Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That statement, by you, is false. Hence why I responded directly to it, saying that it was false. WTF?
How so?
Um... Because it's false. The investigation
by the DOJ against officer Wilson was entirely about whether he committed a civil rights violation. I even listed the US code number in question. While I'm sure there may have been some people out there somewhere who thought he should be charged with some form of murder, that was *not* what the DOJ was investigating. Since I started this thread, and my topic was about the DOJ investigation, you are wrong to say that it wasn't about civil rights, but was about murder.
Get it? Sheesh!
Quote:
His own testimonies contradicted that claim, so like I said, you aren't even taking this seriously. If you can't even accept the fact that whether or not his shooting was justified via self defense doesn't negate any wrong doing from Wilson, you're either trolling or in some serious denial.
I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. Wilson's testimony did not contradict his own testimony. That doesn't make any sense. You're acting as though the wild rumors and speculation that surrounded the case are all true, while the actual facts and testimony is not. Maybe you should actually inform yourself of the facts of the case first. Heck. Start by reading the investigation I linked earlier.
Quote:
In the report, it shows that blacks were more likely to be stopped and searched even though there were less likely to have contraband, which says a lot when you make up nearly 70% of the population. The same holds true in NY in stop and frisk. Minorities were almost 90% of all stops even though more whites (out of the 10%) were more likely to have contraband. Blacks in NY are more likely to get arrested for drug usage even though statistics are the same. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool, but you can't deny statistics if you're going to use them as your primary tool.
Sigh. I already addressed this. Blacks are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods with high crime rates. High crime rates mean greater police presence. Which means... wait for it... greater relative rates of false arrests, searches of people who aren't carrying contraband, etc, etc, etc.The problem is that you are assuming that race is the cause of any discrepancy, when it's far easier to explain it by geography and racial mix within said geography.
I've attempted to explain this to you many times on this forum, but you either don't get it, or wont get it. If you replace your focus on race in an area with one on crime rates in an area, then the stats make sense. If you then go back and look at the racial makeup of those areas, it explains the apparent racial discrepancy. If blacks make up a disproportionately higher percentage of the population in high crime areas, they are going to suffer all of the effects of that environment disproportionately as well.
Quote:
Or exactly what the report says? Funny how you like to pick and choose what you want to take as the truth. How can Holder be embarrassed by the truth in the same report you are saying doesn't hold water? That doesn't make sense. Either the report is legit or it's not.
Um... I think you are confusing the DOJ investigation into the Brown shooting with the "report" they released about the FPD as a whole. Those are two different things. The actual official investigation into a possible civil rights violation proved to be very embarrassing for Holder and all of those who declared the shooting to be a whole bunch of things that it wasn't.
The report is pretty obviously about trying to find something to blame whitey for. It's more of a political document designed to influence opinion than an investigation into whether any crimes were committed (or civil rights violations as the case may be).
Quote:
Wait. So earlier you said that blacks were more likely to commit crimes, so that's why they are disproportionally arrested.
I said that blacks were more likely to live in poor neighborhoods, and thus more likely to be both victims of crimes and perpetrators of crimes (and more likely to have run ins with police), not because of their skin color, but because of the environment they are living in. Your problem is that you keep obsessing over the skin color. But that's not the cause of the problem.
Imagine I have two bags of marbles. I randomly poured 100 red and 100 green marbles into the two bags, and by chance bag A got 70 red marbles and 30 green ones, while bag B got 30 red ones and 70 green ones. Without looking at the contents of the bags, I grab one of them and put it in my pocket, and the other I hold in my hand swinging it around whilst walking down the street, randomly smacking it (and the marbles inside) against the pavement. When I get to my destination, I find that half of the marbles in the bag I was swinging have become cracked and scratched.
Now. Regardless of whether I was swinging bag A, or bag B, the result will be a disproportionate amount of damaged red versus green marbles. But that's not because I choose to damage one over the other, or I like one more than the other. It's the same with race. It's wrong to assume the intent is to target one race or the other. Not when there's a much more rational environmental explanation at hand.
Quote:
But when the crime statistics show police malice towards all blacks...
No. The crime stats don't show malice at all. Just as the fact that more of one marble being damaged than the other in my example doesn't show malice towards a particular color. You are choosing to interpret it as malice. That's your error. And as long as you do, you'll fail to support actual solutions to the real problem (why blacks are more likely to be living in poor neighborhoods with high crime rates). You're part of the problem.
Quote:
...then it's a media coverup to produce "racism"?
I wouldn't say "produce", but rather "make people assume". Worked on you, didn't it?
Quote:
That doesn't even make sense. If only blacks are committing crimes, then how or why should there be anything where the victims are white, furthermore without police wrongdoing?
I never said "only blacks are committing crimes". We're not talking about absolutes here. We're talking about relative percentages. And, as I've explained repeatedly, those differences can easily be explained by looking at relative racial populations in different environments. Change the environments and you change the crime stats. Trying to force cops to not enforce the law in some areas because doing so would result in higher rates of black incarceration, searches, etc, is the absolute backwards way of addressing this.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Did you read either the report or the investigation? I've read both in their entirety. Maybe you should start there and then get back to me when you're done.
I've heard what the DOJ said what's in the report.
Um... What the DOJ said is in the report. Did you mean to say that you've read what the media has told you about the report? Cause that's not the same thing.
Quote:
So, since you have contradicting information of Holder, why don't you cite that information.
I don't know what information you think is contradictory, so that's kinda tough. I already linked the investigation, and I believe someone else linked the report (if not, it's easy enough to find). How about you start there?
Quote:
Why would you expect me to believe your interpretation of a DOJ report over THE DOJ?
Um... But you haven't bothered to read the DOJ report or investigation. If you disagree with what I've said about either, then you're free to read them and refute what I said. But until you do so, it's kinda silly to just insist I'm wrong because I'm telling you what's in the reports, but you can't confirm that because you haven't. I'm not even sure where to begin with how ridiculous you're being.
[quote]If Holder were saying what you were saying and I were the one saying something different, then you would have a point.[/quote]
Huh? Why don't you just read the darn information first. Ok? It's obvious you have no clue what's going on.
Edited, Mar 10th 2015 4:47pm by gbaji