Driving while black--oops, the cops have video

[laughing dog]

And how is the cop supposed to tell the difference between the homeowner trying to force his way in and a burglar doing so?? If I were seen by a cop I would expect to be detained until he confirmed that I actually lived there. Most of us realize the cop is doing his job of investigating the suspicious rather than jump to an assumption of racism.

That is non-responsive: Gates showed identification and was cuffed afterwards.

 

[Trausti]

In the spirit of the thread.

A Mansfield woman is facing charges after state police say she falsely claimed she was a victim of racial profiling that led to a May traffic stop in which she received a ticket.

Karma

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-state-police-racial-profiling-false-report-charges-20150728-story.html

 

[RavenSky]

And black and brown students with excellent grades (assuming that's not just a reflection on the school they are going to) do fine in America now.

Sure. No need to let them into Harvard. As if that were protection enough if you are a black man. Just ask Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.

If I remember correctly, you didn't think he was subservient enough in HIS OWN HOME.

When you're black and doing something suspicious and are challenged by a cop you should explain yourself, not take a do-you-know-who-I-am attitude. Or should the cop ignore an actual burglary in progress next time?

FIFY

Last Friday, a friend of mine was telling me about what happened to her husband. He had locked himself out of the house, so he went to the back yard, jumped the fence and let himself in through the back door. Someone saw him jump the fence, and called the police. TWO police cars AND a police HELICOPTER showed up. I couldn't help but think about Professor Gates as she was telling me the story.

I also couldn't help but think about all of the times I've had to break into my own house because I've locked myself out. Not once has anyone ever called the cops on me.

Whether you get the cops called on you or not would depend on whether you were seen and if the person seeing you recognized you as living there.

My friend and her husband have lived in their house for more than three years. Funny how he was somehow not "recognized" as living there, while I was automatically given a pass (even when it was once a house I did NOT live in. It was a house I had listed, and locked my keys inside)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the spirit of the thread.

A Mansfield woman is facing charges after state police say she falsely claimed she was a victim of racial profiling that led to a May traffic stop in which she received a ticket.

Karma

http://www.courant.com/news/connect...ling-false-report-charges-20150728-story.html

Why is it only karma when the person of race gets in trouble for an offense?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the spirit of the thread.

A Mansfield woman is facing charges after state police say she falsely claimed she was a victim of racial profiling that led to a May traffic stop in which she received a ticket.

Karma

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-state-police-racial-profiling-false-report-charges-20150728-story.html

Good. It's good to see charges filed when someone makes a provably-false police report.

 

[dismal]

Okay, so we've shown that there are incidents where black person lied. I'm not certain it was ever disputed that some black people lie.

#blackliesmatter

 

[ksen]

edgy

 

[arkirk]

In the spirit of the thread.



Karma

http://www.courant.com/news/connect...ling-false-report-charges-20150728-story.html

Why is it only karma when the person of race gets in trouble for an offense?

Because a racist is apt to think that being born black is a kind of Karma pay back in the first place. This gal may be a liar or perhaps not. Why doesn't Loren slow down the video of that stop and tell is what it all means? No! he just jumped to conclusions with statements like "provable." So friggin prove you are right then, There are plenty of lying white gals out there too.

 

[Toni]

In the spirit of the thread.



Karma

http://www.courant.com/news/connect...ling-false-report-charges-20150728-story.html

Why is it only karma when the person of race gets in trouble for an offense?

Did you mean: person of color? Color implying not caucasian?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it only karma when the person of race gets in trouble for an offense?

Because a racist is apt to think that being born black is a kind of Karma pay back in the first place. This gal may be a liar or perhaps not. Why doesn't Loren slow down the video of that stop and tell is what it all means? No! he just jumped to conclusions with statements like "provable." So friggin prove you are right then, There are plenty of lying white gals out there too.

And why should I play this one in slow motion? It's obvious, the guy tries to rabbit and gets wrestled to the ground. The blame whitey version was based on a selective start time and lies about the events leading up to it, not about any dispute about what was actually recorded.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because a racist is apt to think that being born black is a kind of Karma pay back in the first place. This gal may be a liar or perhaps not. Why doesn't Loren slow down the video of that stop and tell is what it all means? No! he just jumped to conclusions with statements like "provable." So friggin prove you are right then, There are plenty of lying white gals out there too.

And why should I play this one in slow motion? It's obvious, the guy tries to rabbit and gets wrestled to the ground. The blame whitey version was based on a selective start time and lies about the events leading up to it, not about any dispute about what was actually recorded.

You and Derec did a FRAME BY FRAME ANALYSIS trying to vindicate Ray Tensing's version of events. You went to extraordinary effort to prove that Ray Tensing was telling the truth, even arguing against the plain evidence of his own video.

Where the hell is the frame-by-frame analysis proving police brutality against Khan (alias: John Harrison)?

Oh wait, I forgot. This is a BLACK person being accused of lying, so you don't need to analyze the video in detail, it stands to reason he's a liar anyway.

 

[arkirk]

And why should I play this one in slow motion? It's obvious, the guy tries to rabbit and gets wrestled to the ground. The blame whitey version was based on a selective start time and lies about the events leading up to it, not about any dispute about what was actually recorded.

You and Derec did a FRAME BY FRAME ANALYSIS trying to vindicate Ray Tensing's version of events. You went to extraordinary effort to prove that Ray Tensing was telling the truth, even arguing against the plain evidence of his own video.

Where the hell is the frame-by-frame analysis proving police brutality against Khan (alias: John Harrison)?

Oh wait, I forgot. This is a BLACK person being accused of lying, so you don't need to analyze the video in detail, it stands to reason he's a liar anyway.

I want to thank Loren for comprehensive reporting on all the evil the black community is committing right out in the open...they're not supposed to matter. All this demanding equal behavior...he will see to it they won't get that. We need constant reminders of all their indiscretions and their errors...otherwise we will mellow out a bit and start treating them like white people. We can't have that and a happy Loren at the same time. Rest easy Loren...the cops are on your side and they are still shooting your enemies.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You and Derec did a FRAME BY FRAME ANALYSIS trying to vindicate Ray Tensing's version of events. You went to extraordinary effort to prove that Ray Tensing was telling the truth, even arguing against the plain evidence of his own video.

Where the hell is the frame-by-frame analysis proving police brutality against Khan (alias: John Harrison)?

Oh wait, I forgot. This is a BLACK person being accused of lying, so you don't need to analyze the video in detail, it stands to reason he's a liar anyway.

I want to thank Loren for comprehensive reporting on all the evil the black community is committing right out in the open...they're not supposed to matter. All this demanding equal behavior...he will see to it they won't get that. We need constant reminders of all their indiscretions and their errors...otherwise we will mellow out a bit and start treating them like white people. We can't have that and a happy Loren at the same time. Rest easy Loren...the cops are on your side and they are still shooting your enemies.

Well, that's only logical. If you're soft on black people, they'll get lazy and just sit around waiting for their welfare checks. And if you try to make excuse for their bad behavior, it will only embolden them and they'll turn into gang bangers.

Gotta take a hard line with these people. Violence is the only language they understand (lord knows they struggle with basic English).

 

[Bomb#20]

You filled in the gaps of your knowledge with preconceptions about him to the point that you'd interpret anything he wrote as confirming your ideology.

LP has had ample opportunity in this forum, over the course of several years, to demonstrate the actual substance of his worldview as something other than than the thinly veiled racism it increasingly appears to be as of late. You may feel free to give him the benefit of the doubt; I no longer do.

The benefit of the doubt?!? This isn't a matter of doubt. You said he spun this story into a "Proof that black people are liars" thread. He did not do that. You made a false damaging claim about him with reckless disregard for the truth. The only relevance your accusation that he's racist has is that it shows you libeled him out of malice rather than by mistake.

You interpreted an attack on anti-police bigots as an attack on black people, not because Loren said a damn thing to imply black people are any more likely to lie than white people, but because it fit your ideology's narrative about its unbelievers.

No, because it fits what I understand about LP's behavior and the substance of his posts. There are certain people in this world for whom no condemnation is too much, against which no abuse is too harsh, for whom any compassion or sympathy is undeserved. This comes out most clearly in the "Palestinians are terrorists and cannot be trusted" threads, and we have been round and round in endless circles trying to establish whether or not there are ANY Palestinians LP believes are redeemable, trustworthy, or even human.

Whether Loren is prejudiced against Palestinians has no more bearing on whether he's an anti-black bigot than the fact that you're prejudiced against Republicans has on whether you're an anti-police bigot. Did you ever see Dr. Seuss's passionate condemnations of discrimination against black people and his vicious cartoon stereotyping of Japanese? If you have a problem with Loren's views on Palestinians take it to one of the uncountable Israel/Islam threads.

Today we see that exact same rhetoric directed at his second favorite target. The patterns are the same, the attitude is the same, and the conclusions are essentially the same.

So a man who expresses his hatred for a person in 50 different ways and then says "I don't hate you" is either confused about what he really believes or is not being honest with me. I don't care which at this point.

So you're saying we're going round and round in endless circles trying to establish whether or not there are ANY black people LP believes are redeemable, trustworthy, or even human. That's more malice -- you have no basis to suggest there aren't.

But this is a pattern we see over and over from leftist after leftist: when a libertarian argues, based on libertarian economic theory, that leftist proposals for helping the underclass are counterproductive, many leftists will refuse to take seriously the possibility that the libertarian sincerely believes in libertarian economic theory. They will refuse to take seriously the possibility that the libertarian sincerely disbelieves in leftist economic theory. They will decide, based on leftist psychological theory, that the libertarian actually believes leftist economic theory is correct, that the libertarian actually believes leftist proposals really would help the underclass, and that the libertarian rejects those proposals because he wants to hurt the underclass. The leftists who think this way do so, to all appearances, not because they have any evidence for their psychological analysis, but because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling of moral superiority to look down on all those evil libertarians.

Which is to say, leftists' characterizations of libertarians' motives are typically of a piece with Christians' characterizations of atheists' motives. So when you tell me Loren is expressing his hatred for black people in 50 different ways, the value of your testimony is zero. What you are doing is no different from accusing Loren of claiming he doesn't believe in God because he's mad at God.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

LP has had ample opportunity in this forum, over the course of several years, to demonstrate the actual substance of his worldview as something other than than the thinly veiled racism it increasingly appears to be as of late. You may feel free to give him the benefit of the doubt; I no longer do.

The benefit of the doubt?!? This isn't a matter of doubt. You said he spun this story into a "Proof that black people are liars" thread.

No I'm saying "Black people are liars" is the SUBTEXT of this thread since all of his responses dance around that general position without explicitly stating it, in exactly the same pattern as the "Palestinians are liars" threads.

The "benefit of the doubt" is me assuming that the obvious subtext of the OP is accidental and that the presentation of his REAL point is just presented in such a way that makes it LOOK that way. And if we were having this conversation in 2011, I would probably waste fourteen pages and 30 to 40 posts trying to figure out what LP is saying OTHER than "black people are liars" only to be frustrated and dismayed when the "real" substance of the OP fails to manifest.

Whether Loren is prejudiced against Palestinians has no more bearing on whether he's an anti-black bigot...

If a racist is known to harbor vile prejudice against one group, and is then seen using the same rhetoric, the same debate tactics and the same logical conclusions to disparage a SECOND group, it is safe to conclude he is doing so for the same reason in both cases.

Did you ever see Dr. Seuss's passionate condemnations of discrimination against black people and his vicious cartoon stereotyping of Japanese?

Yes. And it's obvious that Doctor Seuss was an avowed racist at that point in his life. It is not at all clear that his views on black people and/or the Japanese evolved later in his life. It IS clear, however, that LPs views have not.

So you're saying we're going round and round in endless circles trying to establish whether or not there are ANY black people LP believes are redeemable, trustworthy, or even human.

I'm not saying that at all. I do not feel it necessary to "go around in circles" in an attempt to establish that. Loren is capable of making that clear if he so chooses.

But this is a pattern we see over and over from leftist after leftist: when a libertarian argues, based on libertarian economic theory, that leftist proposals for helping the underclass are counterproductive, many leftists will refuse to take seriously the possibility that the libertarian sincerely believes in libertarian economic theory. They will refuse to take seriously the possibility that the libertarian sincerely disbelieves in leftist economic theory. They will decide, based on leftist psychological theory, that the libertarian actually believes leftist economic theory is correct, that the libertarian actually believes leftist proposals really would help the underclass, and that the libertarian rejects those proposals because he wants to hurt the underclass. The leftists who think this way do so, to all appearances, not because they have any evidence for their psychological analysis, but because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling of moral superiority to look down on all those evil libertarians.

Word salad.

Let's be clear on this: the awesome thing about being a libertarian is that you're free to believe (privately) whatever you like as long as you BEHAVE in a way that is consistent with other people's rights and expectations. Libertarian economic theory has therefore become a safe haven for bigots who are tired of having to apologize for their bigotry and want to be free to believe what they want without being persecuted for their beliefs.

That's the dream of the libertarian theory: "I am free to believe that you are a morally and spiritually bankrupt social degenerate and exclude you from my corner of the economy, and you are free to complain to somebody who gives a shit."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And why should I play this one in slow motion? It's obvious, the guy tries to rabbit and gets wrestled to the ground. The blame whitey version was based on a selective start time and lies about the events leading up to it, not about any dispute about what was actually recorded.

You and Derec did a FRAME BY FRAME ANALYSIS trying to vindicate Ray Tensing's version of events. You went to extraordinary effort to prove that Ray Tensing was telling the truth, even arguing against the plain evidence of his own video.

Where the hell is the frame-by-frame analysis proving police brutality against Khan (alias: John Harrison)?

Oh wait, I forgot. This is a BLACK person being accused of lying, so you don't need to analyze the video in detail, it stands to reason he's a liar anyway.

We did a frame-by-frame in the DuBose case because at normal speed it's totally unclear what happened--things were going ok, they go to shit, the cop is on the ground and the car is rolling away with a corpse in the driver's seat.

This case is simply a deceptive edit and description, when the deception is exposed the issue goes away.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You and Derec did a FRAME BY FRAME ANALYSIS trying to vindicate Ray Tensing's version of events. You went to extraordinary effort to prove that Ray Tensing was telling the truth, even arguing against the plain evidence of his own video.

Where the hell is the frame-by-frame analysis proving police brutality against Khan (alias: John Harrison)?

Oh wait, I forgot. This is a BLACK person being accused of lying, so you don't need to analyze the video in detail, it stands to reason he's a liar anyway.

We did a frame-by-frame in the DuBose case because at normal speed it's totally unclear what happened

It wasn't unclear at all. In fact it was EXTREMELY clear that the officer in question drew his weapon and shot Dubose unprovoked and unnecessarily, just as it was clear he was lying about the reason for the shooting. And yet you managed to perform a very subjective and pleading analysis to spin the event as anything other than what it obviously appeared to be.

This case is simply a deceptive edit and description, when the deception is exposed the issue goes away.

Really? So you're not going to go through the video, frame by frame, and try to argue that the video doesn't show what it obviously appears to show and that the police really DID tackle the man to the ground as the first witness claims?

Because it looks like you only do that when the police are accused of wrongdoing, and then only when the accuser is black.

 

[Bomb#20]

The benefit of the doubt?!? This isn't a matter of doubt. You said he spun this story into a "Proof that black people are liars" thread.

No I'm saying "Black people are liars" is the SUBTEXT of this thread since all of his responses dance around that general position without explicitly stating it, in exactly the same pattern as the "Palestinians are liars" threads.

Yes, you said:

Second of all, your motivation is showing. The actual story of this is "Cops are accused of brutality, but manage to produce video that shows they behaved calmly and professionally and did a good job!" You took this story and spun it into a "Proof that black people are liars" thread like you do with all your "Proof that Palestinians are liars" threads.

,​

just as I said you did. As for subtext, you can read any subtext you please into anything written by a person you look down on, and your ideology will assure you that you got it right. Subtext accusations are unfalsifiable.

So you're saying we're going round and round in endless circles trying to establish whether or not there are ANY black people LP believes are redeemable, trustworthy, or even human.

I'm not saying that at all. I do not feel it necessary to "go around in circles" in an attempt to establish that.

Ah, I see. So when you said:

There are certain people in this world for whom no condemnation is too much, against which no abuse is too harsh, for whom any compassion or sympathy is undeserved. This comes out most clearly in the "Palestinians are terrorists and cannot be trusted" threads, and we have been round and round in endless circles trying to establish whether or not there are ANY Palestinians LP believes are redeemable, trustworthy, or even human.

Today we see that exact same rhetoric directed at his second favorite target. The patterns are the same, the attitude is the same, and the conclusions are essentially the same.

,​

you were implying we can go straight to the conclusion that "There are not ANY black people LP believes are redeemable, trustworthy, or even human.", without any research. Good on you.

Loren is capable of making that clear if he so chooses.

Indeed he can. Indeed he did:

Wrong.

What I'm pointing out with both threads is that this crusade for black people is bad for everyone, especially black people. So long as we keep making excuses the problems won't be addressed.

And it's certainly not all black people--at one point three of our 4 immediate neighbors were black. (One couple is now dead of old age, one is in an assisted care place and the house behind us has sat vacant but cared for for some years now, we think they're in California but we aren't sure.) They were all good people. The difference is they were all educated people who had been raised properly, not welfare tickets.

So you are making accusations in the teeth of the evidence -- evidence you've already seen, read, and replied to.

Word salad.

You have no basis for that charge. What I wrote was grammatical, clear, substantive, and to the point. Here's an example of what I was describing:

And now you're going to tell me all about how you believe that the achievement gap is a real problem, how setting low expectations for black students is a bad idea, about how students who are struggling should receive extra help and the system should make sure they get the education they deserve, about how NO student should be written off as "unteachable" or allowed to fall through the cracks just because somebody out there thinks those resources should be better spent on gifted students who show more potential.

Oh wait. No you're not.
:laughing-smiley-014

You're the guy who believes that after school programs are a waste of money, that tutoring under-achievers "cheats" good students. You're the guy who compared black children to puppies and told us that their basic study habits were all formed by the time they were four and that they should be sent away to "special schools" if they demonstrated poor proficiency in kindergarten.

See, everything you claim to BELIEVE is utterly inconsistent with what you think we should DO.

No it isn't. What he thinks we should do is utterly inconsistent with the conjunction of leftist economic ideas and what he claims to believe. But it's utterly consistent with the conjunction of libertarian economic ideas and what he claims to believe. You are committing a classic fallacy, of the form:

You believe X.
I believe Y.
(X and Y) implies Z.
You believe (not Z).
---------------------
Therefore you are inconsistent.​

When you accuse him of inconsistency after mixing your premises in with his, you are simply refusing to take seriously the possibility that he sincerely disagrees with your premises. You're acting exactly like a Christian accusing an atheist of being mad at God.

But you don't want to hear that. You just call it "word salad". You'd rather pigeonhole infidels into the psychological classifications your ideology supplies you with so you'll dismiss challenges to it.

Let's be clear on this: the awesome thing about being a libertarian is that you're free to believe (privately) whatever you like as long as you BEHAVE in a way that is consistent with other people's rights and expectations. Libertarian economic theory has therefore become a safe haven for bigots who are tired of having to apologize for their bigotry and want to be free to believe what they want without being persecuted for their beliefs.

Case in point. Believing what you wrote is a way for you to give yourself permission to dismiss libertarians' arguments without refuting them.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren, does racism exist?

Sure it does.

However, it's not enough of a factor to keep people down.

And you know this how?

The marketplace can't support that at least in most places

The Market place supported slavery and Jim Crow not to mention Apartheid. Wanna try again?

--if discrimination was enough to suppress black wages then some smart businessman would hire a bunch of cheap black workers.

And your proof of this is what? Outside of simplistic thinking that is.

You can only have large-scale discrimination when there is a cost to the company to hire the target of the discrimination. (As there was before the 60s--hiring blacks for non-menial jobs would reflect badly on the company.)

First, no. Second, racism and discrimination are not the same thing yet you tend to speak as if they were. If you don't understand the terms, then how can you speak about whether or not they exist and to what extent?

- - - Updated - - -

So black children who grow up in poverty with parents who have used welfare to feed them, and who did not get the opportunity to go to college are not good people. I see what you're saying, and it's not racist at all.

Here is some news for you, racism exists. I have experienced racism many times in various forms, and I am a highly educated brown man with a very well paying job who was raised in an educated family who never needed welfare. I can only imagine what life is like for poor black and brown people who hold modest jobs and can only afford basic transportation.

To a very large degree we reflect our genetics & upbringing. You can't just pretend the problems don't exist, putting gangbangers in Harvard won't improve the situation one bit.

The only real fix is to address the problems very early on.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Word salad.

You have no basis for that charge.

When you accuse him of inconsistency after mixing your premises in with his, you are simply refusing to take seriously the possibility that he sincerely disagrees with your premises.

The premise is that all human beings are intrinsically valuable.

LP has claimed, from time to time, to support this premise.

His proposals, however, reflect the mindset that NOT all human beings are intrinsically valuable; that the value of a person is defined by factors beyond his control, factors that cannot be changed after a certain point (3 or 4 years old, evidently), and that once a person's base value has been set, their place in society is firmly established.

For what I am sure you believe to be perfectly rational, evidence-based scientific reasons, there are entire groups of people whose "starting value" is already abnormally low in LPs eyes. And yet, bigotry that is based on soundly libertarian principles is still bigotry.

Case in point. Believing what you wrote is a way for you to give yourself permission to dismiss libertarians' arguments without refuting them.

What makes you think I need permission to dismiss libertarian arguments without refuting them?

Find me a libertarian theory that is based on something other than the masurbatory fantasies of individualists, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you go on enjoying the taste of LP's asshole. I find this conversation -- like libertarianism in general -- amazingly boring.