Racial Profiling?

[Cow Poke]

FWIW, the only people I've seen who even use the term "reverse racism" (an odd phrase) are liberals who have essentially redefined racism to be only white-on-black, or white-on-minority.

Yeah, I'm familiar with "reverse discrimination", but never heard "reverse racism".

[Kristian Joensen]

I could care less about personal anecdotes, especially ones that come from a friend of a friend. Let's see some hard facts from a credible source.

And if you took from Sheriff Clarke's statements that his department practiced racial profiling then you're a moron, because that's clearly not what he said.

Giving square_peg's interpretation of the events the benefit of the doubt, is what happened to the couple right or wrong?

[Cow Poke]

Giving square_peg's interpretation of the events the benefit of the doubt....

Since when is THAT a good idea?

[lilpixieofterror]

Kindly take this phrase, soak it in cat feces,[ and shove it in your mouth.

So can you think of another way to say:

"Makes excuses, for criminal behavior, due to a person's race"?

Race baiter sounds pretty accurate to what you do anyway. That is, when you're not busy making excuses for criminal behavior and acting as though police don't have the right to defend their own life.

They'd probably search the man, but unless they actually heard that the suspect was male, that's wrong. They shouldn't be assuming that a criminal must be a man.

I didn't say they did. There was a robbery in the area and they are basing their judgment on a profile they received. If they are looking for a man, in connection to a crime, what sense does it make for them to look at woman in connection to the same crime? This sort of absurd logic makes zero sense. The fact is though, seems to be lost upon your brand of idiocy.

It's not.

Yet, you have no evidence that they are. Men more likely to be involved in a crime vs women and as a result, men are more likely to be questioned in connection to a crime.

I'm not sure if this is actually true or not, but even if it is, it doesn't follow that men are likely to be robbers. Just like the claim that criminals are likely to be black doesn't mean that black people are likely to be criminals.

Nobody said it did (you really need to work on those reading comprehension skills). In connection to a crime, men are more likely to be the criminal in most types of crimes vs women. You can look it up, if you don't believe me. Woman are 9 times less likely to be incarcerated than men are. White women, in peculiar, are the least likely sub group to be criminal offenders offenders. These are facts and not something I made up, but something that is supported by the data when you look at arrest records, jail records, yearly crime reports, etc. When it comes to offenders police are going to be looking for, the male is more likely to be involved in a crime vs the female and therefore, is more likely to be the one stopped by police. It has nothing to do with 'profiling', but has to do with simple reality. Men are more likely to be involved in connection to crimes and therefore are more likely to be stopped by police vs woman.

[Mountain Man]

Giving square_peg's interpretation of the events the benefit of the doubt, is what happened to the couple right or wrong?

As purely a hypothetical then it could be a case of unfair racial profiling, but I'm not willing to grant that the actual event went down exactly how square_peg claims.

[Cow Poke]

As purely a hypothetical then it could be a case of unfair racial profiling, but I'm not willing to grant that the actual event went down exactly how square_peg claims.

After all, he still thinks the "hands up" thing is a true portrayal of what happened to Brown.

[fm93]

FWIW, the only people I've seen who even use the term "reverse racism" (an odd phrase) are liberals who have essentially redefined racism to be only white-on-black, or white-on-minority.

Huh. That's literally the exact opposite of what I've seen. I've only seen far-right conservatives use that term when referring to things like affirmative action.

After all, he still thinks the "hands up" thing is a true portrayal of what happened to Brown.

I have repeatedly said that I'm accepting Wilson's testimony as completely true, which is the OPPOSITE of that. That you said something this egregiously incorrect suggests to me that you haven't been reading my posts at all.

[Cow Poke]

I have repeatedly said that I'm accepting Wilson's testimony as completely true, which is the OPPOSITE of that.

Glad to hear that --- sorry I got it wrong.

That you said something this egregiously incorrect suggests to me that you haven't been reading my posts at all.

"egregiously" incorrect? Ever since that incredibly dumb "analogy", I've had a hard time taking you seriously.

[One Bad Pig]

I have repeatedly said that I'm accepting Wilson's testimony as completely true, which is the OPPOSITE of that. That you said something this egregiously incorrect suggests to me that you haven't been reading my posts at all.

You were quite willing to imply here that he was lying.

[fm93]

You were quite willing to imply here that he was lying.

I implied that it was a possibility that he was lying about Brown charging towards him (as I find it difficult to believe that anyone would full-on rush a man after having been shot multiple times); I didn't say that that he was lying about Brown moving forward, and I especially didn't say that I believe Brown was literally shot with his hands raised in clear surrender. Besides, if you look at that post again, you'll noticed that I raised what I believe is the more likely scenario: that Brown was staggering forward after having been shot and in the heat of the moment, Wilson misperceived it as a full-on rush.

[Cow Poke]

You were quite willing to imply here that he was lying.

Oooooops!

[One Bad Pig]

I implied that it was a possibility that he was lying about Brown charging towards him (as I find it difficult to believe that anyone would full-on rush a man after having been shot multiple times); I didn't say that that he was lying about Brown moving forward, and I especially didn't say that I believe Brown was literally shot with his hands raised in clear surrender. Besides, if you look at that post again, you'll noticed that I raised what I believe is the more likely scenario: that Brown was staggering forward after having been shot and in the heat of the moment, Wilson misperceived it as a full-on rush.

So your assertion here regarding your statements as to Wilson's truthfulness only applies to the position of Brown's hands? I was under the impression it was more general than that, which is why I brought this up.

Also, it doesn't take reading more than a handful of citations for the Congressional Medal of Honor to know that people can still be capable of full-on rushing even after having been shot more than once.

[Zymologist]

Huh. That's literally the exact opposite of what I've seen. I've only seen far-right conservatives use that term when referring to things like affirmative action.

I think it's a nonsensical phrase, regardless.

[Sparko]

I have repeatedly said that I'm accepting Wilson's testimony as completely true

You might SAY that, yet your posts belie that as true. You have consistently spun around in circles trying to find a loophole that Wilson did wrong, and keep claiming that various witnesses show it didn't happen the way Wilson claimed.

Just like you SAY you are not a liberal, when your posts show that you are.

[Adrift]

You might SAY that, yet your posts belie that as true. You have consistently spun around in circles trying to find a loophole that Wilson did wrong, and keep claiming that various witnesses show it didn't happen the way Wilson claimed.

Just like you SAY you are not a liberal, when your posts show that you are.

It could be that he just likes to argue.