Louisville Will Erupt!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-29-2020, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If I can't read then how am i able to type all these questions that you refuse to answer?

A mystery for the ages. 

[*bfine32*]

Looks like cries to see behind the curtain have been answered:
https://news.yahoo.com/grand-juror-sues-release-transcript-001349698.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGMD61W8j_if9iyJi_m1wVTy8tts4gM_mTDvu95O_2QzMjYC4c4a_C_m2GQCRdxPAuc6FigBsBh9GmPnZlHR6f--LWqufblY0xDicITeR4f5NjoaxhpRCj5YCKQbRk7qw6g38kqASFml4UOCHJcpZ420cmTqGXqXwgyJXcGV8ehC

Quote:Kentucky AG to release Breonna Taylor grand jury records after juror complains he misled

[GMDino]

(09-29-2020, 07:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like cries to see behind the curtain have been answered:
https://news.yahoo.com/grand-juror-sues-release-transcript-001349698.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGMD61W8j_if9iyJi_m1wVTy8tts4gM_mTDvu95O_2QzMjYC4c4a_C_m2GQCRdxPAuc6FigBsBh9GmPnZlHR6f--LWqufblY0xDicITeR4f5NjoaxhpRCj5YCKQbRk7qw6g38kqASFml4UOCHJcpZ420cmTqGXqXwgyJXcGV8ehC

I'll have to read that article.  The others I saw said the jurors felt they were taking too much of the "blame" for the decision without people knowing what they heard.

[Dill]

(09-29-2020, 04:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then, respectfully, you need to learn how to read.  Get back to me once that happens.

I've literally answered every single one of these questions.  Quite white knighting your boy and let him struggle on his own.

Oh, and like Fred, please prove to me you're not a serial killer.

Sure, but your "answers" are dodges. Non-Answers. E.g., "You need to learn how to read."

What else is "can't prove a negative" good for in the hands of someone who really doesn't understand what the phrase means and when and where it applies, when and where not? Fred is spot on when he asks why the very metrics used to establish that profiling exists in a specific city/department/location could not be used to establish that it no longer exists. Its the kind of thing social scientists and policy experts do every day.

The "serial killer" dodge fools only you. Fred, Ignore the red herrings and smoke.

PS "My boy" is crushing it as far as substantive points go. I only suggest he not let the quippery distract him--keep the non-answers in the foreground as what they are, but don't try to "answer" them as substantive points.  Be ready when you start claiming that the difference between good and bad answers here is only "opinion."

[GMDino]

(09-29-2020, 07:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, but your "answers" are dodges. Non-Answers. E.g., "You need to learn how to read."

What else is "can't prove a negative" good for in the hands of someone who really doesn't understand the phrase means and when and where it applies, when and where not? Fred is spot on when he asks why the very metrics used to establish that profiling exists in a specific city/department/location could not be used to establish that it no longer exists. Its the kind of thing social scientists and policy experts do every day.

The "serial killer" dodge fools only you. Fred, Ignore the red herrings and smoke.

PS "My boy" is crushing it as far as substantive points go. I only suggest he not let the quippery distract him--keep the non-answers in the foreground as what they are, but don't try to "answer" someone who cannot produce a definition he claims to have provided.  Be ready when you start claiming that the difference between good and bad answers here is only "opinion."

Ain't it odd that when more than one person disagrees with one person it is "white knighting" "defending your boy" the "mean girls", but then they disagree with someone else it is "because they understand what he really meant".

SSF said racial profiling doesn't exist anymore (only in "history") but then says you can't prove a negative and wants to keep arguing.

No amount of proof (already offered) will change that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-29-2020, 07:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ain't it odd that when more than one person disagrees with one person it is "white knighting" "defending your boy" the "mean girls", but then they disagree with someone else it is "because they understand what he really meant".

Yeah, you and Dill.  Shocking to say the least. 

Quote:SSF said racial profiling doesn't exist anymore (only in "history") but then says you can't prove a negative and wants to keep arguing.

Get it right, SSF said racial profiling does not exist at a department level.  Part of arguing a topic is actually knowing the topic being argued.  Your little buddies and you routinely fail at this.  Seeing as how Fred doesn't even know the difference between racial profiling and implicit bias I can't take any argument coming from the triumvirate seriously.

Quote:No amount of proof (already offered) will change that.

Still waiting on any proof not years old.  But you three keep echoing each others opinions and thinking you proved something. 

[fredtoast]

(09-29-2020, 10:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Seeing as how Fred doesn't even know the difference between racial profiling and implicit bias I can't take any argument coming from the triumvirate seriously.

Racial profiling is treating individuals differently based on their race.

It makes no difference if the bias is subconscious or not. The result is still the same. Law enforcement must take steps to end the practice. Just because the racism is deeply imbedded in the subconscious does not mean it is acceptable .

And for some reason you are ignoring the examples were based on official policy or guidelines instead of the judgement of an individual.

[fredtoast]

(09-29-2020, 10:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Still waiting on any proof not years old.  

I have provided proofp covering decades up to 3 years ago.

You have provided ZERO proof that it has ended.

Burden is on you at this point.

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have provided proofp covering decades up to 3 years ago.

You have provided ZERO proof that it has ended.

Burden is on you at this point.

It ended 2.5 years ago

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2020, 03:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It ended 2.5 years ago

Link?

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

You want me to post a link to something that is not happening?

[*bfine32*]

Does anyone see the danger in this:
https://www.aol.com/judge-delays-release-breonna-taylor-191819516.html

AG asks for 1 week to redact personal information from witnesses, ect...

Judge gives him 2 days.

[Benton]

(09-30-2020, 07:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does anyone see the danger in this:
https://www.aol.com/judge-delays-release-breonna-taylor-191819516.html

AG asks for 1 week to redact personal information from witnesses, ect...

Judge gives him 2 days.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/518951-ag-cameron-didnt-recommend-any-homicide-charges-to-breonna-taylor

Meh, nothing to see here. Just Cameron and his broom. Doing what the party wants, sweeping away democracy. It's a shame the judge gave him less time to cover it up. Damn shame.

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2020, 07:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You want me to post a link to something that is not happening?

Just tell me what the basis is for your opinion.  Then we will go from there.  Tell me how you know it ended 2. years ago.

I posted a lot of studies that prove racial profiling happens.  Surely you have a link to some study that proves it has stopped.  It is pretty easy to prove.

I mean you wouldn't just make up something in your head and state it as a fact would you?

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 10:03 PM)Benton Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/518951-ag-cameron-didnt-recommend-any-homicide-charges-to-breonna-taylor

Meh, nothing to see here. Just Cameron and his broom. Doing what the party wants, sweeping away democracy. It's a shame the judge gave him less time to cover it up. Damn shame.

I'll take that as a no.

Personally, I think he should be given ample time to mask PII of witnesses.

I mean it's not everyday a judge rules the transcripts of the grand jury be made public. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2020, 10:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I mean you wouldn't just make up something in your head and state it as a fact would you?

You posting this.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 10:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just tell me what the basis is for your opinion.  Then we will go from there.  Tell me how you know it ended 2. years ago.

I posted a lot of studies that prove racial profiling happens.  Surely you have a link to some study that proves it has stopped.  It is pretty easy to prove.

I mean you wouldn't just make up something in your head and state it as a fact would you?

I haven't seen anything to prove it otherwise.

I consider absence being absence. 

[Benton]

(09-30-2020, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I mean it's not everyday a judge rules the transcripts of the grand jury be made public. 

It's not every day a woman is shot in her apartment by police not wearing body cams on the pretense of a warrant based off somebody once stayed there and the AG presents a case to grand jury where he takes any serious accountability off the table for police, but tells the public the same grand jury didn't find any serious charges.

Maybe the judge is just tired of courts being used politically?

As I've said before, I had a lot of hope for Cameron. Unfortunately, his strings are showing really early.

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 11:04 PM)Benton Wrote: It's not every day a woman is shot in her apartment by police not wearing body cams on the pretense of a warrant based off somebody once stayed there and the AG presents a case to grand jury where he takes any serious accountability off the table for police, but tells the public the same grand jury didn't find any serious charges.

Maybe the judge is just tired of courts being used politically?

As I've said before, I had a lot of hope for Cameron. Unfortunately, his strings are showing really early.

Guess we'll see. I just hope they have time to fully mask the PII of witnesses before releasing it to the public. 


I'm glad no one in my family was a witness.  Especially one who may have testified to the "why" of the warrant.

[Benton]

(09-30-2020, 11:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we'll see. I just hope they have time to fully mask the PII of witnesses before releasing it to the public. 


I'm glad no one in my family was a witness.  Especially one who may have testified to the "why" of the warrant.

I share the same sentiment. Which is why I find what Cameron did as heinous. Protecting the officers may have been a noble act, if that's the best case scenario for his actions, but he was running the risk of retribution against jurors, the court, witnesses. Worst case, he impeded the grand jury to gain political favor, while running the risk of retribution against jurors, the court, witnesses and officers.