02-15-2016, 04:54 AM
(02-15-2016, 04:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The only reason you think this way is because oin your mind racial profiling never happens. You know nothing about the case an dhave no evidence at all that anyone hadf an ax to grind.
The fact that you would go to the lengthss to make something up out of thin air and claim it is more probable (even with zero evidence) than the chance racial profiling actually exists is pretty strong proof of white privilege.
You would rather believe a complete fabrication of your imagination with no evidence to back it up than to admit that racial profiling might exist.
Oh, you have all the facts on the case then? My mistake.
Do you see the irony here?
You making a claim that I would go to any lengths to prove that racial profiling doesn't exist is incredulous to you. I get nothing out of it, there is no reason for me to go to such lengths, yet here I am. Going to what you consider extreme lengths to prove something as not occurring.
However, when someone actually has a reason to lie, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the to make something up to get a favorable reaction. Even if it is just public sympathy. That is impossible for someone to lie about something like racial profiling. There is no way they will make that up. There is no way they won't go through extreme lengths to prove racial profiling. Even though they would have a reason or reasons to do so.
(note: I have been on record stating that racial profiling is a possibility, however, I believe in a society that values a presumption of innocence, that would prevent someone from making a false claim for personal gain. I have only seen claims come from one side of the equation, this is the 1st case presented that shows from the other side. However, since I am supposed to assume the accused is innocent, I still look for burden of proof before exclaiming Guilty! I have admitted that it doesn't look good, however it is still an allegation and there could be reasonable doubt that the accused is innocent.
I am not a lawyer, but Fred is. So I am surprised that Fred has taken the stance of the accused being guilty. If I am not mistaken Fred is a public defense attorney, which makes me even more surprised that his reaction to my counter is one full of ad homenim)
