if they know something about it all
People are more complicated than objects...well, most people.
State your perception of my argument. Because you haven't evidenced an understanding of it and your conclusion doesn't flow from it.
No. The idea produces contempt in you. It's not inherent. I've argued your reaction, grouping and dismissal isn't rationally based.
You're wrong. The argument is already making impacts and changes to how police conduct and train in any number of areas, around the country. It's sparking a lot of serious consideration and dialogue in the public square and the corridors of power.
Many who support the movement decry violence and specifically reject criminal activity, outside of peaceful civil disobedience, where warranted. The objective of BLM is to address inequity in the criminal justice system in relation to people of color.
I think that's true enough.
Extremists have a way of becoming entangled by confirmation bias.
A lesser evil is evil...so even were that arguably true, it's no virtue.
Life is always about the effort at striking a balance between experience and the examination of it.
Just because everyone is inwardly complicated doesn't mean that every facet of society is complicated. If birds of a feather flock together, then that sort of simplifies things a bit.
BLM is situated on a victim complex, despite that the statistics alone show that it is unwarranted. They know it, and go on parade anyway- because it's all about irrational contempt.
You know it, and yet still defend it. Acknowledge what I said earlier in that regard
:chuckle: Whatever, it's more like they are just being made to fear black people so they don't rise up and shoot another officer. Sorry to bust in on your skewed perception, but these so called 'changes' simply guarantee that a officer be harmed before a black man is prosecuted.
You either have an odd definition of the word 'many', or making the mistake of taking anything by their claim. None of the BLM criminals are being chastised by their community.
In fact, it reminds me how you all are about Muslims
lain:
Not my argument, so...
So long as you understand what birds means. The problem here is that you don't appear to.
Neither claim is supportable. In point of fact the disparity in treatment of blacks compared to whites by the criminal justice system isn't even arguable, though how to address it will take a good bit of argument.
You're simply wrong. The facts are against you. Unless you believe that blacks are just inherently prone to criminal acts any examination of comparative arrest rates, prosecutions, convictions and sentencing disparity will move you off the point.
So you assert the movement will accomplish nothing. I note it already has and will continue to, that your position is wrong by any objective metric and you respond...
lain: Get it out. Get it all out.
Just keep posting and the sheer weight of unsupported assumption on your part will collapse the effort into an intellectual black hole at some point.
Assumptive nonsense.
No, many is an indefinite but large number.
How would you know? More, how can you demonstrate it?
I'd agree that many of your unsupportable tactics are as easily defeated by an operation of logic as are the woefully underthought efforts of those who attempt to brand Islam by the actions of a sliver of its one and a half billion adherents.In fact, it reminds me how you all are about Muslims
Some people are more guilty than others, particularly those raised in a way that causes one to inherit crime. The fantasy those as yourself live in is thinking that the crime rate in black neighborhoods has anything to do with others and not themselves.
Yeah, feel free to mosey around the ghetto the same as you do your own neighborhood, since the facts are against me
Oh, it's changed something- it's made white people look stupid in preferring not to stand up for itself.
That's the downfall of white people, which all other races aren't exhibiting- you all plead with your captors and do their laundry
lain:
I know you think that's a rebuttal, but it isn't. It's essentially a racist argument that the result is about their nature. Because otherwise, why would they be there as a people, absent the willful actions of a larger power?
So you have a problem.
Supra.
I worked for years as a poverty lawyer in the Black Belt, in some of the poorest sections in this country. I'm just fine. But anecdotes are only illustrations of rules. They don't establish them on either side and your attempt really doesn't speak to the point.Yeah, feel free to mosey around the ghetto the same as you do your own neighborhood, since the facts are against me
lain: No, it's changed policies and approaches that led to unarmed men being shot and killed or wounded. Some of them standing still. Some on the ground offering no resistance. It's led to real action and a good bit of reaching across hostile assumptions and divides in communities. That's a good thing. More, it's necessary.I'm not saying you're a racist, but when you find yourself writing something that could comfortably fit on an op-ed page for Stormfront, you might as well be.That's the downfall of white people, which all other races aren't exhibiting- you all plead with your captors and do their laundry
There's nothing racist about facts. Ghettos are breeding ground for criminals. I'm white and had grown into a criminal, and the largest part of it had to do with being raised in a fatherless home in a bad neighborhood. As a result, I spent the rest of my juvenile life in the system.
Race isn't really a factor, it's the culture of the poor. Even among whites you'll see it- out in the country where they are selling meth or selling guns in trailer parks.
You all are too racially minded- it's really a bit of the contrary of what you say.
What's necessary is putting on better people as officers, rather than making police officers scared to take appropriate action. I've seen plenty of that, perhaps you simply haven't
- Status