Louisville Will Erupt!

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2020, 10:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I haven't seen anything to prove it otherwise.

I consider absence being absence. 

And I don't think I have ever seen a better example of why minorities feel they have to protest.

Too many white people are in compleet denial and refuse to acknowledge the truth about what is happening.

This discussion started wityh flat out denials that racial profiling existsed on a policy level.  then I posted multiple examples of racial profiling that was not based on the individual officers but on orders and guidelines issued by superior officers and agencies.

Now that I have provided irrefutable proof of this practice taking place for over 35 years the deniers claim that it has all ended now with a single shred of evidence to back up their position.

As long as so many white people refuse to acknowledge the truth we are going to have problems achieving racial justice in this country.

[fredtoast]

Just saw an intersting show on PBS last night called "Hacking Your Mind". There was a segment about California law enforcement officers receiving training on implict bias. As part of this training they are shown proof of how minorities are treated differently by police. The specific example in the show was how officers are much more likely to claim that a cell phone or other innocuos object held by a black person is a gun than when it is in the hands of a white person.

So wouldn't it be bizzare if a California law enforcement officer who has had this training and been shown proof that police treat minorities differently still insist that police DO NOT treat minorities differently?

Just an interesting hypothetical question.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2020, 11:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Just saw an intersting show on PBS last night called "Hacking Your Mind".  There was a segment about California law enforcement officers receiving training on implict bias.  As part of this training they are shown proof of how minorities are treated differently by police.  The specific example in the show was how officers are much more likely to claim that a cell phone or other innocuos object held by a black person is a gun than when it is in the hands of a white person.  

So wouldn't it be bizzare if a California law enforcement officer who has had this training and been shown proof that police treat minorities differently still insist that police DO NOT treat minorities differently?

Just an interesting hypothetical question.

Did the training explain the difference between implicit bias and racial profiling?  

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2020, 01:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did the training explain the difference between implicit bias and racial profiling?  

There is no difference.

Treating people differently based on race is racial profiling.  The cause does not matter.  Subconscious racism is still racism because it results in people getting treated differently based on their race.

Plus I have supplied numerous examples of where the profiling is based on orders or guidelines from superiors or departments.  There is no "implicit bias" involved in any of those.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2020, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no difference.

Treating people differently based on race is racial profiling.  The cause does not matter.  Subconscious racism is still racism because it results in people getting treated differently based on their race.

Plus I have supplied numerous examples of where the profiling is based on orders or guidelines from superiors or departments.  There is no "implicit bias" involved in any of those.

Fred, you've have to be a completely awful lawyer not to recognize the extreme difference between a conscious and an unconscious action.  Seeing as how you're not a completely terrible lawyer I'm forced to conclude you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2020, 02:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred, you've have to be a completely awful lawyer not to recognize the extreme difference between a conscious and an unconscious action.  Seeing as how you're not a completely terrible lawyer I'm forced to conclude you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Actually I am very aware of the difference between a "conscious" and an "unconscious" decision.  And the decision to stop and/or search a person is not an "unconscious" decision.   

Racial profiling is treating people differently based on their race.  The fact that it is based on deeply ingrained racism does not change the fact that it is still racial profiling.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2020, 03:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I am very aware of the difference between a "conscious" and an "unconscious" decision.  And the decision to stop and/or search a person is not an "unconscious" decision.

Your position has actually reached the point that it's making me laugh.   

Quote:Racial profiling is treating people differently based on their race.  The fact that it is based on deeply ingrained racism does not change the fact that it is still racial profiling.

Racial profiling is a conscious decision, especially when it is policy, which is the crux of our entire argument.  You are not racially profiling anyone if you are acting on subconscious biases.  You've now turned this into a semantic argument which means further discussion is unnecessary.  But please have the last word if you feel the need.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2020, 03:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Racial profiling is a conscious decision, especially when it is policy, which is the crux of our entire argument.  You are not racially profiling anyone if you are acting on subconscious biases.  You've now turned this into a semantic argument which means further discussion is unnecessary.  But please have the last word if you feel the need.

Yes, you are racially profiling when you stop and/or search a person based on their race.  The fact that your racism is subconscious makes no difference. THAT IS WHY POLICE ARE BEING TRAINED TO STOP IT.


And this is not just based on semantics.  I asked you point blank if law enforcement treat people differently based on their race, and you said "No".  Now you are trying to admit that they do, but argue that it does not matter because the racism is subconscious.

Plus I have given multiple examples of racial profiling that were based on guidelines or orders issued by superiors or agencies.

The one thing you are correct about is that there is no use in you attempting to argue against these point any longer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2020, 04:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, you are racially profiling when you stop and/or search a person based on their race.  The fact that your racism is subconscious makes no difference. THAT IS WHY POLICE ARE BEING TRAINED TO STOP IT.

Yes, we are being trained to be cognizant of the inherent biases that all human beings have.

Quote:And this is not just based on semantics.  I asked you point blank if law enforcement treat people differently based on their race, and you said "No".  Now you are trying to admit that they do, but argue that it does not matter because the racism is subconscious.

I stated no one is engaging in racial profiling as a department.  I allowed for the possibility of individual officers doing so.  Acting on implicit biases that one is unaware of is not racial profiling.  Racial profiling is a conscious deliberate act.  You disagree because you don't understand what racial profiling actually is and are making a semantic argument out of this.

Quote:Plus I have given multiple examples of racial profiling that were based on guidelines or orders issued by superiors or agencies.

Sure, from 3-35 years ago (most of them well over a decade old).  Since we're talking about present day those examples only prove that it existed at a department level in the past.

Quote:The one thing you are correct about is that there is no use in you attempting to argue against these point any longer.

Not with what laughably passes for your argument, no.  Arguing with you on this subject is pointless as you have adequately demonstrated you lack an understanding of the basic foundation of the discussion at hand.  Again, I'll concede the last word to you if you feel like you need it. 

[*bfine32*]

Back to the Breonna case:
https://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-recordings-breonna-taylor-154759256.html

Quote:Roughly 20 hours of grand jury recordings in the controversial Breonna Taylor decision were released Friday, allowing the public to see what evidence was presented by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron's office in the high-profile case.

The recordings, released at 11:40 a.m. Friday, cover the grand jury's sessions Sept. 21-23 and are parsed into 14 audio files, with witnesses' personal information redacted because of concerns of threats that have been made to officials and officers.

No written transcripts have been released.

A statement from Cameron's office said no juror deliberations and prosecutor recommendations and statements were recorded, as they are not evidence. That is customary in grand jury proceedings, according to the statement.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2020, 05:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, from 3-35 years ago (most of them well over a decade old).  Since we're talking about present day those examples only prove that it existed at a department level in the past.

 

I have provided proof that it existed or decades.

You have provided ZERO proof that it ended.

Basically you are making an argument without a single shred of evidence to prove your position.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2020, 05:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Acting on implicit biases that one is unaware of is not racial profiling. 

Yes it is.

Minorities were treated differently based on their race.  It 100% happened.  The fact that it was based on racism deeply rooted in the subconscious does not mean it never happened.

Implicit bias explains why it happened.  It does not prove it never happened.

(10-02-2020, 05:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Racial profiling is a conscious deliberate act.  

Every decision to stop and search a person is a conscious deliberate act.   Are you seriously going to claim that all these officers did not know they were stopping and searching people.

  

[GMDino]

Fresh news on this today:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-announces-charges-connection-raid-killed-breonna-taylor/story?id=87926113

Quote:DOJ charges 4 current, former police officers in connection with raid that killed Breonna Taylor


The department is investigating the Louisville Police Department.
ByNadine El-Bawab
August 04, 2022, 11:23 AM
Share

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Thursday that the Department of Justice has filed charges against four former and current Louisville police officers in connection with the death of Breonna Taylor. The charges include civil rights offenses, unlawful conspiracies, unconstitutional use of force and obstruction offenses.


"The federal charges announced today allege that members of a Police Investigations Unit falsified the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant of Ms. Taylor's home and that this act violated federal civil rights laws, and that those violations resulted in Ms. Taylor's death," Garland said in a news conference.


The federal charges against officer Joshua Jaynes, former Louisville detective Kelly Goodlett and officer Kyle Meany allege that they violated Taylor's 4th Amendment rights when they sought a warrant to search Taylor's home while knowing they lacked probable cause, and that they knew their affidavit supporting the contained false and misleading information and omitted other material information, resulting in her death. Goodlett and Jaynes have been charged with conspiracy for allegedly falsifying the affidavit for a search warrant, according to the justice department.


Prosecutors allege that Jaynes and Goodlett met in a garage after Taylor's death "where they agreed to tell investigators" looking into the botched raid "a false story."


Charges have also been filed against Brett Hankison a former Louisville Metro Police officer who was involved in the death of Breonna Taylor. Hankison has been charged in a two-count indictment for deprivation of rights under color of law, both of which are civil rights offenses.


Hankison allegedly used unconstitutional excessive force during the raid when he fired 10 shots through a window and sliding glass door in Taylor's home that was covered in blinds and curtains after there was no longer a "lawful objective justifying the use of deadly force."


The Justice Department has had a pattern or practice investigation ongoing into the Louisville Police Department since April 2021. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke from DOJ's Civil Rights Division told reporters that the separate investigation remains ongoing and that DOJ has a team on the ground still conducting interviews with stakeholders and conducting ride-alongs with police there.


Garland said he spoke with Taylor's family earlier Thursday and informed them of the charges.



"We share, but we cannot fully imagine, the grief felt by Breanna Taylor's loved ones and all of those affected by the events of March 13, 2020. Breonna Taylor should be alive today," Garland said during a press conference.

[Sled21]

(08-04-2022, 12:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Fresh news on this today:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-announces-charges-connection-raid-killed-breonna-taylor/story?id=87926113

Got to shore up that minority vote prior to the mid term you know..... worry about getting the WNBA player back from Russia even at the expense of letting the Merchant of Death who plotted to kill Americans go. File federal charges on the Louisville officers. I expect Biden to come out with a statement of support for Deshaun Watson any day now. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-05-2022, 04:21 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Got to shore up that minority vote prior to the mid term you know..... worry about getting the WNBA player back from Russia even at the expense of letting the Merchant of Death who plotted to kill Americans go. File federal charges on the Louisville officers. I expect Biden to come out with a statement of support for Deshaun Watson any day now. 

Could you imagine supporting someone who has been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women?  People are sick. 

[Sled21]

(08-05-2022, 04:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Could you imagine supporting someone who has been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women?  People are sick. 

Again with Trump living in your head rent free...... his accusers were debunked, Watson's were paid.

[Leon]

(08-05-2022, 04:30 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Again with Trump living in your head rent free...... his accusers were debunked, Watson's were paid.

i think your wasting your time friend, they are determine to hate trump no matter the facts

[*Nately120*]

(08-05-2022, 04:30 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Again with Trump living in your head rent free...... his accusers were debunked, Watson's were paid.

Joke is on you since i meant bill Clinton.  Also the joke is on Trump for bragging about being a sex offender.  

[BigPapaKain]

(08-05-2022, 04:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Joke is on you since i meant bill Clinton.  Also the joke is on Trump for bragging about being a sex offender.  

I think you're wasting your time friend, they are determined to suckle at Trump's tete no matter the facts.