Texas rural Conservative racism - Calvin Beckett in the movie American Violet.

[Cow Poke]

By the references cited, the movie is not MOSTLY FALSE. You failed to justify this claim.

Wow, you really are thick skulled, aren't you?

Put the beer down, Shuny, and READ what I said.....

That's because I never CLAIMED that the movie was ABSOLUTELY FALSE, or even MOSTLY false, you Jackwagon.

I claimed NEITHER of those things, Shuny!

Changing the names for liability reasons does not make the movie mostly false. You need to explain this assertion.

No, YOU need to quit being such a DOPE and ASSuming I made claims I never made!

I think you must be really rattled, Shuny... why don't you take a chill pill, and actually READ what is said, rather than your emotional rant version?

[shunyadragon]

Wow, you really are thick skulled, aren't you?

Put the beer down, Shuny, and READ what I said.....


I claimed NEITHER of those things, Shuny!



No, YOU need to quit being such a DOPE and ASSuming I made claims I never made!

I think you must be really rattled, Shuny... why don't you take a chill pill, and actually READ what is said, rather than your emotional rant version?

Either mostly false or absolutely false please justify these claims.

[Cow Poke]

Either mostly false or absolutely false please justify these claims.

WOW.... you are INCREDIBLY dense.... How do you even tie your shoes?

Let's try this again.....

I claimed NEITHER of those things, Shuny!

That's because I never CLAIMED that the movie was ABSOLUTELY FALSE, or even MOSTLY false, you Jackwagon.

This means, dear Shuny.... here, lemme try to dumb it down for ya....

A) I NEVER said it was "ABSOLUTELY FALSE" --- that was your own goofy ASSumption, or, POSSIBLY, an evil and dishonest attempt to LIE about what I said. (I don't believe you are evil, dishonest or that you were lying)
2) I NEVER said it was "MOSTLY FALSE" --- that was your own goofy ASSumption, or, POSSIBLY, an evil and dishonest attempt to LIE about what I said. (I don't believe you are evil, dishonest or that you were lying)

Now, it is on YOU to show where I EVER said, OR IMPLIED, that the movie was either "ABSOLUTELY FALSE" (Your GOOFY ASSumption) or even "MOSTLY FALSE" (I have already showed you were I said quite the OPPOSITE)

So... back up your goofy claims, Shuny... provide the quote where I said EITHER of those things ... or that I said it was false in ANY major aspect.

[Cow Poke]

Either mostly false or absolutely false please justify these claims.

Hey goofus... PROVE that you have stopped beating your wife.

[Sparko]

I also have associates past and present who were white drug dealers. Do mot discount grandma from the list of possible drug dealers. It is an excellent cover.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/granny-drug-kingpin-busted-in-oklahoma/

Silver haired and sweet faced, Darlene Mayes looks like many grannies but according to police, she is one of Oklahoma’s biggest drug kingpins.

Her operation went up in smoke this week, when police entered her home and found 4 pounds of pot and $276,000 cash.

Police found $15,000 bundles of cash stashed away in the home.

Mayes initially told police the money was part of her retirement fund.

Police also say she was packing a semiautomatic pistol and a revolver.

Investigators say her alleged pot-dealing network spanned four states, from Tulsa, Okla., to Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri.

Police believe she supplied up to 40 percent of the marijuana in that area.

As the mastermind, police believe she had a network of dealers, including her son Jerry who was also arrested.

Law enforcement expert Brad Garrett says harmless looking seniors can sometimes be the most efficient drug dealers.

“It doesn’t surprise me that someone this age would be actively involved in marijuana distribution because there’s just too much money to be made. If they keep a low profile, they don’t talk to many people, and they don’t get greedy, they can go on for years.”

Mayes is not the first grandmother accused of ditching retirement for a second career in drug dealing.

In the United Kingdom, 68-year-old Patricia Tabram—dubbed the cannabis grandma—was charged with intent to supply after authorities say they found a marijuana farm in her home.

In Tennessee, an elderly couple was busted for selling prescription drugs.

But the granddaddy of all drug dealers may be Francis Cook, 83, also known as Britain’s oldest drug dealer.

© Copyright Original Source

Nonetheless, racial profiling is illegal and unconstitutional. The above reference blows your assertion out the window concerning white grandmas

I specifically said that they could be some 80-year-old white granny drug dealers out there!

The point is that it is not a statistical probability. In fact I bet even you will admit that it is pretty rare. However you can go look at arrest records and you will find that a very high percentage of drug dealers are black male youths, mostly from gangs. Second would be white gang members. White grannies would be pretty far down on that list.

So if police are doing random searches for drugs, it would make a lot more sense for them to target black youths than grannies, wouldn't you say?

[rogue06]

Hey goofus... PROVE that you have stopped beating your wife.

You know I ain't married

Oops. Sorry. I saw "goofus" and since that was your nickname for me when we were growing up... My bad

[shunyadragon]

I specifically said that they could be some 80-year-old white granny drug dealers out there!

The point is that it is not a statistical probability. In fact I bet even you will admit that it is pretty rare. However you can go look at arrest records and you will find that a very high percentage of drug dealers are black male youths, mostly from gangs. Second would be white gang members. White grannies would be pretty far down on that list.

So if police are doing random searches for drugs, it would make a lot more sense for them to target black youths than grannies, wouldn't you say?

No it would make sense to target those that they have evidence for doing so. Again and again, racial profiling for targeting suspects in crimes is illegal and unconstitutional in America.

One of the outstanding factors in this and other cases is that they did not have any reliable evidence to arrest and aggressively prosecute the individuals arrested. It would help if you responded to the whole case as detailed in the Brennan Center report, and the actual nature of what racial profiling is in the actions of Law Enforcement agencies. So far you have persisted in nibbling around the edges and not addressing the circumstances of this case.

[shunyadragon]

WOW.... you are INCREDIBLY dense.... How do you even tie your shoes?

Let's try this again.....



This means, dear Shuny.... here, lemme try to dumb it down for ya....

A) I NEVER said it was "ABSOLUTELY FALSE" --- that was your own goofy ASSumption, or, POSSIBLY, an evil and dishonest attempt to LIE about what I said. (I don't believe you are evil, dishonest or that you were lying)
2) I NEVER said it was "MOSTLY FALSE" --- that was your own goofy ASSumption, or, POSSIBLY, an evil and dishonest attempt to LIE about what I said. (I don't believe you are evil, dishonest or that you were lying)

Now, it is on YOU to show where I EVER said, OR IMPLIED, that the movie was either "ABSOLUTELY FALSE" (Your GOOFY ASSumption) or even "MOSTLY FALSE" (I have already showed you were I said quite the OPPOSITE)

So... back up your goofy claims, Shuny... provide the quote where I said EITHER of those things ... or that I said it was false in ANY major aspect.

Let's try again . . .

You have resorted to name calling and things I should have done in some particular order, so what? your approach is sort of a fallacy of fault finding instead of addressing the subject of the thread. Let's deal with the fact of the case according to the Brennan Center Report. If you have counter references that the Brennan Center report is inaccurate, wrong or whatever, please present it. I will continue to present more evidence of unconstitutional and illegal racial profiling and the consequences of these actions in American Law. I may also cite more references concerning the subject of the thread.

Question is the Brennan Center report accurate

[Teallaura]

IIRC there has been at least one study that has shown those with names often associated with Southerners are just as less likely to receive a callback. That seems to indicate that there is something other than racism involved here.

It's also true that African-Americans are more likely to vote for an Anglo-Saxon name than any other form (assuming they don't know the candidate). It's true of voters in general as well.

[Sparko]

No it would make sense to target those that they have evidence for doing so. Again and again, racial profiling for targeting suspects in crimes is illegal and unconstitutional in America.

One of the outstanding factors in this and other cases is that they did not have any reliable evidence to arrest and aggressively prosecute the individuals arrested. It would help if you responded to the whole case as detailed in the Brennan Center report, and the actual nature of what racial profiling is in the actions of Law Enforcement agencies. So far you have persisted in nibbling around the edges and not addressing the circumstances of this case.

That's because that case was not about racial profiling. It was about specific corrupt officials abusing their power.

And so far all you do is repeat yourself. Racial profiling is not unconstitutional. That is your interpretation of it. Can you show me the words "racial profiling" in the constitution?

It is not "unreasonable search and seizure" if the police are using race as just another statistic to help them identify criminals. It is entirely reasonable to search black youth gang members as potential drug dealers or violent offenders, because the facts are, a very high percentage of black youth gang members are criminals.

[fm93]

It is not "unreasonable search and seizure" if the police are using race as just another statistic to help them identify criminals. It is entirely reasonable to search black youth gang members as potential drug dealers or violent offenders, because the facts are, a very high percentage of black youth gang members are criminals.

Then the key here is the "gang members" part, not the race. Members of a certain group may be statistically likely to be criminals because they're gang members, not because they're black. Racial profiling involves searching someone based primarily on race.

[Sparko]

Then the key here is the "gang members" part, not the race. Members of a certain group may be statistically likely to be criminals because they're gang members, not because they're black. Racial profiling involves searching someone based primarily on race.

Wrong. I just threw in gang members into my example. I also used "male". My point was that there are various characteristics that need to be considered when looking for a specific type of criminal. The facts are, blacks are more likely to belong to gangs too, strictly speaking statistically.

You wouldn't go looking at 30-year old white soccer moms if you were looking for gang members, after all.

Nobody is saying that race is what makes someone into a criminal, or a gang member, or drug dealer. Well except for maybe Epo.

It is just that due to their living conditions, locations, associates, etc, certain races will be more likely statistically to follow certain behaviors.

If you went to Mexico or the Southwest, perhaps those same demographics would apply to Hispanics more than blacks. Or if you lived in Canada, more to whites than other minorities. But the numbers will still represent specific groups of people, and race is just another parameter among many.

[Epoetker]

I also have associates past and present who were white drug dealers. Do mot discount grandma from the list of possible drug dealers. It is an excellent cover.

Nonetheless, racial profiling is illegal and unconstitutional. The above reference blows your assertion out the window concerning white grandmas

Shunyadragon is totally right and now we know why police officers are totally good with running police raids on old folks homes, nurseries, and primary schools.



Have you lived your life in a manner to ensure that you and people who look like you are above legal suspicion, in the hopes that ruling liberals might leave you alone? EVERYONE IS EQUALLY A TARGET, NO MORE HESITATION, **** YOUR REPUTATION.

[shunyadragon]

That's because that case was not about racial profiling. It was about specific corrupt officials abusing their power.

27 of the 28 in this case were black, with no evidence, and no record of dealing nor gang membership. The official primarily responsible was reelected at least twice.

And so far all you do is repeat yourself. Racial profiling is not unconstitutional. That is your interpretation of it. Can you show me the words "racial profiling" in the constitution?

Source: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31130.pdf

Racial profiling is the practice of targeting individuals for police or security detention based on their race or ethnicity in the belief that certain minority groups are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior. Examples of racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are illustrated in legal settlements and data collected by governmental agencies and private groups, suggesting that minorities are disproportionately the subject of routine traffic stops and other security-related practices. The issue has periodically attracted congressional interest, particularly with regard to existing and proposed legislative safeguards, which include the proposed End Racial Profiling Act of 2011 (H.R. 3618/S. 1670) in the 112th Congress. Several courts have considered the constitutional ramifications of the practice as an “unreasonable search
and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment and, more recently, as a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. A variety of federal and state statutes provide potential relief to individuals who claim that their rights are violated by race-based law enforcement.

© Copyright Original Source

It is not "unreasonable search and seizure" if the police are using race as just another statistic to help them identify criminals. It is entirely reasonable to search black youth gang members as potential drug dealers or violent offenders, because the facts are, a very high percentage of black youth gang members are criminals.

None of those arrested were gang members.

[Sparko]

27 of the 28 in this case were black, with no evidence, and no record of dealing nor gang membership. The official primarily responsible was reelected at least twice.

Source: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31130.pdf

Racial profiling is the practice of targeting individuals for police or security detention based on their race or ethnicity in the belief that certain minority groups are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior. Examples of racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are illustrated in legal settlements and data collected by governmental agencies and private groups, suggesting that minorities are disproportionately the subject of routine traffic stops and other security-related practices. The issue has periodically attracted congressional interest, particularly with regard to existing and proposed legislative safeguards, which include the proposed End Racial Profiling Act of 2011 (H.R. 3618/S. 1670) in the 112th Congress. Several courts have considered the constitutional ramifications of the practice as an “unreasonable search
and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment and, more recently, as a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. A variety of federal and state statutes provide potential relief to individuals who claim that their rights are violated by race-based law enforcement.

© Copyright Original Source

yeah like I said, all you do is repeat yourself. It is not unconstitutional, it is interpreted as going against the "unreasonable search and seizure" part of the 4th amendment. That doesn't make it unconstitutional. It is some courts trying to shoehorn it into the constitution by claiming it is unreasonable. But in fact, most cases it is not unreasonable, as people keep pointing out to you. but rather than debate that, you just repeat yourself...

None of those arrested were gang members.

...and purposefully read things people say wrongly.

Did I say they were gang members? Did I say that they were not treated unreasonably? No.

I said that this was a case where specific individuals were misusing their powers. And it was based on someone's word without evidence. That doesn't make all racial profiling wrong does it? That is what we are discussing. Sorry if the parameters of your thread have expanded beyond the one case, but you opened the door yourself with your comments.