Top cop sorry for 'historical mistreatment' of minorities

[BmorePat87]

(10-19-2016, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish you guys knew how frustrating it is to be a professional in a field subject to so much amateur debate and argument.

This is how I feel when I listen to people complain about Common Core. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2016, 04:30 AM)treee Wrote: While your speculation about income level correlating to rate of citation for drugs is certainly based in logic, I think calling Fred's assessment of stop-and-frisk being bullshit is needlessly dismissive.

I wasn't referring to his assessment of stop and frisk, I was dismissing his post entirely as being a complete subject change.  It's business as usual for him when he can't directly refute an argument, tweak the subject and claim victory.  You'll notice that a completely rational and courteous discussion was occurring prior to his typical obfuscation.

[treee]

(10-20-2016, 10:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wasn't referring to his assessment of stop and frisk, I was dismissing his post entirely as being a complete subject change.  It's business as usual for him when he can't directly refute an argument, tweak the subject and claim victory.  You'll notice that a completely rational and courteous discussion was occurring prior to his typical obfuscation.

That post in particular definitely relates to the OP. I'm not refuting that he does that in other posts or threads though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2016, 11:01 AM)treee Wrote: That post in particular definitely relates to the OP. I'm not refuting that he does that in other posts or threads though.

And if he was responding to the OP I'd completely agree with you.  He wasn't, he was directly inserting himself into the discussion Matt and I were having.  Stop and frisk, and how it was implemented, does absolutely nothing to refute or address the point I was making.  As you say, it is something he's well known for.

[treee]

(10-20-2016, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And if he was responding to the OP I'd completely agree with you.  He wasn't, he was directly inserting himself into the discussion Matt and I were having.  Stop and frisk, and how it was implemented, does absolutely nothing to refute or address the point I was making.  As you say, it is something he's well known for.

Fair enough.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2016, 09:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is how I feel when I listen to people complain about Common Core. 

Trust me, I have tremendous sympathy for teachers.  At least in my line of work I can tell a shitty parent off.  The crap you guys have to put up with is unbelievable.

(10-20-2016, 11:06 AM)treee Wrote: Fair enough.

Consensus! 

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2016, 10:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 100% bullshit.  This has been addressed above yet you didn't seem to comprehend it.  But then I expect that level of debate from someone who pretends to be a lawyer.  

Sorry if I misunderstood Matts Question, but I thought he was asking about instances where blacks were arrested more often for drug possession when there was not other "collateral crime".

All I did was provide proof of a situation where the number of arrests for drug possesssion had zero to do with collateral crime.  And in the situation that I cited there was clear racial profiling.

This is proof that blacks are not just arrested more often due to "collateral crime".  Instead they are arrested more often just due to the color of their skin.  So the best I can tell my post was directly in response to the question Matt asked.

You are correct that many possession charges are the result of "collateral crime", but that is only part of the problem.  There is also blatant racial profiling.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2016, 10:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   But then I expect that level of debate from someone who pretends to be a lawyer.  

Sig bet that I am a real lawyer?

Let everyone see how well your "heightened sense" really work?  You claim that you are never wrong.  Are you man enough to back up that claim?