Federal Judge Who Outlawed Racial Profiling is Victim of Black Mob Violence

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your responses don't change what that quote is saying. And neither the quote or the implementation of policy by that college is proof that what you are saying is what that judge stood for.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your responses don't change what that quote is saying. And neither the quote or the implementation of policy by that college is proof that what you are saying is what that judge stood for.

No, the quote says what the quote says. Why would I want to change it when it only proves my point when it's left alone?

The article said the Judge stood for it. I said numerous times My posts go on the assumption the article is correct.

I am not sure where your issue with comprehension lies, but at this point every time I prove my position you just move on and go in circles returning back to issues I already proved and you moved on from. I would just work on understanding what's been said as there is no point in going further when you either can not or refuse to understand the issues.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well if

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

means

It's 100% to be avoided and is NOT to be included in the description given to police officers.

even though it says it isn't racial profiling, even if included with other details then, I can only stand by my original post and say that you are seeing what you want.

I just don't see how you got to "is NOT to be included in the description" unless you are mixing it up with what the college implemented.

originally posted by: daskakik
even though it says it isn't racial profiling, even if included with other details then,

Great, so tell me what the other details about their descriptions were.

originally posted by: daskakik

And, again, the quote isn't really talking about the description that the victim gives but how the police act on it.

This is a good point because that is really what's being addressed here. It's about how LEO's justify probable cause. To a cop probable cause to pull someone over or detain them for further inspection can be as little as "Driving while Black". Hell, sometimes just "Walking while Black" is enough and that's BS. Even if it's a Scary Black guy in a Hoodie driving a nice new car still isn't a valid reason for probable cause to mess with them.

The problem though needs to be looked at beyond just race however, even though race does sometimes play a part in it. But not always because A Scary White Guy in a Hoodie driving a nice new car would also be enough for some LEO's too. But either way it's still BS. There is nothing wrong with being scary looking or scruffy and wearing a hoodie while driving a nice new car.

Another common one that is used a lot is "A minority in a high crime neighborhood or known drug neighborhood walking down the street at night" or something like that. To a cop, that is suspicious and needs investigating. But it's still BS because it's a neighborhood where people live, many of which are minorities and people sometimes walk at night so you can't be detaining people for that, but it happens all the time.

My wife was pulled over on her bike one night simply because she was riding through a shady neighborhood at the time. Keep in mind she's pretty young white girl with blond hair that looks like she'd be your babysitter. She's all legal with lights on her bike and everything too. But she was riding home after work and that street just happens to be on her way home. But the cop just assumed she was up to something and that's BS and not a valid reason or probable cause for anything.

I think they need to address the real problem which is Cops overstepping on what is allowed in doing their job. It's not just about Racial Profiling it's about Profiling with Bias and it goes beyond just race. However, many times race alone is enough and cops, especially drug cops, will admit it. To them just driving on a certain road with a certain sticker on your car is probable cause and that is what needs to be addressed.

originally posted by: mOjOm
I think they need to address the real problem which is Cops overstepping on what is allowed in doing their job. It's not just about Racial Profiling it's about Profiling with Bias and it goes beyond just race. However, many times race alone is enough and cops, especially drug cops, will admit it. To them just driving on a certain road with a certain sticker on your car is probable cause and that is what needs to be addressed.

Absolutely. There is a problem. It needs addressing. The PC SJW solution of removing race from descriptions is not the answer.

Some of what else you said can be summed up right here in this response I gave him already.

When her husband's life was in danger she wanted the police to know the suspects were black. When someone she loved was in danger it was a key piece of information that she felt could help save his life.

When your husband's life is in danger she has spent her life to ensure the police do NOT KNOW the suspects are black.

That's what the OP boils down to I think.

I agree with the OP but will investigate the facts closer to understand the whole situation fully. What I'm getting is the OP is showing the hypocritical nature of a liberal judge when confronted with a real life situation. However the people who don't agree with the OP stance believe the situation is only in the context addressed to police search for suspects and has nothing to do with what the liberal judge said. However given the judge knew better then to address racial features of the criminals " her life's work" this topic is relevant in showing her hypocritical stance on the subject! But I could be wrong. But if everything points back to what I think I'm getting from this thread then the people who are of opposite views to the op are wrong and just attacking the story due to liberal bias thinking.

a reply to: jobless1

You actually nailed it pretty well.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ok I also understand why they have that thought process. The racial profiling could lead to a situation where an innocent black male is put in harms way due to looking like the suspect. Their thought process is it stems from the report which the police pick up. However this assessment is incorrect as it turns the victim description into a tool for police bigotry or racism which actually removes the blame of police incompetence and places it onto the victim for simply describing what the people looked like who committed the crime. Regardless its a situation where someone who can be innocent is put in harms way simply due to racial makeup and proximity to the crime. But it's just as stupid as saying you cant put height of the suspect due to people who are taller being unfairly targeted.

A education of proper procedure when being detained by police officers would solve most problems and a more detailed procedure of proper detainment and conduct guild lines is needed by police officers when responding to probable suspects.

aka you cant arrest people for other things like arrest warrants "within reason" and such if they are being detained as a suspect for this crime. What this would do is make a person more complaint and allow a search and detainment knowing if they are not linked to this crime directly then they are free to go home.

a reply to: xuenchen

That's not profiling - that's identification

Do you even understand what profiling is?

Never mind - your OP is proof that you don't

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

How is it ironic?

It should be obvious all blacks should be looked at as criminals. Just like all people from the ME should be considered Muslim and are terrorist. This is the kind of crap that FOX and other neoconservative groups try to get people to believe.

No, it should be obvious that when you are held at gunpoint by 3 black men that you should mention they were black, just like if they were white.

Only fools think that information should be excluded.

No the main point of this thread is that a Judge that is against racial profiling was robbed by blacks. That is where the "isn't that ironic" comment came from.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Great, so tell me what the other details about their descriptions were.

The description in the ACLU quote doesn't refer to the description given by the victim. Of course that has been said already.

So the jude calls 911 and gives her description. The dispatcher then calls out to the patrols and says something like "Home invasion in progress at Judge Judy's house. Three armed male suspects involved."

Handled in accordance to the ACLU quote.

For those who don't understand the irony here.

Judge champions against racial profiling (blacks) gets robbed by (blacks)

Do you see now?

a reply to: Abysha

It seems as if some are missing the point because of party affiliation.

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

Defining racial profiling as relying “solely” on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion can be problematic. This definition found in some state racial profiling laws is unacceptable, because it fails to include when police act on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion in combination with an alleged violation of all law. Under the “solely” definition, an officer who targeted Latino drivers who were speeding would not be racial profiling because the drivers were not stopped “solely” because of their race but also because they were speeding. This would eliminate the vast majority of racial profiling now occurring.

This is apparently what this woman worked to convey. It's good in premise and in most cased makes sense. There are times when racial profiling is needed. (IMHO) Like if you are looking for 3 black men who just committed a crime, stopping a carload of white college kids and interrogating them for the crime is likely a waste of time. But again, this is the idea that this judge worked to bring about. It is just a little ironic that she didn't just say they were attacked by three men, and when the cops asked for a description, she just described them as they were. But she was frightened and did what any of us would have done. Including if she and her husband were black I assume.

But fighting to oppose the obvious irony here is blindingly obviously partisan.

If a conservative did something ironic, would all of you ignore it? (Please don't answer, it's rhetorical)

originally posted by: eXia7
For those who don't understand the irony here.

Judge champions against racial profiling (blacks) gets robbed by (blacks)

Do you see now?

no, the irony here is that she championed against using the single identifier of race without additional identifiers. her reasoning was well intentioned, but real life proved to reveal the irony. If the invaders were Chinese, this would still be ironic providing she called them Chinese men, and not just men.

ETA: and before I am called racist, some of my best friends are Chinese.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Abysha

It seems as if some are missing the point because of party affiliation.

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

Defining racial profiling as relying “solely” on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion can be problematic. This definition found in some state racial profiling laws is unacceptable, because it fails to include when police act on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion in combination with an alleged violation of all law. Under the “solely” definition, an officer who targeted Latino drivers who were speeding would not be racial profiling because the drivers were not stopped “solely” because of their race but also because they were speeding. This would eliminate the vast majority of racial profiling now occurring.

This is apparently what this woman worked to convey. It's good in premise and in most cased makes sense. There are times when racial profiling is needed. (IMHO) Like if you are looking for 3 black men who just committed a crime, stopping a carload of white college kids and interrogating them for the crime is likely a waste of time. But again, this is the idea that this judge worked to bring about. It is just a little ironic that she didn't just say they were attacked by three men, and when the cops asked for a description, she just described them as they were. But she was frightened and did what any of us would have done. Including if she and her husband were black I assume.

But fighting to oppose the obvious irony here is blindingly obviously partisan.

If a conservative did something ironic, would all of you ignore it? (Please don't answer, it's rhetorical)

None of that has anything to do with describing a suspect. Not even in your quoted source does it say that.

How do people not see the difference between pulling somebody over because of their skin color vs describing a suspect? One is racial profiling and the other is simply a physical description. Being against one but demonstrating the other is not irony.

The fact that a judge who advocates against racial profiling is being focused on as a "gotcha" moment makes me thing ATS members are largely for racial profiling.

a reply to: Astyanax

I seen it..... more than once

I've seen them fall to their knees praying to Jesus, Allah and Hashem. Anybody that would listen.. all of them were met by silence.

As for this thread, a little provocative maybe, not so bad. Going by that ACLU definition you could argue she's a hypocrite unless having guns is considered another identifying factor, which I guess it is.. that and the masks.

I'm getting the feeling some posters here are being purposely obtuse, if she had only mentioned they were black she would be a hypocrite indeed but you guys are ignoring that and you haven't even mentioned the guns and the masks or any other identifiers.. Bone75 just did but he's the first on page 2. So you're technically all wrong.. yet right because Bone just saved your asses.

a reply to: Abysha

Well, what do you expect? I'm not gonna be searching for cats if I was attacked by a bear.. and please don't accuse me of calling black people bears now..

You have a problem with the police searching for black men if this was the only description they got? They don't have to stop every damn car they find, but if they do find a car with three suspects matching the description.. you would let them go unless the victim also happened to mention they were wearing white tees? That's a recipe for disaster.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

I've seen them fall to their knees praying to Jesus, Allah and Hashem. Anybody that would listen.. all of them were met by silence.

So you've seen an atheist about to die multiple times where they decided to pray during those last moments??? How often has this happened and why are you always there???

Of course they were met with silence. Did you expect anyone to actually answer???

a reply to: mOjOm

They weren't necessarily about to die.

Some hear voices, others see things.. God supposedly told Bush to invade Iraq. Who am I to judge?

I'm surprised you would write such a thing with a star tetrahedron as your avatar. Maybe I should stop with the occult profiling huh..