Reverand Wright/obama

[jcb]

No. They don't have a probable cause to pull someone over only because they're black. On the other hand, depending on the situation they do have a probable cause to pull someone over because they fit the profile of a demographic who commits 7 of 10 crimes.

"Driving while black" means pulling someone over without probably cause, only the fact that they are black. It's a documented phenomenon. That's what I cited in the original post.

I gave you my answer, so could you answer a couple for me?

If you were a policeman would you ever NOT pull someone over because they were black?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You're a policeman in an area where a mugging has been reported and you see 4 young people driving away, a black female, a white female, a black male, and a white male. Which one do you pull over and why? Be honest now.

All other things being equal, the black male for the very statistical reasons you mentioned. This sort of police work has been upheld time and time again in the courts and I think it's fine.

DH, I never said police shouldn't exercise judgment and common sense; I said it was wrong to pull someone over without probable cause, only because they were black. Intentional or not, your previous post seemed to condone pulling blacks over only because of the statistical prevalence of black crime. That's unconstitutional.

[DJD]

Jcb,
What's your feeling on racial profiling? Just curious. I feel it's necessary for law enforcement both locally and nationally. I know it's not poltically correct but I'm not running for office.

[jcb]

That's essentially what we're talking about.

Like I said in the hypothetical DH presented, I have no problem with policemen taking into account their most likely demographic when they are investigating a crime.

But once we say it's OK to abandon the Constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment because someone fits a certain description, we're no better than the criminals we're trying to catch.

I'm all for getting the bad guys--let's just do it within the Constitution.

Similar debate going on right now re:terrorism and wiretapping...

[Devils Horse]

"Driving while black" means pulling someone over without probably cause, only the fact that they are black. It's a documented phenomenon. That's what I cited in the original post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Who defined and documented DWB? Guess it's one of today's hip hop euphemisms I'm too square to pick up on.

You try to get me to don the racist dunce cap, I restate my points in a clearer fashion, then you cry straw man when the tables are turned.?.? Tsk tsk.

[/QUOTE]
All other things being equal, the black male for the very statistical reasons you mentioned. This sort of police work has been upheld time and time again in the courts and I think it's fine.

DH, I never said police shouldn't exercise judgment and common sense; I said it was wrong to pull someone over without probable cause, only because they were black. Intentional or not, your previous post seemed to condone pulling blacks over only because of the statistical prevalence of black crime. That's unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

In light of your definition of DWB, I suppose I can see how you arrived at the conclusion I condoned racism. I do fail to see how you missed my point in the very next sentence, but so be it.

You point out it's against the constitution to pull someone over based on the statistical prevalence of black crime, yet say you'd do that very thing if you were a cop. You're killing me here JCB.

The 'cross the street' and 'DWB' examples keep getting regurgitated as prime examples of discrimination in America, and they just don't wash.

Most people of any color would cross over to avoid a young black guy (prolly a man of any other color too) on a deserted street at midnight. That's common sense and self preservation, not hatred. Dang, are we totally blinded by guilt?

I still say racial discrimination is not much of problem for black people today. In fact the most virulent racial hatred apparently exists in the black churches.

[jcb]

You point out it's against the constitution to pull someone over based on the statistical prevalence of black crime, yet say you'd do that very thing if you were a cop. You're killing me here JCB.

DH, if you can't (or won't?) see the difference between my hypothetical situation--no crime has been committed, and pulling someone over just for being black--and yours, when a crime has been committed, and a police officer has to make a split second choice who to pursue, then the odds of carrying on this discussion any farther are pretty slim.

The same is true if you can convince yourself that the problem with racism in America is black racists.

[Devils Horse]

DH, if you can't (or won't?) see the difference between my hypothetical situation--no crime has been committed, and pulling someone over just for being black--and yours, when a crime has been committed, and a police officer has to make a split second choice who to pursue, then the odds of carrying on this discussion any farther are pretty slim.

The same is true if you can convince yourself that the problem with racism in America is black racists.

Of course I see the difference, I'm the one who pointed it out to begin with. You try to pin me, I try to pin you, that's part of the fun. How much fun it is depends on how many of your conclusions I dismantle before you take your bat and glove and leave the field.

Don't need to convince myself of anything, facts are facts. I'm not the one who's bought into the dire white racist situation the politicians and antis have taught us we have. Were I willing to bother, I could dig up two instances of black racism for every one of white racism you could show me in today's (not 20 years ago) society. The examples you've come up with so far really aren't that impressive.

Be sure and vote for BO, he'll unite America and fix our supposed racial problems, after all he has 20 years of spiritual counseling to draw on.

[jcb]

<sigh>

DH, let's review.

1. I said it was wrong to pull someone over just for being black. You said:

"Far as getting stopped driving while black, like it or not there's some reasons behind that. A disproportional number of crimes are committed by young black males. Not politically correct and you won't hear it on the news, but true nonetheless. It's young black males who complain of getting stopped for DWB right? I'd say the overwhelming number of Cops operate on suspicion not hate, and it does make a certain amount of sense to stop the most likely suspects."

Accurately paraphrased: statistical reasons justify stopping someone for being black. No mention of probable cause, just the statistical qualification.

2. I stated that was unconstitutional.

3. You admitted that, but then said you really didn't say what you said.

4. You accused me of logical inconsistency because I said if a mugging occurred, and I had one of four choices to go after, I'd go after a young black male.

5. I pointed out the fallacious nature of that accusation because the two situations were totally different; in one, a crime had been committed, the other, not.

The racism that Rev. Wright and Farrakhan spew is just as bad as the skinheads. Racism is not always overt, however. It has many insidious forms that are going to take a while to uproot from this society.

Take a trip, DH, down to my mom's hometown in Mississippi where they to this day do not allow blacks to go to the "white churches" and the real estate agents try to discourage blacks from buying houses in certain parts of the county. Travel on down to meet with a county judge-executive in KY who once told my brother, who asked the innocent question "Why are there no blacks in this county"? with a smile, a wink and the answer "Because we don't want them here."

You're never going to see any of those folks on YouTube or Fox News, so I don't think the numbers of examples we can dredge up from the media can help us a whole lot. Do you have that much trust in the media, DH?

Which is the bigger problem: a systemic barrier to opportunity put in place by people with money and power, or some loony preacher with a small following in inner-city Chicago?

I never tried to get you to don the racist dunce cap, DH. I don't believe you're a racist. I do believe, however, you're in denial if you truly believe there are more black racists than white in this country.

[Devils Horse]

I knew you wouldn't give up and throw in the towel, JCB. Good job.

Believe it or not I understand how the whole DWB back and forth went. The distinction between the situations is clear and easy to follow. I was intentionally obtuse just to rattle your cage and be contrary.

Look, I don't need to travel to your mom's town in MS. I'm likely nearer to your mother's age than yours, and was born and raised in Roanoke, Alabama. I have close relatives in Biloxi. I've lived the life and heard all the stories. I get it. Okay?

You also need to open up and look around. I've been in almost every state in this country, and as a general rule there is just as much, if not more black racism as there is white. That's not stories people have told me, or from watching the idiot box, that's from personal experience and observation.

You say blacks still aren't allowed in some church, and that simply is not true. Would they be welcome? About as welcome as you'd be if you tried to join Mr. Wright's church.

The CJE who said that to your brother can't stop blacks from living in that county. Would blacks be welcome and treated well? About as well as you'd be treated if you got yourself an apartment in Harlem.

Don't get prejudice confused with discrimination. Discrimination is illegal, but the government cannot make people like each other. Try to remember that.

Quote//Which is the bigger problem: a systemic barrier to opportunity put in place by people with money and power, or some loony preacher with a small following in inner-city Chicago?//End quote

Are you serious? The systemic barrier you speak of is a myth! Are there some isolated cases of it? Yes, but in 99 per cent of America the vaunted systemic white barrier doesn't exist. The only place it exists is in the minds of black leaders shifting blame, politicians who'll fix it if you'll just vote for them, and those of you who've ingested years of their crap.

The possible president of this country has been closely associated with the so called loony old preacher for 20 years, and we should just blow that off?

[jcb]

"Believe it or not I understand how the whole DWB back and forth went. The distinction between the situations is clear and easy to follow. I was intentionally obtuse just to rattle your cage and be contrary."

Um....right.

"You say blacks still aren't allowed in some church, and that simply is not true."

Really? Tell me more about this church I know intimately and you know nothing about. My source is an uncle who goes there and told me of a black couple being told, after the service, that there was a church "that would be more to their liking" in a different part of town. Don't try to split hairs. Try to remember that.

"Would they be welcome? About as welcome as you'd be if you tried to join Mr. Wright's church."

Actually, in the video I saw from Wright's church, I saw a remarkable number of whites.

"The CJE who said that to your brother can't stop blacks from living in that county."

No, but they can burn a cross on their lawn, as they did a black family a couple months before my brother had this conversation.

"Are you serious? The systemic barrier you speak of is a myth! Are there some isolated cases of it? Yes, but in 99 per cent of America the vaunted systemic white barrier doesn't exist. The only place it exists is in the minds of black leaders shifting blame, politicians who'll fix it if you'll just vote for them, and those of you who've ingested years of their crap."

I haven't ingested anything. I've seen it. At least I got you to agree it exists. I just think you're way off on your estimate of how prevalent it is.

"The possible president of this country has been closely associated with the so called loony old preacher for 20 years, and we should just blow that off?"

Not sure who you're arguing against there, certainly not me. I wouldn't vote for OB - not so much because of Wright, but because he's way too liberal for my liking.