It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Portlandia: Portland Deletes Its Gang List for Having Too Many Blacks

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha

Both of you are actually totally wrong.
There is a huge valid reason that organized criminal networks are to be identified and it's members categorized.

That includes drug cartels, street gangs, kill cults, pedo rings, ID theft racketeers, what have you.
Trying to say that "recognizing an organized criminal network" is "immoral" makes no rational sense.



We're talking a difference in methodology. We aren't talking the FBI here. "Affiliated" isn't the same as being a member.

Like I said, if you had sold a car to a KKK member you knew well (but didn't know he was a KKK guy), you'd be affiliated with the KKK under loose standards.

These are notes that are up to the discretion of the officer, totally causing a chain reaction of profiling that may or may not be relevant to the person in question.

Again... this isn't an accurate classification of gang membership.




posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What would you call a group of blacks, whites and chinese guys standing together in a group?

A.Unlikely
B.A revival meeting
C.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha

Both of you are actually totally wrong.
There is a huge valid reason that organized criminal networks are to be identified and it's members categorized.

That includes drug cartels, street gangs, kill cults, pedo rings, ID theft racketeers, what have you.
Trying to say that "recognizing an organized criminal network" is "immoral" makes no rational sense.



We're talking a difference in methodology. We aren't talking the FBI here. "Affiliated" isn't the same as being a member.

Like I said, if you had sold a car to a KKK member you knew well (but didn't know he was a KKK guy), you'd be affiliated with the KKK under loose standards.

These are notes that are up to the discretion of the officer, totally causing a chain reaction of profiling that may or may not be relevant to the person in question.

Again... this isn't an accurate classification of gang membership.


Do you have proof that they were adding the car salesmen to the gang list?
No, you do not.

They were putting actual gang members on these lists.

Gang members do not hide their affiliations. They sport it and flaunt it. It's clear and not ambiguous.
If you ever went to a men's jail or (outside into the city at all) you'd know this.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: xuenchen

What would you call a group of blacks, whites and chinese guys standing together in a group?

A.Unlikely
B.A revival meeting
C.


Depends on context.
Could just be a line at the check out counter at the grocery store.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha

Both of you are actually totally wrong.
There is a huge valid reason that organized criminal networks are to be identified and it's members categorized.

That includes drug cartels, street gangs, kill cults, pedo rings, ID theft racketeers, what have you.
Trying to say that "recognizing an organized criminal network" is "immoral" makes no rational sense.



We're talking a difference in methodology. We aren't talking the FBI here. "Affiliated" isn't the same as being a member.

Like I said, if you had sold a car to a KKK member you knew well (but didn't know he was a KKK guy), you'd be affiliated with the KKK under loose standards.

These are notes that are up to the discretion of the officer, totally causing a chain reaction of profiling that may or may not be relevant to the person in question.

Again... this isn't an accurate classification of gang membership.


Do you have proof that they were adding the car salesmen to the gang list?
No, you do not.

They were putting actual gang members on these lists.

Gang members do not hide their affiliations. They sport it and flaunt it. It's clear and not ambiguous.
If you ever went to a men's jail or (outside into the city at all) you'd know this.


Before you say "no you do not have proof", let me answer. I live here.

Local article about this.


Portland police listed 359 people gang members as of August. Gang officers say the list is neither comprehensive nor a reflection of people most heavily involved in gangs. Since 2012, most people won if they argued they didn't belong on the list. We offer a series of articles on this list as well as the original data, and on this page have a series of charts summarizing our findings.


This isn't exactly top-notch accurate policing with this list. It was never meant to be.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Facts are not racist. If there are more blacks on the list than what should be, based on population, deleting the lists won't change a thing. That's something that needs to be addressed by those communities, and corrected, or things will only get worse.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: xuenchen

Facts are not racist. If there are more blacks on the list than what should be, based on population, deleting the lists won't change a thing. That's something that needs to be addressed by those communities, and corrected, or things will only get worse.


This particular list isn't a list of "facts"; it's a list of subjective conclusions with very flexible criteria.
edit on 12-9-2017 by Abysha because: clarificationalizinalization



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: xuenchen

Facts are not racist. If there are more blacks on the list than what should be, based on population, deleting the lists won't change a thing. That's something that needs to be addressed by those communities, and corrected, or things will only get worse.


This particular list isn't a list of "facts"; it's a list of subjective conclusions with very little criteria.


Can you show evidence for that? If people are listed as gang members, because they hang out with other gang members, wear gang colors, and commit crimes as gang members, those are valid reasons. It isn't stated that the lists are being tossed because they aren't accurate, but because there are "too many" minorities on them. Where is the proof that they aren't accurate?

I am all for accuracy in such lists, as much as is possible, of course, but those lists have a very valid reason for being.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: xuenchen

What would you call a group of blacks, whites and chinese guys standing together in a group?

A.Unlikely
B.A revival meeting
C.


Depends on context.
Could just be a line at the check out counter at the grocery store.


Yeah that's one possibility.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: xuenchen

Facts are not racist. If there are more blacks on the list than what should be, based on population, deleting the lists won't change a thing. That's something that needs to be addressed by those communities, and corrected, or things will only get worse.


This particular list isn't a list of "facts"; it's a list of subjective conclusions with very little criteria.


Can you show evidence for that?


I already did. This isn't what you think it is.

People can be put on this list for having knowledge of gangs, wearing the wrong clothing, having a picture taken with a gang member, or even using "gang related" language.

It's honestly not the virtue signal you are looking for.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

You're just making this up to protect criminals.
Why?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha

You're just making this up to protect criminals.
Why?


So... instead of looking up the actual facts (or even clicking on the local article I already linked that listed the criteria to getting on the list), you'd rather just accuse me of lying.

What can I say in the face of that? I've been totally forthcoming with giving the truth about what this list is and how it's not what you think it is. You are either not reading what I'm posting or you are just barking because it feels good.

Whatever the case, I have nothing else to say until you acknowledge the facts.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

You said selling them a car or "knowing about gangs".

I know about gangs, does that put me on the list?

Did they actually put car sellers on the list?
Or anyone who knew of a gang's existence?

Why is the number of people on the list so low?
Seems like they'd need to put way more people on the list if their criteria is this kinda stuff.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

I admit that I was thinking of the policies in all the places I've lived in (Texas, PA, Cali, TN) - and in those places to be put on a gang list you'd actually have to have valid links. Tattoos, direct admissions, being caught in the act of crime with other gang members, tagging territory, etc.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha

I admit that I was thinking of the policies in all the places I've lived in (Texas, PA, Cali, TN) - and in those places to be put on a gang list you'd actually have to have valid links. Tattoos, direct admissions, being caught in the act of crime with other gang members, tagging territory, etc.


Thank you for admitting that. So are you also admitting you haven't been referring to this specific list when arguing your point or accusing me of "defending criminals"?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha
I know about gangs, does that put me on the list?


It could, depending on the officer questioning you.

Do you see a problem yet?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

So you're saying Portland will put me on a gang list if I randomly sell another person on the gang list a car?

Or would have 5 years ago, that is.

I'm not admitting anything yet.
I'm setting you up.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha
I know about gangs, does that put me on the list?


It could, depending on the officer questioning you.

Do you see a problem yet?


I don't believe any cop is that stupid yet.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

You could theoretically disprove me though by showing me that such a thing actually occurred more than once.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha

So you're saying Portland will put me on a gang list if I randomly sell another person on the gang list a car?

Or would have 5 years ago, that is.

I'm not admitting anything yet.
I'm setting you up.


If you take a picture of your car with the buyer in it, maybe. Or if he names you in an interview later as the person who sold him the car, maybe. Or if you were wearing the wrong colors while being observed selling him the car maybe.

Do you really not see a problem with this?!



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join