Federal Judge Who Outlawed Racial Profiling is Victim of Black Mob Violence

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I saw the pic of the three. One has a tattoo on his right shoulder. Did she see it? Aside from that what other identifiers are there? Remember, this is a person that been frightened. It's not like she's taking notes.

Listen you are preaching to the choir, say they are black!!!

The problem is this lady spent her whole life saying you should NOT say they are black.

Uh huh and in a rational state of mind that would make sense. Does she sound like she's in a rational state?

I do not become racist when I panic, do you? She reverted to her base instinct, which told her there was value in giving a racial description.

Guess what? THERE IS!

She didn't become racist. Cripes that a Herculean leap. She told them what she saw. Let me know how good your bladder is when you're a 66 yo woman... who's only thoughts at the time were her 79 yo husband and her dogs.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I saw the pic of the three. One has a tattoo on his right shoulder. Did she see it? Aside from that what other identifiers are there? Remember, this is a person that been frightened. It's not like she's taking notes.

Listen you are preaching to the choir, say they are black!!!

The problem is this lady spent her whole life saying you should NOT say they are black.

Uh huh and in a rational state of mind that would make sense. Does she sound like she's in a rational state?

I do not become racist when I panic, do you? She reverted to her base instinct, which told her there was value in giving a racial description.

Guess what? THERE IS!

She didn't become racist. Cripes that a Herculean leap. She told them what she saw. Let me know how good your bladder is when you're a 66 yo woman... who's only thoughts at the time were her 79 yo husband and her dogs.

You are not understanding me. I agree she was not racist. The ACLU, and this woman, claim that this is a form of racism. So according to HER what she did was racist.

That's my whole point, she did EXACTLY what she should have. The problem is she fought to make this wrong.

For instance if it was a white man, and the police CAN'T be told the person is white they focus on EVERYONE. Knowing he is white could significantly lower the suspect pool allowing them to focus on a smaller group of people and catch things they might otherwise miss.

Instead, the cop can't be told the suspect is white, and they focus on everyone and miss the guy.

It's BULL.

She and her husband are very lucky. It seems more often than not, these "groups" rape and or kill their victims. Wonder if this liberal idiot bought a gun yet now?


Pcg

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I get from that ACLU quote is that if the description includes other identifying features besides race then, someone who is stopped and maybe brought in for questioning because they fit the whole description can't claim racial profiling, because they fit the description beyond just race.

Maybe it's just a case of you seeing what you want to see.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I get from that ACLU quote is that if the description includes other identifying features besides race then, someone who is stopped and maybe brought in for questioning because they fit the whole description can't claim racial profiling, because they fit the description beyond just race.

Maybe it's just a case of you seeing what you want to see.

It's definitely a case of that .. for you.

The definition is clear. I then sourced a college that is putting the ACLU's definition into practice. If you refuse to look at the truth because it's too difficult due to your political agendas that's on you, not me. There is nothing in the ACLU's definitions that talk about preventing subjects from claiming racial profiling. Their definitions are aimed at preventing the profiling, and describe what is acceptable and what is not. What this Judge did is called unacceptable by the ACLU.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It's definitely a case of that .. for you.

I don't really care all that much about it so I am thinking that I can be a bit more objective about it.

The definition is clear.

That is subjective and the way the college is implementing it can also be off.

There is nothing in the ACLU's definitions that talk about preventing subjects from claiming racial profiling. Their definitions are aimed at preventing the profiling, and describe what is acceptable and what is not.

Seems to me you posted an example of when it is acceptable. It did say "Racial profiling does not refer to ...".

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It's definitely a case of that .. for you.

I don't really care all that much about it so I am thinking that I can be a bit more objective about it.

The definition is clear.

That is subjective and the way the college is implementing it can also be off.

There is nothing in the ACLU's definitions that talk about preventing subjects from claiming racial profiling. Their definitions are aimed at preventing the profiling, and describe what is acceptable and what is not.

Seems to me you posted an example of when it is acceptable. It did say "Racial profiling does not refer to ...".

How about you finish that sentence .. does not refer to using race/gender when you include other identifying markers.

Racial profiling does include race without other identifying markers. This is a case where it was race/gender WITHOUT other identifying markers. It's what the ACLU and this Judge consider racist.

Not only did I quote the ACLU saying it, I sourced colleges actually doing it!!! What more do you want?

Do I think it's racist? Nope, it's common sense. PC has gone too far and needs a huge U-turn.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh my word, it doesn't say that. I didn't want to quote such a lengthy thing but it looks to be necessary. This is the whole thing you keep quoting:

"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband.

Another example of racial profiling is the targeting, ongoing since the September 11th attacks, of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians for detention on minor immigrant violations in the absence of any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.

Law enforcement agent includes a person acting in a policing capacity for public or private purposes. This includes security guards at department stores, airport security agents, police officers, or, more recently, airline pilots who have ordered passengers to disembark from flights, because the passengers' ethnicity aroused the pilots' suspicions. Members of each of these occupations have been accused of racial profiling.

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

Defining racial profiling as relying “solely” on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion can be problematic. This definition found in some state racial profiling laws is unacceptable, because it fails to include when police act on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion in combination with an alleged violation of all law. Under the “solely” definition, an officer who targeted Latino drivers who were speeding would not be racial profiling because the drivers were not stopped “solely” because of their race but also because they were speeding. This would eliminate the vast majority of racial profiling now occurring.

Any definition of racial profiling must include, in addition to racially or ethnically discriminatory acts, discriminatory omissions on the part of law enforcement as well. For example, during the eras of lynching in the South in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, southern sheriffs sat idly by while racists like the Ku Klux Klan terrorized African Americans. At times, the sheriffs would even release black suspects to the lynch mobs. A recent example would be the complaint by an African American man in Maryland, who after moving into a white community, was attacked and subjected to property damage. Local police failed to respond to his repeated complaints until they arrested him for shooting his gun into the air, trying to disperse a hostile mob outside his home.

Nowhere in there does it say it is bad form to describe a suspect by their ethnicity.

originally posted by: Abysha

Oh my word, it doesn't say that. I didn't want to quote such a lengthy thing but it looks to be necessary. This is the whole thing you keep quoting:

I read the whole thing. It says exactly what I said. Can you show me exactly where they say it is perfectly fine to use ONLY race and gender with NO other identifiers?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
How about you finish that sentence .. does not refer to using race/gender when you include other identifying markers.

It was already posted and that is also what my post said.

I don't see how you are getting something else but like I said it really doesn't matter much to me.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Abysha

Oh my word, it doesn't say that. I didn't want to quote such a lengthy thing but it looks to be necessary. This is the whole thing you keep quoting:

I read the whole thing. It says exactly what I said. Can you show me exactly where they say it is perfectly fine to use ONLY race and gender with NO other identifiers?

Wait... so now a definition has to include all the things a term isn't as well as what it is? That would be one long dictionary.

APPLE
noun
1. the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family.
2. not an orange.
3. not a horse.
4. not abstract art.
5. not racial profiling.

Oh good! One down.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
How about you finish that sentence .. does not refer to using race/gender when you include other identifying markers.

It was already posted and that is also what my post said.

I don't see how you are getting something else but like I said it really doesn't matter much to me.

I am not getting anything else. I am quoting exactly what they say.

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

So using race in conjunction with other descriptions is fine. Using race without other descriptions is not fine.

In this case we have a person using race without other descriptions. That is NOT fine according to their philosophy.

It's not even complex. It's incredibly simple.

You also have been saying I am wrong about colleges implementing this. I haven't responded because I did not want to confuse you, but it's also not difficult to follow.

The new policy, however, will no longer include racial descriptions in most circumstances.

This new policy was evident from a University of Minnesota Crime Alert issued this Monday in which a student was a victim of a criminal sexual assault over the weekend:


“The victim describes the suspect as a male, approximately five feet eight inches to five feet eleven inches tall with a medium build. The suspect is between the ages of 25 and 28 years old and spoke with an accent.”

The race or a similar physical description of the suspect is not mentioned.

If a victim says a white man raped me. I could not see his face I only know he was white from a brief moment before he got behind me, then the alert that goes out CAN NOT MENTION HE IS WHITE! To mention he is white, even though we know he is white, IS WRONG and is RACIAL PROFILING according to these PC zealots.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Abysha

Oh my word, it doesn't say that. I didn't want to quote such a lengthy thing but it looks to be necessary. This is the whole thing you keep quoting:

I read the whole thing. It says exactly what I said. Can you show me exactly where they say it is perfectly fine to use ONLY race and gender with NO other identifiers?

Wait... so now a definition has to include all the things a term isn't as well as what it is? That would be one long dictionary.

APPLE
noun
1. the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree, Malus sylvestris, of the rose family.
2. not an orange.
3. not a horse.
4. not abstract art.
5. not racial profiling.

Oh good! One down.

Your post literally makes no sense and has nothing to do with the topic. This is usually an indication you have nothing of substance to validate your position. I will take this post to mean you concede the point even though your political agendas refuse to allow you to say the words.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

In this case we have a person using race without other descriptions.

Yes she did. Description 2: They're robbing my house.

Just like the example of latinos speeding. Latino is description 1 and speeding is 2.

Under the “solely” definition, an officer who targeted Latino drivers who were speeding would not be racial profiling because the drivers were not stopped “solely” because of their race but also because they were speeding.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

In this case we have a person using race without other descriptions.

Yes she did. Description 2: They're robbing my house.

That's not a description of them, but of their actions. Racial profiling. At least according to this Judge and the ACLU. As far as I am concerned you are absolutely right.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
So using race in conjunction with other descriptions is fine. Using race without other descriptions is not fine.

In the act by law enforcement in the persuit of a suspect, not in the description by the victim.

Someone already pointed that out and it is right there in what you quoted.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

That's not a description of them, but of their actions. Racial profiling. At least according to this Judge and the ACLU. As far as I am concerned you are absolutely right.

I'm going off that long description that Abysha quoted above. Whoever defined that has it right. I don't know what the judge said or the ACLU.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
So using race in conjunction with other descriptions is fine. Using race without other descriptions is not fine.

In the act by law enforcement in the persuit of a suspect not in the description by the victim.

Someone already pointed that out and it is right there in what you quoted.

Yes, and I already responded. Apparently I need to go step by step.

It should not be used by law enforcement because it offers no value. That saying 25 year old male is equal to saying 25 year old black male. Including the black part does nothing and is racist. This Judge has been arguing that for years. She said she personally believes the description of race has no bearing, no value. Yet when she was in a situation where her instincts kicked in what she actually thought was that describing them as black DID have value.

I am not arguing this is racial profiling by the police, I am arguing a hardcore PC SJW has screwed the pooch demanding others follow a doctrine that she herself does not actually believe is right deep down.

I am arguing this PC crap needs to take a U-turn back to sanity.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

In this case we have a person using race without other descriptions.

Yes she did. Description 2: They're robbing my house.

Just like the example of latinos speeding. Latino is description 1 and speeding is 2.

Under the “solely” definition, an officer who targeted Latino drivers who were speeding would not be racial profiling because the drivers were not stopped “solely” because of their race but also because they were speeding.

EXACTLY!!! And did you read what the ACLU said about that? And I quote, The "Solely" definition is UNACCEPTABLE!!!!

This definition found in some state racial profiling laws is unacceptable

The ACLU wants the "solely" definition banned everywhere because it's racist. Once again my position is proven right.