# At least 6 dead in Mass Shooting du Jour

#### Derec

##### Contributor
… and Derec successfully derails yet another thread to feed his hobbyhorse.
FFS, it was an example. As legitimate an example as drugs, and yet you do not think that's anybody's "hobbyhorse".
The only person that is derailing is you, by constantly harping on a mere example I mentioned casually.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I'd go with what the term mass shooting has historically been used for the most. Such as shooter(s) deliberately trying to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible. It's my preference.
Has the word really meant that "historically"?
In any case, it does not mean that now. It's about numbers. So this case qualifies. As does the NYC mass shooting by some black nationalist.

I'd love to get into the details of why black on black crime happens more than other race on race but I'm certain that the discussion between you and I would look something like this

You seeing a human enjoying nature
Me seeing an asshole ruining a good hangout spot for the birds
So who are the birds in your analogy?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
But since it correlates with race due to long term structural economic racism, it makes a great tool with which to claim, without lying, that black people commit disproportionate amounts of homicides, implying a race based proclivity for crime.
Black people do commit a disproportionate number of homicides. We can talk about the reasons, but the numbers do not lie.
For the record, I do not think there is an inherent "race based proclivity for crime". But neither is it all due to poverty. Blacks have a ~2x higher rate of poverty than whites, but ~5x the homicide rate. So trying to explain it away as just a proxy for poverty is too simplistic.
Besides, there are also plenty of people in poverty who do not resort to major crimes and many people who are not poor who do. Poverty is no excuse to rob or assault. It certainly is no excuse to kill.

Then they chant ‘lock em up’ as if that was a solution.
Murderers should be locked up, regardless of race.
Nobody is saying that we should lock up black people just because they are black. If you are trying to imply that, you are just erecting straw men.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Well, poor people are charged with more crimes. Also held pending trial, convicted and sentenced at higher rates than more wealthy people.
Do you think there is an underlying difference in crime rates by income? What about by race? Or do you believe all differences are due solely to higher chance of being charged and convicted?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
They are certainly the weapon of choice of many mass murderers.
Well they are accessible, and there is the "cool" factor to how they look vs. say a hunting rifle. But without access to those, mass murderers would do quite well with a couple of Glock 19s or similar. They are much easier to conceal and handle as well.

There is simply no legitimate reason for people to use assault rifles or semiautomatic weapons.
Actual are highly regulated and not easy to get for a normal person. And most guns these days are semi-auto. A ban on those would not pass constitutional muster.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I do agree the list was compiled for deceptive purposes,
Why do you think the list was compiled for a deceptive purpose, and what do you think that purpose is?
I think the article that goes with the list is somewhat deceptive (but not in the way I suspect you think) but I see no issue with the chart itself.

but it does show something important anyway: Murder is concentrated in a small portion of the population. That's why many people don't get that upset at the murder rate--we know most of it is bad guys killing bad guys. The same pattern applies everywhere--murder is highly concentrated in the criminal subset of the population. In the US there is enough of a racial pattern that you can make a chart like this, but race is just a proxy for the true issue.
It's not that simple. What you say applies to a lot of murders - people in gangs killing each other and such. But there are also "civilians" harmed and they are also usually intraracial. A stray bullet from a drive by . A thug sticking up a store in the middle of the night and shooting the clerk. Domestic/family murders. They all follow a more intraracial pattern. It's not just thugs whacking each other.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Legalization ended the bootleggers shooting it out with each other.
But the criminals did not disappear. They moved to other ventures, such as gambling, and eventually drugs. Protection rackets were always popular.

It's good to fully legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs in the sense that people should not be prosecuted for merely using/possessing. But it's a bit much to expect that the corner dealer will apply for a job at the local dispensary after legalization.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I used it as an example, analogous to weed. My point is that in the US discussions about "soft on crime" and "tough on crime" tend to lump everything together, when really we need to keep things separate. So legalize weed and sex work, but do not soften on things like gun crimes, be they robberies, assaults or murders.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
So in the first paragraph above you are saying he is definitely a shooter but the link says he is a suspect and it is interesting because this is a continuation of a very well-documented trend where you call black male suspects definitely guilty
I do not see much reason for doubt here.
but when a white male is accused of raping a woman instead you scream how he is just a suspect or even innocent...
Alleged rape cases - especially ones that become big media cases like Duke Lacrosse or Jackie Coakley/UVA usually have little or no evidence - so there is a lot of reason for doubt. By the way, I took the side of black men who were falsely accused, for example Brian Banks or the five college students falsely accused in the Hofstra case.

I believe this was also the case with George Floyd's murderer where you also objected to the terminology of calling the white male a murderer when we could see him murdering Floyd on video.
That was a very politicized case. There was no intent to kill anybody, and the deceased had very high fentanyl and methamphetamine levels in his blood, as well as medical conditions such as cardiomegaly, which no doubt contributed to his death.
As such, haste was not advised.

On the other hand, the far left (including our Veep and a US Senator) still insists Michael Brown was "murdered" even though he clearly wasn't - the shooter was never even indicted, much less convicted.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I wonder how that stark-looking list would look if it included the racial breakout for the other top countries.
Most other countries are less racially diverse. But sure, it would be interesting to see how things break down in other countries with significant racial diversity. Care to start on that project?

What’s the rate for Lithuanian Blacks?
What? Both of them?

What’s the rate for ‘Murka overall?
It's on the graph. Have you even looked at it longer than 5 seconds?

Seems like the list was compiled to mislead.
How so? Not including info you would like to see does not make a graph ipso facto misleading, much less deliberately so.

#### Elixir

Countries (and States) that have decriminalised drug use
Your map shows all land area as blue.

Sorry the pretty picture of the world map misled you.
Get someone to read you the list.

We can talk about the reasons,

No, you can’t talk about the reason, because it’s a relic of slavery and you conservos don’t even acknowledge it.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
Those ‘offenses’ were minor at any time and were supposed to be ignored during the time he was pulled over. No one is suggesting that Wright was a good guy. But he should never have been pulled over.
Given that he had no license, no insurance, and had a warrant, yes, he should have been pulled over.
None of which would have been known to the police at the time they initiated the stop. The police were instructed by policy to NOT pull over people for minor infractions during that time, and they disregarded their policy when it came to this stop. Mr Wright would still have been alive if the police had obeyed the instructions they had been given. Yes, Mr Wright would still have been free with a warrant in his name, but that is better than the alternative where Mr Wright is dead because the police disobeyed their policy. That is the part you don't understand, because you do not view black people as human beings whose lives are of immeasurable value, just as your life is to you. Even people like Mr Wright, with a warrant in his name.

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
If that's an excuse to stop and search, then the cops basically have the right to stop and search on a whim.
Not stop and search. Stop and ask for license and insurance, then run the license to see if the person has any warrants.
A search of the vehicle requires more than just a traffic stop.

I don't think you should be OK with the cavalier abandonment of the fourth amendment without so much as a debate.
I know you are Australian and all, but why do you think traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment? Are you going "sovereign citizen" on us? "I wasn't driving, I was travelling"?

But it's your freedom. It's not my place to defend it.
True. How are they doing things in Australia? Are there traffic stops? What happens if you are stopped? Does the cop ask for license, registration and proof of insurance?
Asking a driver to display his license and registration is not a violation of the driver's rights, and that is not what Bilby was implying based on my reading of his posts. But, cops often use traffic stops to coerce people into consenting to searches, and sometimes even conduct searches without consent or probable cause. People who are not aware of their rights, and sometimes people who are, but choose not to exercise them in the hopes of avoiding retaliation in the form of citations, consent to such unjustified breaches of their privacy in the face of police intimidation. The police know this, and they know they are allowed to lie to the public, and they continue to abuse the system to do things they shouldn't be doing. And I have personal experience with this where I was detained on the side of the road for nearly two hours with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause so the fucking PD could bring a K-9 unit to sniff my car because I refused to consent to a search. I later received an apology from the Chief of Police of the little town in Virginia where this happened after I filed a formal complaint at the PD and a civil rights violation lawsuit against the town in Federal Court. Its amazing how nice the police get when faced with the prospect of telling the City Council that the town will be writing large checks to strangers for cause. Dashcams and cameras on phones are wonderful things, but there still aren't enough out there.

It is not technically illegal to run a warrant check on the radio, but here again, the police abuse the rights of drivers, a vast majority of whom are innocent of crimes and do not have warrants for their arrests. A simple moving violation, or a broken taillight or turn signal does not provide reasonable suspicion to the police that the driver has committed a crime or is wanted for a crime, but the fucking police run them for warrants anyway. And then they sometimes arrest the wrong person and keep his locked up for days and weeks, just because he has the same name as someone with a warrant.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
.
Well, poor people are charged with more crimes. Also held pending trial, convicted and sentenced at higher rates than more wealthy people.
Do you think there is an underlying difference in crime rates by income? What about by race? Or do you believe all differences are due solely to higher chance of being charged and convicted?
In the US, since the Emancipation Proclamation, we've had a very long and ugly history of criminalizing black people for being black. In parts of the US, we made it illegal for them to drink from certain water fountains, sit in certain seats on a bus, in a movie theater, in a diner. We effectively kept them out of schools through poverty when the labor of 12 year olds was necessary for family survival and segregated schools until 70 years ago, to keep them from getting a good education. while making education a necessary component in order to get a decent paying job. We kept them out of white hospitals, redlined them into less desirable neighborhoods and then took their homes and land through imminent domain when we wanted to build a new highway. When too many of them managed to succeed and build a decent, prosperous life for themselves, we burned that down.

Over and over, we created policies that targeted black people. Oh, don't get me wrong: we targeted plenty of other people as well, especially if their skin was darker or they were born somewhere else or if they were Native, be it American Indians, Native Hawaiians, or indigenous peoples of Alaska. Why haven't we made Puerto Rico a state yet? We set immigration quotas that heavily favored immigrants from western Europe.

But no one was targeted more than black people. I guess we were so ashamed of having enslaved them, that we had to keep proving that they weren't really fully people and we decided to prove it through all sorts of laws and policies. And when the voting rights act was enacted and when schools were desegregated and 'mixed' marriages were legalized, we had to do something else:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
There was no intent to kill anybody,
How the fuck could you possibly know that? The evidence speaks against your claim. Chauvin asphyxiated Floyd for over 9 minutes, for a significant duration of which he knew that Floyd was not breathing. He actively disregarded another officer's recommendation to roll Floyd on his side to allow him to breathe. And he had to be physically stopped from continuing his assualt on Floyd's dead body by a paramedic so they could render first aid. How the fuck do you conclude that he did not intend to kill him or cause him harm? Your racist apologetics make me sick.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
I used it as an example, analogous to weed. My point is that in the US discussions about "soft on crime" and "tough on crime" tend to lump everything together, when really we need to keep things separate. So legalize weed and sex work, but do not soften on things like gun crimes, be they robberies, assaults or murders.
You made the OP. You made the link. You could have made your point about being soft on gun crimes without using your typical example of black shooters killing people. Your OP does not acknowledge the fact that CA prisons are over-crowded. I believe the state is under court order to alleviate the over-crowding. If my belief is accurate, then the releases are due to the people of California's unwillingness to allocate the resources to house more violent criminals for longer periods of time - which has nothing whatsoever to do with going on soft on crime but either being cheap ass or having different priorities than you.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
If that's an excuse to stop and search, then the cops basically have the right to stop and search on a whim.
Not stop and search. Stop and ask for license and insurance, then run the license to see if the person has any warrants.
A search of the vehicle requires more than just a traffic stop.

I don't think you should be OK with the cavalier abandonment of the fourth amendment without so much as a debate.
I know you are Australian and all, but why do you think traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment? Are you going "sovereign citizen" on us? "I wasn't driving, I was travelling"?

But it's your freedom. It's not my place to defend it.
True. How are they doing things in Australia? Are there traffic stops? What happens if you are stopped? Does the cop ask for license, registration and proof of insurance?
Australia is a prison colony that became a country. It's founded on the absence of freedom, and everything that's not prohibited by law is mandatory.

We resolve this by ignoring our oppressive laws (except when oppressing the indigenous population).

We make no claims nor pretence to being a free country, founded on and committed to freedom.

And despite this (or perhaps because of it), we have more freedom than Americans, and a far better grasp of the ways in which we risk losing that freedom.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
If that's an excuse to stop and search, then the cops basically have the right to stop and search on a whim.
Not stop and search. Stop and ask for license and insurance, then run the license to see if the person has any warrants.
A search of the vehicle requires more than just a traffic stop.

I don't think you should be OK with the cavalier abandonment of the fourth amendment without so much as a debate.
I know you are Australian and all, but why do you think traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment? Are you going "sovereign citizen" on us? "I wasn't driving, I was travelling"?

But it's your freedom. It's not my place to defend it.
True. How are they doing things in Australia? Are there traffic stops? What happens if you are stopped? Does the cop ask for license, registration and proof of insurance?
Australia is a prison colony that became a country. It's founded on the absence of freedom, and everything that's not prohibited by law is mandatory.

We resolve this by ignoring our oppressive laws (except when oppressing the indigenous population).

We make no claims nor pretence to being a free country, founded on and committed to freedom.

And despite this (or perhaps because of it), we have more freedom than Americans, and a far better grasp of the ways in which we risk losing that freedom.
I doubt that you have more freedom than Americans, based on what I’ve been told by Australians.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
If that's an excuse to stop and search, then the cops basically have the right to stop and search on a whim.
Not stop and search. Stop and ask for license and insurance, then run the license to see if the person has any warrants.
A search of the vehicle requires more than just a traffic stop.

I don't think you should be OK with the cavalier abandonment of the fourth amendment without so much as a debate.
I know you are Australian and all, but why do you think traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment? Are you going "sovereign citizen" on us? "I wasn't driving, I was travelling"?

But it's your freedom. It's not my place to defend it.
True. How are they doing things in Australia? Are there traffic stops? What happens if you are stopped? Does the cop ask for license, registration and proof of insurance?
Australia is a prison colony that became a country. It's founded on the absence of freedom, and everything that's not prohibited by law is mandatory.

We resolve this by ignoring our oppressive laws (except when oppressing the indigenous population).

We make no claims nor pretence to being a free country, founded on and committed to freedom.

And despite this (or perhaps because of it), we have more freedom than Americans, and a far better grasp of the ways in which we risk losing that freedom.
I doubt that you have more freedom than Americans, based on what I’ve been told by Australians.
I doubt that you have as much freedom as Australians, based on what I have seen of America, and on what I have been told by Americans (including many on these forums).

#### Toni

##### Contributor
If that's an excuse to stop and search, then the cops basically have the right to stop and search on a whim.
Not stop and search. Stop and ask for license and insurance, then run the license to see if the person has any warrants.
A search of the vehicle requires more than just a traffic stop.

I don't think you should be OK with the cavalier abandonment of the fourth amendment without so much as a debate.
I know you are Australian and all, but why do you think traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment? Are you going "sovereign citizen" on us? "I wasn't driving, I was travelling"?

But it's your freedom. It's not my place to defend it.
True. How are they doing things in Australia? Are there traffic stops? What happens if you are stopped? Does the cop ask for license, registration and proof of insurance?
Australia is a prison colony that became a country. It's founded on the absence of freedom, and everything that's not prohibited by law is mandatory.

We resolve this by ignoring our oppressive laws (except when oppressing the indigenous population).

We make no claims nor pretence to being a free country, founded on and committed to freedom.

And despite this (or perhaps because of it), we have more freedom than Americans, and a far better grasp of the ways in which we risk losing that freedom.
I doubt that you have more freedom than Americans, based on what I’ve been told by Australians.
I doubt that you have as much freedom as Australians, based on what I have seen of America, and on what I have been told by Americans (including many on these forums).
As far as I know, you’ve never actually been to the US. I’ve never been to Australia. What I have to base my opinion on is what Australians who are either visiting or who have immigrated have told me. I will confess that Rupert Murdoch and his progeny have made me think less well of both Australia and the US.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
If that's an excuse to stop and search, then the cops basically have the right to stop and search on a whim.
Not stop and search. Stop and ask for license and insurance, then run the license to see if the person has any warrants.
A search of the vehicle requires more than just a traffic stop.

I don't think you should be OK with the cavalier abandonment of the fourth amendment without so much as a debate.
I know you are Australian and all, but why do you think traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment? Are you going "sovereign citizen" on us? "I wasn't driving, I was travelling"?

But it's your freedom. It's not my place to defend it.
True. How are they doing things in Australia? Are there traffic stops? What happens if you are stopped? Does the cop ask for license, registration and proof of insurance?
Australia is a prison colony that became a country. It's founded on the absence of freedom, and everything that's not prohibited by law is mandatory.

We resolve this by ignoring our oppressive laws (except when oppressing the indigenous population).

We make no claims nor pretence to being a free country, founded on and committed to freedom.

And despite this (or perhaps because of it), we have more freedom than Americans, and a far better grasp of the ways in which we risk losing that freedom.
I doubt that you have more freedom than Americans, based on what I’ve been told by Australians.
I doubt that you have as much freedom as Australians, based on what I have seen of America, and on what I have been told by Americans (including many on these forums).
As far as I know, you’ve never actually been to the US. I’ve never been to Australia. What I have to base my opinion on is what Australians who are either visiting or who have immigrated have told me. I will confess that Rupert Murdoch and his progeny have made me think less well of both Australia and the US.
I haven't been to the US since 1996. Doubtless it's changed a bit since then, and doubtless much of the country was very different from Los Angeles, CA, even then.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
If that's an excuse to stop and search, then the cops basically have the right to stop and search on a whim.
Not stop and search. Stop and ask for license and insurance, then run the license to see if the person has any warrants.
A search of the vehicle requires more than just a traffic stop.

I don't think you should be OK with the cavalier abandonment of the fourth amendment without so much as a debate.
I know you are Australian and all, but why do you think traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment? Are you going "sovereign citizen" on us? "I wasn't driving, I was travelling"?

But it's your freedom. It's not my place to defend it.
True. How are they doing things in Australia? Are there traffic stops? What happens if you are stopped? Does the cop ask for license, registration and proof of insurance?
Australia is a prison colony that became a country. It's founded on the absence of freedom, and everything that's not prohibited by law is mandatory.

We resolve this by ignoring our oppressive laws (except when oppressing the indigenous population).

We make no claims nor pretence to being a free country, founded on and committed to freedom.

And despite this (or perhaps because of it), we have more freedom than Americans, and a far better grasp of the ways in which we risk losing that freedom.
I doubt that you have more freedom than Americans, based on what I’ve been told by Australians.
I doubt that you have as much freedom as Australians, based on what I have seen of America, and on what I have been told by Americans (including many on these forums).
As far as I know, you’ve never actually been to the US. I’ve never been to Australia. What I have to base my opinion on is what Australians who are either visiting or who have immigrated have told me. I will confess that Rupert Murdoch and his progeny have made me think less well of both Australia and the US.
I haven't been to the US since 1996. Doubtless it's changed a bit since then, and doubtless much of the country was very different from Los Angeles, CA, even then.
LA is it's own kind of place, for sure.

Lots of regional differences in the US, somewhat flattened by the ubiquitous and omnipresent mass media. Even regional accents are flattening somewhat.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
Having spent some time in both countries, I think I'd describe the US and Australia as simultaneously charmingly similar (in culture and landscape), uninterestingly similar (in the structural and economic realities), and depressingly similar (in politics and mostly unacknowledged race issues). We are WAY more uptight about everything than our friends down under, though.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
It is not technically illegal to run a warrant check on the radio, but here again, the police abuse the rights of drivers, a vast majority of whom are innocent of crimes and do not have warrants for their arrests. A simple moving violation, or a broken taillight or turn signal does not provide reasonable suspicion to the police that the driver has committed a crime or is wanted for a crime, but the fucking police run them for warrants anyway. And then they sometimes arrest the wrong person and keep his locked up for days and weeks, just because he has the same name as someone with a warrant.

Warrants are already in police databases, there's no need for reasonable suspicion to run a warrant check.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Sorry the pretty picture of the world map misled you.
I was merely wondering why you posted it in the first place, as it serves no purpose, unlike say a color-coded map would.
Get someone to read you the list.
Aren't we witty today.

No, you can’t talk about the reason, because it’s a relic of slavery and you conservos don’t even acknowledge it.
Slavery ended over a century and a half ago. It is no excuse for people born ~20 years ago to engage in wanton violent crime.
How much longer do you leftists intend to use this particular excuse?

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Sorry the pretty picture of the world map misled you.
I was merely wondering why you posted it in the first place, as it serves no purpose, unlike say a color-coded map would.
Get someone to read you the list.
Aren't we witty today.

No, you can’t talk about the reason, because it’s a relic of slavery and you conservos don’t even acknowledge it.
Slavery ended over a century and a half ago. It is no excuse for people born ~20 years ago to engage in wanton violent crime.
How much longer do you leftists intend to use this particular excuse?

Until there are no white-favouring inequities on any measure a leftie decides upon.
The rest of your right wing screed bespeaks needs for help that is beyond the collective capabilities of this forum.
Personal insult again.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
None of which would have been known to the police at the time they initiated the stop.
So they initiate the stop so they can check for those things.
The police were instructed by policy to NOT pull over people for minor infractions during that time, and they disregarded their policy when it came to this stop.
I do not think much of policies like that which are designed to disallow police to do their jobs. Besides, the officers first noticed the car when Daunte tried to make an illegal turn, as I have said before. Without it, they might not have noticed the illegal air freshener and the expired tag.
Not allowing police to make traffic stops makes us all less safe. It's a bad policy.

Mr Wright would still have been alive if the police had obeyed the instructions they had been given.
He'd also be alive had he obeyed the instructions and not ran like an idiot. In the end, he lost way more than the rookie cop or even Potter.

Yes, Mr Wright would still have been free with a warrant in his name,
Not to mention drive around without a license or insurance, putting other motorists and pedestrians in danger.
but that is better than the alternative where Mr Wright is dead because the police disobeyed their policy.
The traffic stop did not cause Daunte's death. Potter's mistake, which was precipitated by Wright's boneheaded decision to run, is what caused his death. Let's not forgot who chose to escalate here.

That is the part you don't understand, because you do not view black people as human beings
BULLSHIT!
I do view black people as human beings. Which is why I hold them to the same standards as everyone else.
You on the other hand do view black people as less-than, since you always hold them to a lesser standard.

whose lives are of immeasurable value, just as your life is to you. Even people like Mr Wright, with a warrant in his name.
I do not disagree with this. That is not the issue. The issue is that you think police in Minnesota (and elsewhere) should not be checking motorists for open warrants, even if it means taking gun criminals off the streets.
Also note that had he not decided to run, he'd have been alive and well. In jail, but alive and well.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Asking a driver to display his license and registration is not a violation of the driver's rights, and that is not what Bilby was implying based on my reading of his posts.
My reading of his posts suggests that he thinks that running a driver for warrants upon a stop constitutes an "unreasonable search and seizure". Either that, or he mistakenly thinks that police in the US can physically search a vehicle just because there was a traffic stop.
But let's let Bilby clarify his thoughts.

And I have personal experience with this where I was detained on the side of the road for nearly two hours with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause so the fucking PD could bring a K-9 unit to sniff my car because I refused to consent to a search.
I later received an apology from the Chief of Police of the little town in Virginia where this happened after I filed a formal complaint at the PD and a civil rights violation lawsuit against the town in Federal Court.
So if we take your word for it some beat cops screwed up. Maybe. Nobody suggested police are infallible.

It is not technically illegal to run a warrant check on the radio, but here again, the police abuse the rights of drivers, a vast majority of whom are innocent of crimes and do not have warrants for their arrests.
Why do you think running a warrant is "abuse of the rights of drivers"?

A simple moving violation, or a broken taillight or turn signal does not provide reasonable suspicion to the police that the driver has committed a crime or is wanted for a crime, but the fucking police run them for warrants anyway.
Have any courts see the matter the way you do?

And then they sometimes arrest the wrong person and keep his locked up for days and weeks, just because he has the same name as someone with a warrant.
Mistakes happen. This type of mistake is rare, however.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Over and over, we created policies that targeted black people.
And for the last 50 years or so, we have had policies that benefit black people. E.g. so-called "affirmative action".

#### Derec

##### Contributor
How the fuck could you possibly know that? The evidence speaks against your claim.
There was no evidence of intent.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
The mass shooting "du jour" involved black shooters. I do not see you complain when a thread about a white mass shooter is posted. Are we allowed to only talk about white mass shooters on here?

Your OP does not acknowledge the fact that CA prisons are over-crowded.
Then CA should have built more jails and prison. But that would go against the "defund" mantra that has infected the Left.
And violent criminals are the last who should be released early. If you must release somebody, release non-violent offenders.

I believe the state is under court order to alleviate the over-crowding. If my belief is accurate, then the releases are due to the people of California's unwillingness to allocate the resources to house more violent criminals for longer periods of time - which has nothing whatsoever to do with going on soft on crime but either being cheap ass or having different priorities than you.
Not providing adequate jail and prison facilities is part of the "soft on crime" agenda of the Left. Similar to how the disgraced "progressive" Lt. Gov. of NY wants to shut down Riker's Island but without building any new jails to replace capacity.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Over and over, we created policies that targeted black people.
And for the last 50 years or so, we have had policies that benefit black people. E.g. so-called "affirmative action".
EVERYONE benefits when all are afforded equal rights, including equal access to educational opportunities, housing, jobs, etc.

We aren't there yet. Unfortunately a few decades of half hearted, extremely resented attempts to correct a grave wrong have not yet erased or sufficiently mitigated the hundreds of years of slavery, the decades of Jim Crow, the so called War on Drugs designed, in part, to harm black Americans, and other policies which are still alive and well.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
The mass shooting "du jour" involved black shooters. I do not see you complain when a thread about a white mass shooter is posted. Are we allowed to only talk about white mass shooters on here?
I do not see you start threads about white shooters - only black ones. Using your reasoning above, that means we are allowed to only talk about black mass shooters.

Your OP does not acknowledge the fact that CA prisons are over-crowded.
Then CA should have built more jails and prison. But that would go against the "defund" mantra that has infected the Left.
And violent criminals are the last who should be released early. If you must release somebody, release non-violent offenders.

I believe the state is under court order to alleviate the over-crowding. If my belief is accurate, then the releases are due to the people of California's unwillingness to allocate the resources to house more violent criminals for longer periods of time - which has nothing whatsoever to do with going on soft on crime but either being cheap ass or having different priorities than you.
Not providing adequate jail and prison facilities is part of the "soft on crime" agenda of the Left. Similar to how the disgraced "progressive" Lt. Gov. of NY wants to shut down Riker's Island but without building any new jails to replace capacity.
The court orders to stop over-crowding predate by a number of years any "defund" movement or "soft on crime" movements.

The people of California have made their social preferences clear on this matter. Up to this point, they clearly do not wish to expend sufficient resources to keep all the people you want to keep in prison. Maybe they will change their minds. But until they do, they have chosen to live with these consequences.

#### Elixir

. Up to this point, they clearly do not wish to expend sufficient resources to keep all the people you want to keep in prison

Nobody in their right mind advocates for the amount of incarcerations Derec wants. It’s his “solution” to every crime there is (except his hobbyhorse). I’ve stopped paying attention to his broken record.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
The people of California have made their social preferences clear on this matter. Up to this point, they clearly do not wish to expend sufficient resources to keep all the people you want to keep in prison. Maybe they will change their minds. But until they do, they have chosen to live with these consequences.
I don't live in or pretend to understand California.

But I've read a few internet essays describing California's referendum system as explaining the problem with democracy.

Put a "let's cut taxes" thing on a referendum and it will probably pass. Put a "let's use taxpayer money to fix this problem" on a referendum and it will also probably pass.

As long as the two issues are separated, California's voters will both cut taxes and increase spending. That's not really sustainable, but as long as political operatives keep the issues separated it can be done.

Again.
I've never even been to California.

I'm talking about the problem with democracy, as used by a poorly informed electorate.
Tom

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
I still disagree about legalizing all adult sex work for all the reasons we've battled about many times.

No one has claimed that Wright was a saint but no, I don't think he deserved to die. The officers should never have pulled him over in the first place per pandemic instructions in effect at the time. They did NOT know there was a warrant out for his arrest until he was pulled over. It is still unclear whether or not he was ever served a warrant so it is possible he was unaware. Do I think he was a good person? Almost certainly not but I also don't believe in the death penalty and certainly not prior to even being arrested on those charges, much less tried and convicted. It was a terrible tragedy all around.
Note that he was committing two offenses at the time--the tag which they weren't stopping people for at that time and the air freshener hanging from the mirror (obstructed windshield) that we have no indication they weren't stopping people for.
Oh, I see, he was committing not one but two offenses. That makes it completely OK. He has an air freshener blocking part of his mirror - lets pull him over. Even though we have explicitly been instructed not to pull people over during the fucking pandemic for minor offenses, the air freshener is so fucking over the line we have to do something about it. And he might have been planning to use said air freshener as a deadly weapon - lets fucking shoot him for that.
Dude, air fresheners are the slippery slope, might as well allow them to shot at cops.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
. Up to this point, they clearly do not wish to expend sufficient resources to keep all the people you want to keep in prison

Nobody in their right mind advocates for the amount of incarcerations Derec wants. It’s his “solution” to every crime there is (except his hobbyhorse). I’ve stopped paying attention to his broken record.
It's been a common theme throughout history - crime is a problem, but if we could just hang (or more recently, imprison) all the evil people, that problem would be solved, and all the good people could live in comfort and without fear.

It's hugely tempting. Particularly to those who naturally incline towards authoritarianism.

But it doesn't work.

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us, and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
None of which would have been known to the police at the time they initiated the stop.
So they initiate the stop so they can check for those things.
Again, police can only initiate a stop if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime or moving violation has been committed. Based on the PD policy at that time, the police were instructed to NOT pull people over for minor violations, like an expired tag. This policy makes sense, given that covid-19 spreads through human contact, and that the DMV at the time could not keep up with license/tag renewals and new applications due to impacts of said pandemic. The police pulled Wright over for an expired plate, not an illegal air freshener (which was discovered during the stop), or an illegal turn (not part of any official police record I could find, including statements by the police chief). Therefore, the police violated their department's policy by pulling Wright over, likely because the police in the Twin Cities area have a documented history of racial profiling and were acting in this capacity.

The police were instructed by policy to NOT pull over people for minor infractions during that time, and they disregarded their policy when it came to this stop.
I do not think much of policies like that which are designed to disallow police to do their jobs.
Irrelevant. You are not the police chief or an elected official in the Twin Cities area who has the authority to make policy.

Besides, the officers first noticed the car when Daunte tried to make an illegal turn, as I have said before.
No, he didn't. Go look at the chief's public statements and the reports from credible news agencies. [removed]

Without it, they might not have noticed the illegal air freshener and the expired tag.
Not allowing police to make traffic stops makes us all less safe. It's a bad policy.
Nonsense. Pulling people over for expired plates does not make anyone safer. [removed]

Mr Wright would still have been alive if the police had obeyed the instructions they had been given.
He'd also be alive had he obeyed the instructions and not ran like an idiot. In the end, he lost way more than the rookie cop or even Potter.
I don't know what Wright was thinking at the time of the illegal detainment. Given the history of discrimination, violence and even murder that the Twin Cities PD is known for, I would not have been surprised if he were scared for his life at being accosted and arrested by the police. Mr Wright's warrant was apparently related to a $346 fine for a non-appearance in a cannabis and disorderly conduct related trial. Not a huge deal in the big picture, and not one most people would have been trying to run from. And also not something that would suggest that Mr Wright posed a threat to anyone in the community. So, yeah, he was killed because the police violated their department policy and a stupid cop terrified at the throught of a young black man with a cannabis charge related warrant running around free shot him dead. Yes, Mr Wright would still have been free with a warrant in his name, Not to mention drive around without a license or insurance, putting other motorists and pedestrians in danger. Did Mr Wright have a lawful license to drive? If yes, he posed no threat to the motoring public by driving without a piece of plastic on him. And it is also completely irrelevant to the police violating their own policy and killing a human in a moment of racially biased prejudice (the fear of the young black man). You are only bringing this up in an attempt to divert our attention from the facts. but that is better than the alternative where Mr Wright is dead because the police disobeyed their policy. The traffic stop did not cause Daunte's death. Potter's mistake, which was precipitated by Wright's boneheaded decision to run, is what caused his death. Let's not forgot who chose to escalate here. Mr Wright died because a white police officer was so terrorised at the thought of a young black man with a cannabis charge related warrant running free that she recklessly shot him with a jacketed hollow point. Those are the facts and there is no other explanation that fits the scenario. The thing we should be talking about is why she felt so terrified and overwhelmed that her 26 years of training and experience went out the window. Why is white America so scared of young black men that we keep killing them on the streets for no good reason? That is the part you don't understand, because you do not view black people as human beings BULLSHIT! I do view black people as human beings. Which is why I hold them to the same standards as everyone else. You on the other hand do view black people as less-than, since you always hold them to a lesser standard. whose lives are of immeasurable value, just as your life is to you. Even people like Mr Wright, with a warrant in his name. I do not disagree with this. That is not the issue. The issue is that you think police in Minnesota (and elsewhere) should not be checking motorists for open warrants, even if it means taking gun criminals off the streets. Also note that had he not decided to run, he'd have been alive and well. In jail, but alive and well. All your posts over the years speak to the contrary. You are not outraged that a young man was shot and killed by an incompetent police officer who was violating her department's policy, all over a fucking expired tag. You are continuously outraged that people protesting such acts of killing sometimes block roads as a form of protest. [removed] Last edited by a moderator: #### Elixir ##### Made in America Unconcerned that a young man was shot and killed, yet fit to be tied because a road was blocked. That's par for this course. After all, blocking roads is a form of #### bilby ##### Fair dinkum thinkum Either that, or he mistakenly thinks that police in the US can physically search a vehicle just because there was a traffic stop. Can? sure. Do? Absolutely. Are allowed to? No. But nobody's stopping them, except a tiny handful of brave or foolhardy people, who don't fear police vindictiveness when challenged over exceeding their authority. It might well be easy for you to refuse to permit an unlawful search of your vehicle. For a young black man, such refusal is a life threatening risk. Which is the whole point. It's not sufficient to say that you have the right not to be stopped and searched without cause; The reality on the ground must be that police are routinely and effectively punished for infringing or attempting to infringe that right, or the right has no effective existence at all. #### Elixir ##### Made in America The reality on the ground must be that police are routinely and effectively punished for infringing or attempting to infringe that right, or the right has no effective existence at all. Exactly. When the cops do illegal stops and searches, it’s illegal. A crime. Lock’em up, right Derec? Even if those criminal cops don’t kill you, you’ll probably be delayed even more than if there was, say, a roadblock. We don’t need to “defund the police”, we need to defund THOSE police, and double the salaries of the good ones with the money saved. Attract some goddam talent instead of arming and empowering thugs. #### Derec ##### Contributor EVERYONE benefits when all are afforded equal rights, including equal access to educational opportunities, housing, jobs, etc. Certainly true, but so-called "affirmative action" is the antithesis of "equal rights" and "equal access to [any] opportunities". We aren't there yet. Unfortunately a few decades of half hearted, extremely resented attempts to correct a grave wrong have not yet erased or sufficiently mitigated the hundreds of years of slavery, The problem with the last five decades was not that the attempts were half-hearted, but that they went in a fundamentally wrong direction. Instead of seeking a society where everybody is treated equally, these "attempts" as you call them focused on carving out special privileges for black people. That approach perpetuates racial divisions instead of healing them. These privileges include both institutional things like "affirmative action" (in education, employment and government contracts) and calls for reparations, as well as more insidious cultural rot like race-based speech codes and very one sided condemnation of so-called "cultural appropriation". The embrace by the mainstream left of black nationalism/extremism goes hand in hand with this "wrong turn at Albuquerque" our country took sometime in the late 60s. the decades of Jim Crow, the so called War on Drugs designed, in part, to harm black Americans, Jim Crow ended almost 60 years ago. A young black man who is 20 years old has parents who likely were not even born when it ended, much less remember it. Two wrongs do not make a right. Slavery and Jim Crow were clear wrongs, but people alive today should not be punished or rewarded based on people who kinda-sorta looked like them did/endured in the past. and other policies which are still alive and well. For example? All race-specific polices these days benefit black people. "Affirmative action", sure, but also things like giving special funding status to so-called HBCUs. #### Toni ##### Contributor EVERYONE benefits when all are afforded equal rights, including equal access to educational opportunities, housing, jobs, etc. Certainly true, but so-called "affirmative action" is the antithesis of "equal rights" and "equal access to [any] opportunities". We aren't there yet. Unfortunately a few decades of half hearted, extremely resented attempts to correct a grave wrong have not yet erased or sufficiently mitigated the hundreds of years of slavery, The problem with the last five decades was not that the attempts were half-hearted, but that they went in a fundamentally wrong direction. Instead of seeking a society where everybody is treated equally, these "attempts" as you call them focused on carving out special privileges for black people. That approach perpetuates racial divisions instead of healing them. These privileges include both institutional things like "affirmative action" (in education, employment and government contracts) and calls for reparations, as well as more insidious cultural rot like race-based speech codes and very one sided condemnation of so-called "cultural appropriation". The embrace by the mainstream left of black nationalism/extremism goes hand in hand with this "wrong turn at Albuquerque" our country took sometime in the late 60s. the decades of Jim Crow, the so called War on Drugs designed, in part, to harm black Americans, Jim Crow ended almost 60 years ago. A young black man who is 20 years old has parents who likely were not even born when it ended, much less remember it. Two wrongs do not make a right. Slavery and Jim Crow were clear wrongs, but people alive today should not be punished or rewarded based on people who kinda-sorta looked like them did/endured in the past. and other policies which are still alive and well. For example? All race-specific polices these days benefit black people. "Affirmative action", sure, but also things like giving special funding status to so-called HBCUs. Unfortunately people are still judged as wanting because they are black. Or have a ‘foreign accent.’ Or practice a ‘funny’ religion. Or are gay or trans. Or female. I know you don’t see it. But I’ve watched it, and have experienced my share. Way more recently that I wish. #### Derec ##### Contributor I do not see you start threads about white shooters - only black ones. That's because they are already started - often by Elixir. I lifted the "du jour" wording in the title from him. Of course, he did not feel the need to start a "du jour" thread about this shooting - I wonder why ... Using your reasoning above, that means we are allowed to only talk about black mass shooters. Not at all. I am just bringing some much-needed balance to this forum. The court orders to stop over-crowding predate by a number of years any "defund" movement or "soft on crime" movements. Those ideas long predate the pithy slogans of the #BLM insurrectionists. The people of California have made their social preferences clear on this matter. Up to this point, they clearly do not wish to expend sufficient resources to keep all the people you want to keep in prison. Maybe they will change their minds. But until they do, they have chosen to live with these consequences. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." #### Derec ##### Contributor Unfortunately people are still judged as wanting because they are black. Or have a ‘foreign accent.’ Or practice a ‘funny’ religion. Or are gay or trans. Or female. I know you don’t see it. But I’ve watched it, and have experienced my share. Way more recently that I wish. You are conflating many issues here. "Funny" religion for example is unlike race in that the latter is an immutable happenstance of ancestry, while the former is a set of belief and practices, and a choice of each individual. And all those traits you mention can be positive or negative. People can judge others as being less than because they are white. Or male. Or kafir. And trans-women in particular enjoy great advantages in competitive sports. #### Derec ##### Contributor Nobody in their right mind advocates for the amount of incarcerations Derec wants. I am by no means advocating for excessive sentencing. But those convicted of serious and especially violent crimes should serve their sentences and not be released early just because California can't - despite its high tax burden - keep its prisons adequately funded. It’s his “solution” to every crime there is (except his hobbyhorse). I’ve stopped paying attention to his broken record. When you release violent/gun criminals early, you get what happened in the OP. On the other hand, there is no logical or rational reason to criminalize what you dismissively call my "hobbyhorse" (although it does involve riding, giddy up!) #### Derec ##### Contributor But it doesn't work. Nobody is claiming it works perfectly. But it works far better than the "abolish prisons" nonsense far left is peddling. What is your solution to crime - particularly violent crimes? Kumbaya? What about burglars and thieves? Just let them go? #### Derec ##### Contributor Unconcerned that a young man was shot and killed, yet fit to be tied because a road was blocked. That's par for this course. After all, blocking roads is a form of View attachment 38153 What are you talking about here even? And as I recall people on this forum were against blocking roads when it was a bunch of right wing truckers who were doing it. But when it was #BLMers who did so they were much more supporting. I say pox on both their houses! #### bilby ##### Fair dinkum thinkum But it doesn't work. Nobody is claiming it works perfectly. "It" being hanging all criminals? I should hope not. But it works far better than the "abolish prisons" nonsense far left is peddling. What is your solution to crime - particularly violent crimes? Kumbaya? What about burglars and thieves? Just let them go? The Norwegian and Icelandic models seem to be very effective. Certainly it's better to just let criminals go than it is to hang or incarcerate the entire human race. Which is the "It" whose context you both snipped and, apparently, totally failed to understand. #### Derec ##### Contributor Again, police can only initiate a stop if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime or moving violation has been committed. Based on the PD policy at that time, the police were instructed to NOT pull people over for minor violations, like an expired tag. First of all, policy is not the same as a law. Second, what is the exact wording of the policy? That it's not allowed to pull them over and check license, insurance and warrants, or is it just against the policy to issue tickets for expired tags? Third, St. Daunte was also observed making an illegal turn. This policy makes sense, given that covid-19 spreads through human contact, and that the DMV at the time could not keep up with license/tag renewals and new applications due to impacts of said pandemic. The police pulled Wright over for an expired plate, not an illegal air freshener (which was discovered during the stop), or an illegal turn (not part of any official police record I could find, including statements by the police chief). You would be wrong, as usual. Minnesota Reformer said: Luckey testified Wednesday that he pulled over Wright after he noticed Wright’s blinker signaling a right turn even though he was in the left turning lane. Luckey said he also noticed an air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror — which is technically illegal — and that the car’s registration tab was expired. Kimberly Potter’s former supervisor says it was legal for her to fire gun at Daunte Wright Therefore, the police violated their department's policy by pulling Wright over, likely because the police in the Twin Cities area have a documented history of racial profiling and were acting in this capacity. Assertion without evidence. There is zero evidence Wright was pulled over because he was black. Irrelevant. You are not the police chief or an elected official in the Twin Cities area who has the authority to make policy. Relevant. This is a political discussion forum. We discuss political issues here. Including policies enacted by elected officials. You are making up shit. Isn't it against the rules to accuse fellow posters of lying? Nonsense. Pulling people over for expired plates does not make anyone safer. You are full of shit. The only one full of shit is you. Pulling people over allows police to catch those who drive without driver's license, without insurance and those who have warrants. St. Daunte was three for three. Are you really going to argue that taking people without license or without insurance does not make the roads safer? Or that arresting people with arrest warrants isn't making us safer? I don't know what Wright was thinking at the time of the illegal detainment. [Citation needed] that the stop in question is considered "illegal detainment" under Minnesota Law. Given the history of discrimination, violence and even murder that the Twin Cities PD is known for, He wasn't stopped by "Twin Cities PD". Even if he was, you are arguing for guilt by association. I would not have been surprised if he were scared for his life at being accosted and arrested by the police. And therefore he decided to escalate the situation, making it many orders of magnitude more dangerous for himself? What kind of sense does that make? Had Wright allowed police to arrest him, he'd be in jail but alive and well. Mr Wright's warrant was apparently related to a$346 fine for a non-appearance in a cannabis and disorderly conduct related trial.
No. A gun case he caught while on bail for an armed robbery (he and an accomplice held a woman at gunpoint and tried to take her rent money). Where did you get the cannabis nonsense from anyway?

Not a huge deal in the big picture, and not one most people would have been trying to run from. And also not something that would suggest that Mr Wright posed a threat to anyone in the community.
Again, it was for guns. Which is why the digression is even somewhat relevant in this thread .

Did Mr Wright have a lawful license to drive? If yes, he posed no threat to the motoring public by driving without a piece of plastic on him.
Good point, or at least it would be if that's what it was. Do you have any information suggesting that he was a licensed driver in good standing and only did not have the actual license in his possession? Or are you just speculating.

And it is also completely irrelevant to the police violating their own policy and killing a human in a moment of racially biased prejudice (the fear of the young black man). You are only bringing this up in an attempt to divert our attention from the facts.
There is zero evidence that the shooting resulted from "racially biased prejudice" rather than a tragic mistake.

Mr Wright died because a white police officer was so terrorised at the thought of a young black man with a cannabis charge related warrant running free that she recklessly shot him with a jacketed hollow point.
What is the relevance of the officer being white? Other than your own racial prejudices, of course.
What is the relevance of the type of bullet she fired? Presumably the bullets are standard department issue.
And again, you are dead wrong on the nature of the warrant.

Those are the facts and there is no other explanation that fits the scenario.
You are very misinformed. Mistakes happen.

The thing we should be talking about is why she felt so terrified and overwhelmed that her 26 years of training and experience went out the window. Why is white America so scared of young black men that we keep killing them on the streets for no good reason?
Why are you trying to make everything about race? Many white people get shot by police too, you know.

All your posts over the years speak to the contrary.
BULLSHIT!
You are not outraged that a young man was shot and killed by an incompetent police officer who was violating her department's policy, all over a fucking expired tag.
Not to mention a gun warrant while on bail . You are right that I am not much outraged about this. I do not think Daunte Wright deserved to die, but he was a bad guy and he decided to increase chances of things going south by running. People make mistakes. Even seasoned professionals.
This is not a racial issue for me. I would not be outraged if it was a case of a white criminal getting shot under similar circumstances.
What would be different is that the case would not have generated national headlines. The black nationalist attorney general would not personally insert himself into the case to upgrade charges.

You are continuously outraged that people protesting such acts of killing sometimes block roads as a form of protest.
Blocking roads and highways, not to mention bridges or public transit, are unacceptable forms of protest, no matter your cause. As is occupying territory and declaring "autonomous zones".

[removed]

Last edited by a moderator: