Derec's derail on Donkey Cartel

[fast]

Do you have any actual evidence that all these black men were arrested for no other reason than being black?

Took me three seconds. Have a great evening.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/06/05/lurking-spitting-laws

I don't get it. I read the link in its entirety.

 

[laughing dog]

He didn't violate probation in hindsight, he violated probation earlier this year when he was arrested for (among other things) possession of a firearm by a felon. He was on probation for that prior felony.
Had the judge been a bit stricter, Donkey Cartel might still be alive. Serenading his fellow inmates with his dulcet rap rhymes, but alive nevertheless.

I was referring to your hindsight. The judge could not know what was going to happen or what was likely to happen. Nor do you know whether the local jailing/prison facilities were full or not.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't get it. I read the link in its entirety.

Really, you don't get that Minneapolis rescinded laws that were basically applied to black men?

 

[fast]

I don't get it. I read the link in its entirety.

Really, you don't get that Minneapolis rescinded laws that were basically applied to black men?

That doesn't make sense unless the law specifically referred to their race. Surely you're not talking about the outcomes of the law. There can be any number of reasons for that.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Really, you don't get that Minneapolis rescinded laws that were basically applied to black men?

That doesn't make sense unless the law specifically referred to their race. Surely you're not talking about the outcomes of the law. There can be any number of reasons for that.

This one goes into the ACLU report. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-p...olis-lurking-and-spitting-laws-succeeded-time The lurking law was used as an excuse to arrest anyone and 65% of those arrests were Black men.

 

[RavenSky]

Where do any of those tweets state he was involved in the organizing of #BLM protests?

I did not say he was an organizer, but he is spouting the same BLM-style nonsense about "police killing blacks" (in reality police shootings of black people are not disproportionate when adjusting for relative crime rates) and "whites killing blacks" (in reality blacks are twice as likely to kill whites as vice versa).
Btw, I found the last tweet, "bullets gone(sic) go threw(sic) you" to be rather ironic, given how only two days later bullets went "threw" him ...

There is nothing in any of the tweets you posted to indicate any involvement with #BLM at all. Just you making bad assumptions based on only your own prejudices.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

By the way, his parents had this to say

That doesn't mean much. That happens 99% of the time someone's kid does something bad.

 

[repoman]

dedicated to the OP...

 

[Derec]

Do you have any actual evidence that all these black men were arrested for no other reason than being black?

Took me three seconds. Have a great evening.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/06/05/lurking-spitting-laws

First, a note to the mods: the discussion of Minneapolis lurking laws should have been left in the Jamar Clark thread, not the Donkey Cartel digression (more accurate than derail).

Second, the article does not say what you claim it says. For example.

Supporters of the repeals say the laws were often used by police to unfairly target people of color, which then contributes to racial disparities in arrests.

Things that have to be prefaced by the bolded bit do not count as evidence.

Last week, an ACLU report found that people arrested for low-level crimes in Minneapolis are nearly nine times more likely to be black or Native American than white.

Mere racial disparity does not show actual discrimination and it certainly does not show these black people are arrested merely for being black. In fact, the ACLU claim pertains to all low-level crime, not just "lurking and spitting" that was repealed by city council (under apparent direction by BLM activists).

 

[Derec]

I was referring to your hindsight. The judge could not know what was going to happen or what was likely to happen. Nor do you know whether the local jailing/prison facilities were full or not.

I am not asking the judge for hindsight. But the jackass had committed enough crimes that the judge should have sent him back to prison for parole violation in addition to awaiting trial for the new offenses (like shooting a 12 year old!) Sure, the judge could not have foreseen that the jackass would shoot up the mall and get shot to death himself, but it doesn't take a fortune teller to see that the guy was trouble.

 

[Derec]

By the way, his parents had this to say

That doesn't mean much. That happens 99% of the time someone's kid does something bad.

They may think it:

But I do not see families of people like Dylan Roof go on media saying how good their boy is or was. On the contrary, his uncle called him a monster. Candor like that would have been appreciated from the Donkey family as well.

 

[Arctish]

That doesn't mean much. That happens 99% of the time someone's kid does something bad.

But I do not see families of people like Dylan Roof go on media saying how good their boy is or was. On the contrary, his uncle called him a monster. Candor like that would have been appreciated from the Donkey family as well.

"Long before police say Dylann Roof massacred nine people at a Charleston, South Carolina, church this week, his relatives recall he was a "sweet kid" who grew into a "painfully shy" loner."

<link>

People tend to see the best in their loved ones. That's not really a surprise, is it?

 

[laughing dog]

Really, you don't get that Minneapolis rescinded laws that were basically applied to black men?

That doesn't make sense unless the law specifically referred to their race. Surely you're not talking about the outcomes of the law. There can be any number of reasons for that.

And one of those reasons was race. Duh.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not asking the judge for hindsight. But the jackass had committed enough crimes that the judge should have sent him back to prison for parole violation in addition to awaiting trial for the new offenses (like shooting a 12 year old!) Sure, the judge could not have foreseen that the jackass would shoot up the mall and get shot to death himself, but it doesn't take a fortune teller to see that the guy was trouble.

You are using your hindsight in your analysis. You have no idea what the capacity of the local jails were at the time. Nor do you have any idea what any of the outstanding legal issues were either. This is not Minority Report - people are not locked up because someone thinks they are "trouble".

 

[repoman]

Did someone say Minority Report?

 

[Derec]

I am not asking the judge for hindsight.

No I am not. There was enough crime the jackass committed before this "convicted felon with a weapon" got fatally shot by the police.

You are using your hindsight in your analysis.

No I am not. I am going by his

You have no idea what the capacity of the local jails were at the time.

Do you?

Nor do you have any idea what any of the outstanding legal issues were either.

Yes we do know that.

This is not Minority Report - people are not locked up because someone thinks they are "trouble".

Nobody is talking about precogs or punishing people for crimes not yet committed. But judges are expected to make decisions about the danger a person poses - remanding somebody without bail or setting a high bail are certainly options judges have in the real world. When you have a felon who violated his parole and keeps breaking the law, even shoots a 12 year old boy, then how do you hell do you release somebody like that?

 

[Derec]

"Long before police say Dylann Roof massacred nine people at a Charleston, South Carolina, church this week, his relatives recall he was a "sweet kid" who grew into a "painfully shy" loner."

Yes, before the shootings. They are not trying to dismiss what he did.

Compare and contrast with the Donkey family: he was a good boy, no way he pointed the gun at police, etc., even though they knew for years that he was a violent thug.

People tend to see the best in their loved ones. That's not really a surprise, is it?

Not always. Roof's uncle called him a "monster" and called the cops on him when he recognized him on the security camera.

 

[laughing dog]

No I am not. There was enough crime the jackass committed before this "convicted felon with a weapon" got fatally shot by the police.

Non-responsive to what I wrote.

No I am not. I am going by his

Of course you are using hindsight. If he had not been shot, this never would have arisen. Now, I suppose you complete response was "his record". But you don't know what all of the legal issues were at the time nor do you know what the capacity of the jail or prison was at the time. Unless you can show the actual reasons for the release, you are simply posting your opinion.

Nobody is talking about precogs or punishing people for crimes not yet committed. But judges are expected to make decisions about the danger a person poses - remanding somebody without bail or setting a high bail are certainly options judges have in the real world.
When you have a felon who violated his parole and keeps breaking the law, even shoots a 12 year old boy, then how do you hell do you release somebody like that?

You are basically arguing he was too dangerous to be free. So, obviously you are talking about confining someone for something not yet committed. If you really want to know the answer to your question, you need to ask the judge. Or at least dig up his stated rationales. Whining about yet another dead and scary black man may make you feel better about yourself or safer, but it is not going to get you the answer(s) you claim to seek.

 

[fast]

That doesn't make sense unless the law specifically referred to their race. Surely you're not talking about the outcomes of the law. There can be any number of reasons for that.

And one of those reasons was race. Duh.

Don't confuse possible reasons with actual reasons. Every actual reason is a possible reason but not inversely.

 

[fast]

That doesn't make sense unless the law specifically referred to their race. Surely you're not talking about the outcomes of the law. There can be any number of reasons for that.

This one goes into the ACLU report. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-p...olis-lurking-and-spitting-laws-succeeded-time The lurking law was used as an excuse to arrest anyone and 65% of those arrests were Black men.

I don't care if it was 94%. I'm a firm believer that people overwhelmingly suck at interpreting statistical results.