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

originally posted by: mOjOm

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.

That is the ACLU, you clearly are not reading it right based on your misquote of the "solely" doctrine that the ACLU wants abolished and you thought was acceptable.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Yes, and I already responded. Apparently I need to go step by step.

Didn't really change anything.

I'm taking what that quote is saying at face value and not trying to fit it into the exception that breaks the rule.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Yes, and I already responded. Apparently I need to go step by step.

Didn't really change anything.

I'm taking what that quote is saying at face value and not trying to fit it into the exception that breaks the rule.

I have no idea what you are talking about. No one is talking about exceptions. I told you what they want the rule to be. Where do you get this exception stuff from?

The rule that her and the ACLU push for is you CAN'T say black. I have shown you colleges that follow this rule.

Being able to mention race would be the exception. I am just flabbergasted how simple this is and how some people refuse to want to believe it despite quotes from the ACLU saying it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, I already said I don't know what the ACLU wrote. Unless that is what was quoted above because that is what I'm going by.

What it says above is a description of "Black" or "Latino" is unacceptable and that there must be other details to qualify. So "Latino" used by itself is profiling. But "Male Latino who Speeding" is fine. Or even "Latino who is Speeding" is fine. Just not "Latino" by itself.

I agree that it's pretty heavy PC language. If the judge said race should never be used, then ya, she's gone nuts with PC language. There is nothing wrong about stating a fact. At that point everyone is focusing way too much on language to see the bigger picture.

I also don't think just race is used that much. It's always going to include something else too like their sex or build or something. I doubt anyone every gives a description of just race anyway.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
That is the ACLU, you clearly are not reading it right based on your misquote of the "solely" doctrine that the ACLU wants abolished and you thought was acceptable.

Ok, well then explain how I'm reading this wrong then because it seems pretty clear.

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.

If she gave a description of "Black" it wouldn't count, but according to that example "Black guys robbing my house" would qualify. Or even just "Blacks robbing my house" would be allowed too.

But if you think I'm reading it wrong, fine, but explain what I'm not reading right because I don't see how.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, I already said I don't know what the ACLU wrote. Unless that is what was quoted above because that is what I'm going by.

Yes, that's the ACLU.

What it says above is a description of "Black" or "Latino" is unacceptable and that there must be other details to qualify. So "Latino" used by itself is profiling. But "Male Latino who Speeding" is fine. Or even "Latino who is Speeding" is fine. Just not "Latino" by itself.

False. That is racial profiling. The terminology would have to be male who is speeding. If you wish to use a racial term you must have a more detailed description of the person. For instance you would not say black male speeding. It would be male speeding. It would not be black make 5'10, it would be male 5'10. Black male with a Tiger tattoo on his face, that is fine.

Your scenario is a SOLELY definition, which the ACLU and this Judge abhor. I have even sourced this actually happening, not just the ACLU pushing for this, but it has actually been adopted.

Notice you will not see race listed, because they had no description that could accompany race, so it could not be given to the officers. This is what this Judge wants.

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.

Ri. Dic. U. Lous.

I agree that it's pretty heavy PC language. If the judge said race should never be used, then ya, she's gone nuts with PC language. There is nothing wrong about stating a fact. At that point everyone is focusing way too much on language to see the bigger picture.

I also don't think just race is used that much. It's always going to include something else too like their sex or build or something. I doubt anyone every gives a description of just race anyway.

Not never, but sparingly, only under a very specific set of conditions which are likely to not be met ... such as when she called in, and gave the race, despite the conditions not being met, even though CLEARLY it should have been given.

A major part of the PC language thing does have merit though as long as it's not over done.

For example: A lot of time when I watch the news I notice that race is included in a one sided way and it's very subtle and easy to miss but it still effects people. Like saying "A black Miami Man beat somebody today outside a Walmart" or something like that. But the same event is never said "A white Miami Man beat somebody today outside a Walmart".

Unless of course that White man beat up a black man or something like that, then it's included. Otherwise it's just a "Miami Man". It's as if race is just assumed to be white unless otherwise noted. It's a very subtle difference but it's there. Not everyone does it but if you pay attention you'll notice it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Not never, but sparingly, only under a very specific set of conditions which are likely to not be met ...

This is what I meant by the exception that breaks the rule.

such as when she called in, and gave the race, despite the conditions not being met, even though CLEARLY it should have been given.

The rule doesn't really apply to the victims description but to police action. I don't know if they pursued or stopped anyone.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
That is the ACLU, you clearly are not reading it right based on your misquote of the "solely" doctrine that the ACLU wants abolished and you thought was acceptable.

Ok, well then explain how I'm reading this wrong then because it seems pretty clear.

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.

If she gave a description of "Black" it wouldn't count, but according to that example "Black guys robbing my house" would qualify. Or even just "Blacks robbing my house" would be allowed too.

But if you think I'm reading it wrong, fine, but explain what I'm not reading right because I don't see how.

You are not understanding. What the ACLU is saying is that the reason they do not like that definition is because it still allows police to target people. They are saying in this instance the police are racially profiling latinos and getting away with it because the law in that state allows them to. Because the police can say the stop was not "solely" based on race, but on criminal activity, there is nothing wrong. The ACLU says that's wrong. You need the context of the preceding part to go along with the part you quoted.

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.

So yes, the ACLU is claiming this is wrong, and bad, and needs to be stopped. I hope that made it clearer for you, if not I will try again. My reading is 100% accurate, I have read it numerous times to be sure, there is no doubt about it.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Not never, but sparingly, only under a very specific set of conditions which are likely to not be met ...

This is what I meant by the exception that breaks the rule.

such as when she called in, and gave the race, despite the conditions not being met, even though CLEARLY it should have been given.

The rule doesn't really apply to the victims description but to police action. I don't know if they pursued or stopped anyone.

I agree. But if the reason behind it is because you personally feel there is no value in it, and zero reason to ever do it ... then you would not do it yourself. If you do it yourself, it's because you think there IS value. That is the point.

She has been cramming this down the throat of others when she herself does not believe it!!!

When her husband's life was in danger she wanted the police to know the suspects were black!!!!
When your husband's life is in danger she has spent her life to ensure the police do NOT KNOW the suspects are black!!!!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I agree. But if the reason behind it is because you personally feel there is no value in it, and zero reason to ever do it ... then you would not do it yourself. If you do it yourself, it's because you think there IS value. That is the point.

She has been cramming this down the throat of others when she herself does not believe it!!!

I don't think so. Could be that is all she had at the time. The mind can be like that under stress.

And, again, the quote isn't really talking about the description that the victim gives but how the police act on it.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I agree. But if the reason behind it is because you personally feel there is no value in it, and zero reason to ever do it ... then you would not do it yourself. If you do it yourself, it's because you think there IS value. That is the point.

She has been cramming this down the throat of others when she herself does not believe it!!!

I don't think so. Could be that is all she had at the time. The mind can be like that under stress.

And, again, the quote isn't really talking about the description that the victim gives but how the police act on it.

She gave it so the police would know it.

She has spent her career trying to prevent the police from knowing when YOU give that description.

So she clearly thinks it's helpful, and wants it to help her, but does not want you to be able to get that same help when your loved one is in danger.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Give it up bro lol I though we got this covered on page one . wasted your day with this crap .

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
She gave it so the police would know it.

Of course. It is part of the info.

She has spent her career trying to prevent the police from knowing when YOU give that description.

I don't know that and it certainly isn't what the ACLU quote is saying, which is what I originally commented on.

So she clearly thinks it's helpful, and wants it to help her, but does not want you to be able to get that same help when your loved one is in danger.

That seems to be what you think. That isn't what I see.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
She gave it so the police would know it.

Of course. It is part of the info.

She has spent her career trying to prevent the police from knowing when YOU give that description.

I don't know that and it certainly isn't what the ACLU quote is saying, which is what I originally commented on.

So she clearly thinks it's helpful, and wants it to help her, but does not want you to be able to get that same help when your loved one is in danger.

That seems to be what you think. That isn't what I see.

Except the ACLU quote says exactly that. Perhaps you can quote exactly what you refer to and explain exactly what it means. The ACLU wants her description to be given as only 3 men, with the reference to black removed. I proved it, many times. I literally showed you this actually being implemented.

originally posted by: freedomSlave
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Give it up bro lol I though we got this covered on page one . wasted your day with this crap .

I am at work so nothing better to do right now. I have no idea how you are the only one thought the ACLU quote must be wrong, who actually read it, and actually understood it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No the ACLU quote says that even if race is included it doesn not mean that it is 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.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No the ACLU quote gives an example of when race is included but not 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.

Yes, and you are highlighting the wrong portion. The funny thing about definitions is that you have to look at the WHOLE definition.

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 when combined with other identifying factors it's not profiling. No other identifying factors were used. That makes it profiling according to the definition you just quoted. I really hope you understand that. If not I suggest you keep at it until you do.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't mean that including race is to be avoided.

And, once more, it is not referring to the victims description but the actions of the police.

ETA: You seem to be overlooking that part of the definition and still it is a definition of what something isn't.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't mean that including race is to be avoided.

Actually it is. It's 100% to be avoided and is NOT to be included in the description given to police officers.

And, once more, it is not referring to the victims description but the actions of the police.

Why do I feel like I am on a merry-go-round? I am either having some serious deja-vu or I already responded to that, several times, feel free to look at those other responses to see why she's a hypocrite.