d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Trump 2016 > Trump Vs Clinton
Prev1144114421443144414453169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 461884Replies: 31684Track Topic
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 53,340
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
#14421
Aug 27 2017 09:03am


surely this is the end for drumpf, ed on twitter will show him by fiteing the hurricane 1v1
Member
Posts: 52,300
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
#14422
Aug 27 2017 09:04am
Quote (excellence @ 27 Aug 2017 17:03)
https://i.redd.it/fb3354mgu9iz.png

surely this is the end for drumpf, ed on twitter will show him by fiteing the hurricane 1v1


the bigger issue here is: what is one supposed to do if state and local officials give contradicting advice? :rofl:
Member
Posts: 11,801
Joined: Nov 21 2008
Gold: 1,002.00
Warn: 10%
#14423
Aug 27 2017 09:42am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 27 Aug 2017 15:59)
arpaio is a piece of shit who went way too far with his inmates. nonetheless, it is ridiculous that courts ordered him to stop profiling latinos when he was looking for illegal immigrants. guess what judge sherlock, 99% of all illegal immigrants in arizona are latinos. if a sheriff wants to find them, controlling lilly white 80 y/o grannies and chinese kids at the same rate as young latino males is obviously the best way to do it. :wallbash:

so... while arpaio would have deserved punishment for the way he treated people, the act for which he was sentenced was disobeying a completely and utterly retarded court order which intentionally put political correctness over efficient police work. pardoning arpaio for violating this order is morally justified in my book, no matter what one might otherwise think of arpaio as a person or of his inhumane treatment of inmates.


Conducting searches based on appearance alone is violating the 4th amendment. If a sheriff wants to find illegal immigrants, he has to know how to do it legally, or he should be locked up.
Member
Posts: 53,359
Joined: Jan 20 2009
Gold: 4,383.11
#14424
Aug 27 2017 09:43am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 27 Aug 2017 16:59)
arpaio is a piece of shit who went way too far with his inmates. nonetheless, it is ridiculous that courts ordered him to stop profiling latinos when he was looking for illegal immigrants. guess what judge sherlock, 99% of all illegal immigrants in arizona are latinos. if a sheriff wants to find them, controlling lilly white 80 y/o grannies and chinese kids at the same rate as young latino males is obviously the best way to do it. :wallbash:

so... while arpaio would have deserved punishment for the way he treated people, the act for which he was sentenced was disobeying a completely and utterly retarded court order which intentionally put political correctness over efficient police work. pardoning arpaio for violating this order is morally justified in my book, no matter what one might otherwise think of arpaio as a person or of his inhumane treatment of inmates.


but....but "racial profiling" is bad :cry:

once again not hurting feelings is more important than security
nobody in his right mind supports the guy and his inhuman practices, "tent prisons" in the desert, degrading inmates etc

there is no racial profiling, everyone with the slightest clue about police work knows that this leftist narrative does not even exist
there is only actual profiling and as you already pointed out it is a fact that certain offenses are connected to certain groups

Quote (Knaapie @ 27 Aug 2017 17:42)
Conducting searches based on appearance alone is violating the 4th amendment. If a sheriff wants to find illegal immigrants, he has to know how to do it legally, or he should be locked up.


it is not
when you are searching for illegals the first step is to simply look for people you might suspect and ask for their papers (which they will not have)
what happens then depends on how things go, but the current narrative against the most simple police work is absolutely ridiculous

p.s: i am certainly not uncritical of the american police


This post was edited by ampoo on Aug 27 2017 09:48am
Member
Posts: 52,300
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
#14425
Aug 27 2017 09:50am
Quote (Knaapie @ 27 Aug 2017 17:42)
Conducting searches based on appearance alone is violating the 4th amendment.


who says that he or his officers conducted searches based on nothing but appearance? they can ofc search persons who gave reason to assume that they, e.g., carry drugs or unregistered guns with them. if those searches are targetting latinos at a higher rate than their population share, this can of course still be justfied if latinos in the county are overrepresented in drug crimes and gang violence. such a practice should only be considered discrimination if searches target an ethnic group at significantly higher rates than their share among the crimes they are suspected of.


so, say latinos account for 80% of drug dealers and gang members in a county, but their population share is only 30% - should 30 or 80% of searches target latinos to maximize the safety of the community?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 27 2017 09:53am
Member
Posts: 53,359
Joined: Jan 20 2009
Gold: 4,383.11
#14426
Aug 27 2017 09:58am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 27 Aug 2017 17:50)
who says that he or his officers conducted searches based on nothing but appearance? they can ofc search persons who gave reason to assume that they, e.g., carry drugs or unregistered guns with them. if those searches are targetting latinos at a higher rate than their population share, this can of course still be justfied if latinos in the county are overrepresented in drug crimes and gang violence. such a practice should only be considered discrimination if searches target an ethnic group at significantly higher rates than their share among the crimes they are suspected of.


even then, every case is different and i am not a friend of doing numbers here
what is the definition of a "search" even? its always twisted in a way to cry about racism

the police should be able to do the best they can and if they have controlled 9 latinos who did nothing wrong, but the 10th guy turns out to be an illegal and pockets full with drugs it was worth it
Member
Posts: 52,300
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
#14427
Aug 27 2017 10:04am
Quote (ampoo @ 27 Aug 2017 17:58)
even then, every case is different and i am not a friend of doing numbers here
what is the definition of a "search" even? its always twisted in a way to cry about racism

the police should be able to do the best they can and if they have controlled 9 latinos who did nothing wrong, but the 10th guy turns out to be an illegal and pockets full with drugs it was worth it


yeah, but if say latinos account for 50% of crimes, but 9 out of 10 police searches target latinos, then I would consider it discrimination, even if the 10th searched latino is a 'jackpot' for the police.

in general, I wouldnt care so much about racial or ethnic discrimination: if the police distribute their efforts among ethnic groups according to their respective share among convicted criminals, they ceteris paribus maximize the effectiveness of their police work.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 27 2017 10:05am
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
#14428
Aug 27 2017 12:11pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 27 2017 10:50am)
who says that he or his officers conducted searches based on nothing but appearance? they can ofc search persons who gave reason to assume that they, e.g., carry drugs or unregistered guns with them. if those searches are targetting latinos at a higher rate than their population share, this can of course still be justfied if latinos in the county are overrepresented in drug crimes and gang violence. such a practice should only be considered discrimination if searches target an ethnic group at significantly higher rates than their share among the crimes they are suspected of.


so, say latinos account for 80% of drug dealers and gang members in a county, but their population share is only 30% - should 30 or 80% of searches target latinos to maximize the safety of the community?


This is called a fallacy of composition.

Most Latinos arent drug dealers or gang members. Period. Saying that someone is because theyre Latino is inconsistent with the US Constitution, which guarantees us a due process, which is being nullified here by the choices of one man.

You want to stop being a nation of laws but we shouldnt throw that away. This is a nation made up completely of immigrants.

What the sheriff did was illegal and immoral yes, but the POTUS can pardon who he wants.

I don't think sheriff how is bad....he is mistaking his evil actions as happiness, a good he seeks. I say evil because his actions go against the dignity of the human spirit....and I define good as what leads to harmony, creativity, and happiness....racial motivated laws like these Jim Crow revival laws do the opposite of these things. It is also so banal as well.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 27 2017 12:15pm
Member
Posts: 53,359
Joined: Jan 20 2009
Gold: 4,383.11
#14429
Aug 27 2017 12:17pm
Quote (Skinned @ 27 Aug 2017 20:11)
This is called a fallacy of composition.

Most Latinos arent drug dealers or gang members. Period. Saying that someone is because theyre Latino is inconsistent with the US Constitution, which guarantees us a due process, which is being nullified here by the choices of one man.

You want to stop being a nation of laws but we shouldnt throw that away. This is a nation made up completely of immigrants.

What the sheriff did was illegal and immoral yes, but the POTUS can pardon who he wants.

I don't think sheriff how is bad....he is mistaking his evil actions as happiness, a good he seeks. I saynecil because his actions go against the dignity of the human spirit....and I define good as what leads to harmony, creativity, and happiness....racial motivated laws like these Jim Crow revival laws do the opposite of these things.


oh really sherlock? thats not the point, period

i fail to see the argument in your post
in which universe does controlling people mean you are not a nation of laws anymore?
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
#14430
Aug 27 2017 12:20pm
Quote (ampoo @ Aug 27 2017 01:17pm)
oh really sherlock? thats not the point, period

i fail to see the argument in your post
in which universe does controlling people mean you are not a nation of laws anymore?


One individual breaking and applying the law how he feels like is not being a nation of laws. You might not know what this means being a European and not having the same degree of rights as us. When I lived in Germany I could smoke in the supermarket but not say what I wanted to. Our state is less perverse by design. And some of us dont want to brace an authoritarian government who can decide we've done something wrong as individuals before they detain us and figure out what we did after the fact.

Also scapegoating is what demogauges do. The poor people of the earth arent the ones harming us. As long as Americans shop ar Wal-mart they are here on our behalf, at our request.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 27 2017 12:27pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1144114421443144414453169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact