Riots if Obama loses

#177
#177
volmaverick said:
if he shot and killed his white QB, i guess he should be found innocent because of the past

You are a laywer right? you want someone on your jury thinking like KingNick865..that a black should be found innocent of killing whites because of what happens outside the court room

Should someone like KingNick865 be a Judge?
Click to expand...



A jury should decide a case based on applying their collective common sense to the facts.

That point, however, does not translate so easily to the role of government, society, the individual, and groups and classes of people.

This country's greatest ideal, in my opinion, is opportunity. The sooner you face up to the fact that opportunity remains uneven in this country, at many levels, and at many times in a person's life, the sooner you will see past the simply mantras of the far right when it comes to race, and the quicker you will come to realize that "opportunity" in the USA is a complex and evolving thing that does not come without its own history.
 
#178
#178
volmaverick said:
Hmmm didnt know America was around in the seventeenth century
Click to expand...

You should brush up on your history, then.

volmaverick said:
Blacks are being persecuted RIGHT NOW by Blacks in Africa!
Click to expand...

Correct.

volmaverick said:
And all u want to harp on is what happened over 60 years ago
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just showing you that your support for Israeli (which includes all of the things you have said with regard to Muslims in the region), is absolutely irreconcilable with your stance re: OJ.

Feel free to answer the questions I posted, though. It might make the contradictions you cling to glaringly obvious.
 
#179
#179
lawgator1 said:
A jury should decide a case based on applying their collective common sense to the facts.

That point, however, does not translate so easily to the role of government, society, the individual, and groups and classes of people.

This country's greatest ideal, in my opinion, is opportunity. The sooner you face up to the fact that opportunity remains uneven in this country, at many levels, and at many times in a person's life, the sooner you will see past the simply mantras of the far right when it comes to race, and the quicker you will come to realize that "opportunity" in the USA is a complex and evolving thing that does not come without its own history.
Click to expand...




The sooner you face up to the fact that opportunity remains uneven in this country

BULL LOL...

Just one name for you Justice Clarence Thomas ALL BLACKS had the same opportunity he had!
 
#180
#180
therealUT said:
The analogy is a lot closer than you feel.

Let's assume the following are indisputable:
- The majority of blacks in America were persecuted from the mid-seventeenth century through the middle of the twentieth century.
- Since the middle of the twentieth century, blacks are still more likely than whites to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes (more likely to serve maximum sentences for drug offenses, more likely to receive the death penalty for rape and murder)
- Since the middle of the twentieth century, blacks charged with crimes are still more likely than whites charged with crimes to be convicted of said crimes.
Click to expand...

I think those statistics only show half truths.
 
#181
#181
volmaverick said:
The sooner you face up to the fact that opportunity remains uneven in this country

BULL LOL...

Just one name for you Justice Clarence Thomas ALL BLACKS had the same opportunity he had!
Click to expand...

Frederick Douglass...see, slavery was not that bad. The rest of the blacks were just not taking advantage of their opportunities to escape.
 
#184
#184
PKT_VOL said:
I think those statistics only show half truths.
Click to expand...

All that statistics can ever do; however, there would certainly have to exist a bevy of "exigent circumstances" in order to support the argument that race is not substantially involved in the law, the jury deliberations, and the sentencing.

You think it is just a coincidence that the sentences for the possession of crack are much harsher than the sentences for the possession of cocaine?
 
#186
#186
PKT_VOL said:
There are other factors which account for the disparity of those statistics. Implying that it is simply about the color of their skin is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that is is simply about the color of skin; I am arguing that it is probably a substantial factor.
 
#189
#189
therealUT said:
- Since the middle of the twentieth century, blacks are still more likely than whites to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes (more likely to serve maximum sentences for drug offenses, more likely to receive the death penalty for rape and murder)
- Since the middle of the twentieth century, blacks charged with crimes are still more likely than whites charged with crimes to be convicted of said crimes.
Click to expand...

You want to start talking crime stats in black and white??

OK
 
#190
#190
All three things in that last post on page 12 are black problems. You could argue economic status, but that is largely tied to skin color as well. Maybe education level. Which is tied to.......
 
#192
#192
This thread is like watching a sarcastic college math professor attempting to explain integrals to a third grader
 
#194
#194
therealUT said:
All that statistics can ever do; however, there would certainly have to exist a bevy of "exigent circumstances" in order to support the argument that race is not substantially involved in the law, the jury deliberations, and the sentencing.
Click to expand...

No. I am not saying that there has never been a case where the subjective nature of a person has not played a role in sentencing or jury trail. However, the same could be said the other way.

What I am saying is that wide spread statistics like you have posted are taken out of context.

therealUT said:
You think it is just a coincidence that the sentences for the possession of crack are much harsher than the sentences for the possession of cocaine?
Click to expand...

There is no doubt there was a racial component to that law when the law was enacted. However, it was more of socioeconomic predicament where race happens to be there than strictly race. Similar to the Middle East.

Crack is found in obviously poor areas; which happens to also consist of mostly minorities. The poor people who get hooked on crack, tend not to have the cash flow to support their habit. To remedy this situation, they commit crimes to support their habit.

Conversely, cocaine is a very expensive drug. Those who partake in the drug tend to have the cash flow to support their habit. Thus, they tend to not commit crimes at near the frequency to support that habit. Again, this is socioeconomic. If a black rapper, black NFL player, or black NBA player happens to use cocaine, it is not like law enforcement or legislators would view him any differently because he is black. Out of sight, out of mind. He can support it his victimless crime without resorting to other crimes to support his habit.
 
#195
#195
Almost like it's why they keep building them. -+ They are free attend. Even though prisons cost millions. Most colleges are already built, yet cost a fortune to attend. Weird.
 
#198
#198
PKT_VOL said:
No. I am not saying that there has never been a case where the subjective nature of a person has not played a role in sentencing or jury trail. However, the same could be said the other way.

What I am saying is that wide spread statistics like you have posted are taken out of context.



There is no doubt there was a racial component to that law when the law was enacted. However, it was more of socioeconomic predicament where race happens to be there than strictly race. Similar to the Middle East.

Crack is found in obviously poor areas; which happens to also consist of mostly minorities. The poor people who get hooked on crack, tend not to have the cash flow to support their habit. To remedy this situation, they commit crimes to support their habit.

Conversely, cocaine is a very expensive drug. Those who partake in the drug tend to have the cash flow to support their habit. Thus, they tend to not commit crimes at near the frequency to support that habit. Again, this is socioeconomic. If a black rapper, black NFL player, or black NBA player happens to use cocaine, it is not like law enforcement or legislators would view him any differently because he is black. Out of sight, out of mind. He can support it his victimless crime without resorting to other crimes to support his habit.
Click to expand...
So the drug laws are about who can afford to use them, not really about drugs being bad. Since the affluent snort powder, they are all good. But junkies belong in jail for committing petty crimes to support their habit. Out of sight out of mind, right?
 
#199
#199
PimpVol said:
So the drug laws are about who can afford to use them, not really about drugs being bad. Since the affluent snort powder, they are all good. But junkies belong in jail for committing petty crimes to support their habit. Out of sight out of mind, right?
Click to expand...

pretty sure you outlined the issue in your post. Might want to re-read it
 
#200
#200
PimpVol said:
So the drug laws are about who can afford to use them, not really about drugs being bad. Since the affluent snort powder, they are all good. But junkies belong in jail for committing petty crimes to support their habit. Out of sight out of mind, right?
Click to expand...

Truth hurts doesn't it?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top