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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha
You're just making this up to protect criminals.
Why?
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.
originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Abysha
I know about gangs, does that put me on the list?
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?
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.