• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

Wakeforest22890 said:
If police are conducting an investigation and need someone to identify themselves in order to further the investigation, they likely already have particularized facts that the person may have committed a crime giving rise to reasonable suspicion.
Click to expand...

However on a traffic stop for a tail light or speeding or even DUI, "reasonable suspicion" is pure police overreach. Also in certain towns and with certain cops, they grossly abuse this concept.
 
DUI/DWI is a crime. I don't see how it can be police overreach to stop someone if they are weaving or driving erratically since that would be, at the least, clear cut reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
DUI/DWI is a crime. I don't see how it can be police overreach to stop someone if they are weaving or driving erratically since that would be, at the least, clear cut reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the driver. The passengers have nothing to do with the driver committing DUI.
 
olddke said:
I am not sure your interpretation of the law is accurate or comprehensive. I believe they are given some leeway when conducting an "investigation".
Click to expand...

Of course it is not comprehensive - I'm not writing a treatise here. But as others have chimed in, it is accurate. There has to be a basis for the investigation - a broken taillight does not require 'investigation'.
 
SCDeac13 said:
Regarding that second paragraph, agreed. But wouldn't that also be true if they are deciding whether or not to proceed with an action if they are taking the color of skin into account to make sure some arbitrary quota is met to even out some statistic?

Look, my opinion is that the color of skin shouldn't be a factor at all. Something that sticks in mind is the South Park episode where they are debating whether or not to change the town's flag which has a depiction of a lynching. The adults have a fierce, racially charged argument about history and slavery. And the school has a debate about it. They end up debating about whether or not it's right to depict someone being killed on the flag. Chef interjects saying that's not a person being hanged, it's a black man. Then he realizes that the kids are completely immune to racism and didn't see race in it all.

All jokes about it being South Park aside, I think it makes a few good points about my stance. In my experience, the older generation that grew up during and before the civil rights movement are far more racist than the younger generation. Those older generations will be gone soon enough, so the emphasis should be on ensuring the younger generations don't share those same beliefs. When you make everything about race, you are teaching them that the skin color matters. That may be viewed as too pie in the sky by some, which likely has some validity, but that is the approach I support. People should be fighting injustice without making it solely about race. Don't like the video posted recently about a passenger being asked for an ID? Then fight the laws that allow it, and strip the police of the opportunities to abuse power. That is why BLM is totally off in my opinion. They should be fighting injustice by targeting actions and legislation aimed at reducing the opportunities for abuse and police violence, without making race the focal point. They can still have their self interests in mind by supporting things like legalizing marijuana that would disproportionately benefit their community, but do so by arguing why it should be legal and don't make it about race. Many of those things can be widely supported and put into action, but by making it racially charged they are dividing people.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
SCDeac13 said:
Regarding that second paragraph, agreed. But wouldn't that also be true if they are deciding whether or not to proceed with an action if they are taking the color of skin into account to make sure some arbitrary quota is met to even out some statistic?

Look, my opinion is that the color of skin shouldn't be a factor at all. Something that sticks in mind is the South Park episode where they are debating whether or not to change the town's flag which has a depiction of a lynching. The adults have a fierce, racially charged argument about history and slavery. And the school has a debate about it. They end up debating about whether or not it's right to depict someone being killed on the flag. Chef interjects saying that's not a person being hanged, it's a black man. Then he realizes that the kids are completely immune to racism and didn't see race in it all.

All jokes about it being South Park aside, I think it makes a few good points about my stance. In my experience, the older generation that grew up during and before the civil rights movement are far more racist than the younger generation. Those older generations will be gone soon enough, so the emphasis should be on ensuring the younger generations don't share those same beliefs. When you make everything about race, you are teaching them that the skin color matters. That may be viewed as too pie in the sky by some, which likely has some validity, but that is the approach I support. People should be fighting injustice without making it solely about race. Don't like the video posted recently about a passenger being asked for an ID? Then fight the laws that allow it, and strip the police of the opportunities to abuse power. That is why BLM is totally off in my opinion. They should be fighting injustice by targeting actions and legislation aimed at reducing the opportunities for abuse and police violence, without making race the focal point. They can still have their self interests in mind by supporting things like legalizing marijuana that would disproportionately benefit their community, but do so by arguing why it should be legal and don't make it about race. Many of those things can be widely supported and put into action, but by making it racially charged they are dividing people.
Click to expand...

So to sum this up, you agree that police make decisions based on race, and you agree that it's wrong. But rather than fixing that, you think the better solution is for people to just not put themselves in situations for officers to make decisions based on race?
 
MysteryMen said:
So to sum this up, you agree that police make decisions based on race, and you agree that it's wrong. But rather than fixing that, you think the better solution is for people to just not put themselves in situations for officers to make decisions based on race?
Click to expand...

Exactly how would they do that? I guess leave the country is the only answer.
 
MysteryMen said:
So to sum this up, you agree that police make decisions based on race, and you agree that it's wrong. But rather than fixing that, you think the better solution is for people to just not put themselves in situations for officers to make decisions based on race?
Click to expand...

Making decisions based on race is wrong.

Except when the left does it.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Making decisions based on race is wrong.

Except when the left does it.
Click to expand...

fucking christ. you are always whining about that shit. Create a thread and talk affirmative action with whoever the fuck it was you were discussing it with.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Making decisions based on race is wrong.

Except when the left does it.
Click to expand...

There's a massive difference between making decisions based on race to help a group that is still suffering the effects of previous oppression and making decisions based on race to continue oppressing said group
 
MHBDemon said:
fucking christ. you are always whining about that shit. Create a thread and talk affirmative action with whoever the fuck it was you were discussing it with.
Click to expand...

Confine your hypocrisy to a single thread and I will confine pointing it out to that same thread.
 
MysteryMen said:
There's a massive difference between making decisions based on race to help a group that is still suffering the effects of previous oppression and making decisions based on race to continue oppressing said group
Click to expand...

As I said. You guys are proud of your racial discrimination. It's the good kind.
 
who's hypocrisy? I don't believe i've participated in this particular debate with you.
 
MysteryMen said:
There's a massive difference between making decisions based on race to help a group that is still suffering the effects of previous oppression and making decisions based on race to continue oppressing said group
Click to expand...

Kant and deontological thinkers would disagree. So you must adhere to consequentialist thought, that it is the consequence, not the act itself that defines morality. Philosophers do disagree which is moral.
 
ReturnofMf said:
Kant and deontological thinkers would disagree. So you must adhere to consequentialist thought, that it is the consequence, not the act itself that defines morality. Philosophers do disagree which is moral.
Click to expand...

Kant must not have heard about the Dem brand of racism; it is the good kind, apparently.
 
What's the harm in trying to hash out your old and tired affirmative action debate with the people who originally got you all worked up about it? What's the harm in trying to debate policy solutions to prevent law enforcement from killing human beings? My impression is that you have no sincere interest in the latter, so you just resort to bringing up AA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top