Judge Tosses Whites Out Of Court.

reply to post by Quazga


My friend you views are of good intention I can see that. But we are living in a world where we are all living together now, we are all humans, we are all the same. If this judge wanted to talk to only black people, he could do so with all other genetically different people still in the courtroom, because we are all in this TOGETHER, and we all need to hear what this judge has to say, because you can only solve problems like this TOGETHER. Maybe the judge had the right state of mind, wanting to help, but of course seperation breeds hate. It's proven.

So lets stay together, learn from each other! I have two cats who are brothers, one is white and the other dark brown tabby. Why can't we all be like them and realize we are all brothers and sisters in this world.





[edit on 1-4-2008 by _Phoenix_]

I'm glad that a judge actually tried to talk to them about that. But removing all the whites, come on there was no reason to do that. We are all people yea we have cultural and physical differences but were still just human. Racism is never going to go away if we keep seperating ourselves, and purposely pointing out our differences. We should work together and help each other, not tell someone that there are more blacks in prison than white. That doesn't matter it is all a personal experience.

You are choosing to do something to get yourself thrown into prison, not your race.

I think they do this stuff just to throw us all off on the real matters at hand like taking away our rights slowly surely and under our noses but they want you to think its a balck white thing and or a sexest thing funny how just a few years ago they said a woman and a black would have such a jard time trying to make pres and all of a sudden out of the blue these two are at the top of the heap whats funny is we know who hilary is link to and just the other day my kid was laughed at by a social studies teacher for saying that Obama was related to bush and channey and they anounced it on the Fox News rofl just shows you what they are doing to people Notice it isnt the people so much debating this stuff its them bashing eachother or high ups saying stuff talk radio they are getting or trying to get us all up in the air over this stuff cause the smart people dont care about these things just getting justice and a better pres in this country what are they putting in the water rofl

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by ben91069

 

Kicking out the whites and talking to the blacks only audience sure sends a message about diversity in a court. He sure didn't do a good job. Imagine me kicking out the girls in my classroom because I want to discuss boy stuff with the guys so we can joke and snicker behind the girls' back.

But who is prejudiced here in your example? You automatically made it seem that the boys were only out to snicker behind the girls backs. You are assuming the role as either the 'girls' or some other third party and prejudiced against the boys without any facts.

This is the same as your assumptions of throwing the whites out of the court room. People are being prejudiced on color just because they don't have the facts. When the judge backs up his motives, still no one allows him the benefit of the doubt.

And the american flag is Red white and Blue and Ant's march in a line ... and the sun appears round ... Oh yeah .. did I mention that the earth is not round more like an egg shape with some mountainous regions on it .... but definately not flat ...

Originally posted by ben91069

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by ben91069

 

Kicking out the whites and talking to the blacks only audience sure sends a message about diversity in a court. He sure didn't do a good job. Imagine me kicking out the girls in my classroom because I want to discuss boy stuff with the guys so we can joke and snicker behind the girls' back.

But who is prejudiced here in your example? You automatically made it seem that the boys were only out to snicker behind the girls backs. You are assuming the role as either the 'girls' or some other third party and prejudiced against the boys without any facts.

This is the same as your assumptions of throwing the whites out of the court room. People are being prejudiced on color just because they don't have the facts. When the judge backs up his motives, still no one allows him the benefit of the doubt.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Deus_Brandon]

Originally posted by Quazga

Evidently, most of the people on this thread never got past the headline. Thats pretty much what is behind most racism in general.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Quazga]

Exactly, people read the headline and the first few sentences, did anyone bother reading the other news source to fully understand what went on?

WHEN THE JUDGE HIMSELF CAME ON THE VIDEO AND SAID WHAT HE DID ... TRYING TO DEFEND HIMSELF ... SOUNDING AWEEE ... Ughhh ... I honestly didn't mean to make anyone feel like this ... WELL Hmmm .. Check that he is sorry that he made someone feel outta place .. What about the discriminants that he has had cruel desicions on ... Does he feel the same towards them !?!? Obviously race is a FACTOR TO HIM ... That ALONE SHOULD HAVE HIM DISBARRED !!!!!!!!! Some of you are so STUPID ... SERIOUSLY ... .STUPIDITY EXISTS .. I know ignorance is bliss .... but JESUS CRISTO .......

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by Quazga

Evidently, most of the people on this thread never got past the headline. Thats pretty much what is behind most racism in general.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Quazga]

Exactly, people read the headline and the first few sentences, did anyone bother reading the other news source to fully understand what went on?

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


Brandon, would you teach your son how to stand up and pee into the toilet in front of your daughters?

It's the same as that. Yes, there is a difference in culture, but that is something that makes us unique and should be cherished, not frowned upon as being cast out of society.

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


You can leave the personal attacks to someone else.

We both disagree on this subject, but for someone that can not hold a debate and talk correctly to get their point across, I do not want to engage in discussion with you.

Originally posted by Quazga
It is obvious to me that we have some on this board who understand, but an overwhelming majority who do not.

Understand what? That your reasoning is correct? No offense, but that's kind of a righteous remark. . .

Could it be possible that an overwhelming majority may not understand because they are correct on the issue at hand?

The issue here is that he is a public servant, and he was working for the public at the time of the incident. That means everybody. It has nothing to do with black, white, statistics, racism, etc.. It has to do with right & wrong. It has to do with conducting himself as an appointed public official. . .As an inpartial judge! Yes he is in charge while court is in session, but it's not HIS courtroom. It belongs to the people of Atlanta.

His heart may have been in the right place but he made a bad decision by utilizing a publicly owned courtroom to do this. He would have been much more PC to hold up the statistics you have provided on this thread and speak to ALL the people. If he wanted to just speak to black people then he should have sought out a different venue to express his concerns to the black community. He should have strived to make it mandatory that those black defendants be present for his words of wisdom. He could have even had them come into his chambers if he wanted to speak only to them but instead he chose to kick people out that have every right to be there.

I agree with you Quazga that he was trying to do something good BUT- People try to do good things all the time & shoot themselves in the foot in the process. That's what this guy did IMHO. He shot himself in the foot.

Just my $.02- Have a nice day.

2PacSade-

There is a reason why the constitution says a "jury of your peers".


This doesn't make every American your peer. This makes people who came from where you came your peers, this makes people who experienced what you experienced your peer.

This makes anyone who didn't, not your peer.

The Judge understands that.

You can't have a United anything unless the items which are United are Different. Otherwise what are you Uniting? Sameness is already United.

So if you want to be a citizen of these United States, you have to understand the differences between everyone, individual and collectives.

I already hear others saying "But you sound like a segregationist". Nothing was United during segregation, there were just differences.

So now we want to elevate and act as if everyone is equal, to the point where we want to remove all differences, which is nothing more than modern colonialism.

Whats funny is that anytime some black person talks about the white power who holds them down it's called racism, but when we talk about the NWO screwin with our rights, its somehow different.

So much hypocrisy on this site.

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Originally posted by Quazga
It is obvious to me that we have some on this board who understand, but an overwhelming majority who do not.

Understand what? That your reasoning is correct? No offense, but that's kind of a righteous remark. . .

Could it be possible that an overwhelming majority may not understand because they are correct on the issue at hand?

The issue here is that he is a public servant, and he was working for the public at the time of the incident. That means everybody. It has nothing to do with black, white, statistics, racism, etc.. It has to do with right & wrong. It has to do with conducting himself as an appointed public official. . .As an inpartial judge! Yes he is in charge while court is in session, but it's not HIS courtroom. It belongs to the people of Atlanta.

His heart may have been in the right place but he made a bad decision by utilizing a publicly owned courtroom to do this. He would have been much more PC to hold up the statistics you have provided on this thread and speak to ALL the people. If he wanted to just speak to black people then he should have sought out a different venue to express his concerns to the black community. He should have strived to make it mandatory that those black defendants be present for his words of wisdom. He could have even had them come into his chambers if he wanted to speak only to them but instead he chose to kick people out that have every right to be there.

I agree with you Quazga that he was trying to do something good BUT- People try to do good things all the time & shoot themselves in the foot in the process. That's what this guy did IMHO. He shot himself in the foot.

Just my $.02- Have a nice day.

2PacSade-

You don't understand that the judge own's his courtroom not the public. The judicial branch is not accountable to the electorate. It was created this way on purpose.

People need to be educated on the fact that the three branches of government are all different, yet United. People need to learn that Judges are there to "Interpret the law".

The people do not own the courtoom. The judge does not work for you, thats why we call them Your Honor. And a Judge can hold anyone in contempt for anything, even a smirk.

The Judge has supreme power in his court. And the only person who can overturn or censure a Judge's decision is another judge in a higher court.

Deny Ignorance!

Originally posted by Quazga
There is a reason why the constitution says a "jury of your peers".

This doesn't make every American your peer. This makes people who came from where you came your peers, this makes people who experienced what you experienced your peer.

So who decides who my peers are? I could hold that no-one has experienced all that I have, so I have no peers. Maybe I consider myself to be so far above the average, ignorant American that my peers are practically impossible to find.

The courts hold that the general public are my peers, regardless of their experiences. So yes, legally, all Americans are my peers. Any other definition would throw the courts into gridlock, and nothing would ever get done.

If the judge wanted to speak to only the black people, he should have mandated that they all meet somewhere at a later time to hear his little lecture. The only thing that should be considered black regarding a sitting judge is his/her robes. He is not there to represent his race, put to represent the American public.

As far as that goes, who the hell is this judge to lecture anybody about how they live or act? A judge's job is to hear the facts and decide what sentence, if any, is given out. Not make value calls about the defendant's way of life. If he hates the "33X more likely to commit" statistic, to bad. Accept it. Do your job. If he wants to try to change their mindset, by all means, feel free. But on his own time. He could start community awareness groups to discuss the issue. He could even sentence people to attend. He is not, however, being paid (by taxpayers) to try to "save the race". So basically, there is no reason to remove anybody from the courtroom based on what race they are, and he should be promptly removed for the betterment of the system.

reply to post by Quazga

There is a reason why the constitution says a "jury of your peers".


This doesn't make every American your peer. This makes people who came from where you came your peers, this makes people who experienced what you experienced your peer.

This makes anyone who didn't, not your peer.

The Judge understands that.

You can't have a United anything unless the items which are United are Different. Otherwise what are you Uniting? Sameness is already United.

So if you want to be a citizen of these United States, you have to understand the differences between everyone, individual and collectives

So in the 60's and 70's there should of been no complaints about a all white jury white judge letting KKK memebers go free who were charged with racial crimes. Peers has a different meaning to some I guess when they say "jury of your peers". I take it to mean American peers. And whats more American then a room full of mixed races ages and sexes.

By saying this I am in no way supporting KKK or past court rulings that were unjust.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by JBA2848]

if a white judge had done this to a bunch of blacks, the fit would hit the shan. sharpton and jackson would be all over it. it would be on every news ticker and major news outlet, shoved in our faces....

people are actually denying this?
that is ignorance

Originally posted by Boondock78
if a white judge had done this to a bunch of blacks, the fit would hit the shan. sharpton and jackson would be all over it. it would be on every news ticker and major news outlet, shoved in our faces....

people are actually denying this?
that is ignorance

This is true, so we should all understand that both of those men love to play the race card whenever it is convenient for them and in their favor. Let's not believe that they represent all blacks just as Rush Limbaugh does not represent all whites. Only they like to think they do as some authoritative voice.

i know they don't speak for all but they do speak and that is bad enough. a lot of people do think they speak for all.

I think a lot of people look at this and say "if the shoe was on the other foot, the white people would have been called racist". Which, while unfortunately true, doesnt mean that the event was racist, it only means that the cry of racism is often used when the intent is not there. I dont think this judges intent was to disparage white or black people...do any of you? I think he was making a statement to people and trying to remove obstacles to their hearing what he said. I dont particularly see anything wrong with what he did, and crying racism here is just as bad as all those rediculous times jesse jackson cries racism when its not, just so he can hog some more attentionl. So if you people want to be like Jesse, go right ahead....next you'll be telling us that hurricanes are also caused by carcinogens and holes in the ozone layer, like jesse did after katrina. Work hard so you can live up to his image, we'll be cheerin ya on!

Originally posted by Quazga

Actually, that is exactly what happens in highschools. Boys are asked to leave while the girls are talked to about their periods etc.

It makes total sense. There was no snickering behind the boys backs. It was simply required to speak to a target audience.

I don't kick out either side since I want both boys and girls understand together on various issues. For example sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. I let boys understand what girls are facing when dealing with their period and they are to be taken seriously, otherwise I WILL have a discussion with any of the students outside in the hall if making inappropriate remarks on the issue.

reply to post by pexx421


it was not racist....it would have only been racist if it were turned around....get it now?