Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » the War on Police (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: the War on Police
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I see only a small difference between a person who purposefully intends to end a human life and someone who purposefully does an action that he knows may end a human life and doesn't care.
I see. So you would rate on the morality scale someone who turns left at an intersection without yielding to oncoming traffic as equivalent to a mob hitman for hire? Or perhaps merely equivalent to the guy who kills his wife and kids in a fit of rage when she tells him she's leaving him?

[ January 07, 2015, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
I see only a small difference between a person who purposefully intends to end a human life and someone who purposefully does an action that he knows may end a human life and doesn't care.
I see. So you would rate on the morality scale someone who turns left at an intersection without yielding to oncoming traffic as equivalent to a mob hitman for hire? Or perhaps merely equivalent to the guy who kills his wife and kids in a fit of rage when she tells him she's leaving him?
And the car example is one where drivers are specifically trained not to do that (at least initially). In the case of police it isn't even clear whether the police are seriously trained to avoid certain maneuvers, or are just told in a set of regulations not to do it. A driver should never drive into the path of oncoming traffic, whereas a police office must use force, the only questions being what type, and when. So if anything your stated principle would apply even more strongly in jasonr's driving example than it does in the Garner case.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

NYC police stopped using choke holds because they resulted in the deaths of some suspects, and is considered too dangerous for normal circumstances, precisely because some people have pre-existing conditions that could make it deadly.

Saying that the police didn't know about a pre-existing condition is in no way relevant to the abuse of force. The officer knew it was a dangerous hold; he knew it could kill someone; he knew he was not allowed to use it. Just because he did not happen to know it would specifically kill Garner did not mean he was unaware that it could kill Garner.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Question about the choke hold. How much training do we know Garner actually received?
I'm pretty sure none whatsoever, although it's not a half-bad idea if police reforms are not enacted. [Wink] [Big Grin]
Your first statement seems to contradict the second one. Garner should have known and should have been trained, but you think he wasn't trained but definitely knew that choke holds have a significant risk of death and were prohibited.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you would rate on the morality scale someone who turns left at an intersection without yielding to oncoming traffic as equivalent to a mob hitman for hire? Or perhaps merely equivalent to the guy who kills his wife and kids in a fit of rage when she tells him she's leaving him?
Not equivalent. I do recognize there is a hierarchy of morality.

The left-turn driver probably thought he could make the turn safely. I would put him a bit more culpable than a simple accident (unless he was drunk).

The hitman? First-degree murderer. Pure scum.

The guy? At least second-degree murder, if not first. Far worse than the officer in question.

I would say the officer's actions (as I currently understand them) a bit lower than someone putting a bullet in a revolver, spinning the cylinder, pointing at a person and pulling the trigger. He doesn't intend to kill the person (if he did, he would have put 6 bullets in the gun). But he is OK if it happens to kill him.

The officer did the choke hold in the heat of battle, so he is not as bad as this killer.

But he did something he knew was dangerous, that had the potential to kill someone, that he had been told not to do. He did it anyway.

He's not equivalent to a cold-blooded killer or a deranged husband. But he has more culpability than a driver who made a mistake in judgement.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly. Drivers are trained excessively and constantly reminded bot to engage in certain behaviors like speeding yet they do it. Should every speeding vehicular homicide be considered murder?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your first statement seems to contradict the second one. Garner should have known and should have been trained, but you think he wasn't trained but definitely knew that choke holds have a significant risk of death and were prohibited.
Sorry, I was making a little joke there.

Eric Garner is the victim, not the officer. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the case of police it isn't even clear whether the police are seriously trained to avoid certain maneuvers, or are just told in a set of regulations not to do it.
So you're saying that it was lack of training that lead the officer to use a choke hold? If so, then the department also has culpability. But why did the officer grab Garner's neck if he knew he could not safely grab him there?

I'm open to mitigating circumstances. But the officer did choose to strangle Garner. He knew better.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
I see only a small difference between a person who purposefully intends to end a human life and someone who purposefully does an action that he knows may end a human life and doesn't care.
I see. So you would rate on the morality scale someone who turns left at an intersection without yielding to oncoming traffic as equivalent to a mob hitman for hire? Or perhaps merely equivalent to the guy who kills his wife and kids in a fit of rage when she tells him she's leaving him?
Actually, no; Jason, you aren't reading what he's saying any more than Wayward knows what he's saying. Wayward misuses the word "negligence," which is what you just described with the left light

Wayward's test: "purposefully does an action that he knows may end a human life and doesn't care" does NOT describe mere negligence in any jurisdiction; it's at least recklessness, gross negligence

In fact, unlike Wayward's previous statements here, this one wasn't entirely stupid, since the legal distinction between gross reckless or willful homicides and 2nd degree murder is much much smaller between the distinction between murder and negligent homicide

So let's give him some space; he's trying to think now

[ January 07, 2015, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
There is actually an argument to make that the officer did have malice aforethought, which (without premeditation to kill) would make the act 2nd degree murder. But your negligent approach to serious legal matters puts a chokehold on the discussion...
When I say that I view negligent homocide as akin to murder, I am speaking morally, not legally.
You think our laws regarding the killing of human beings aren't or should not be based on morality? Good goof, man, haven't you been listening? Malice aforethought, premeditation, intent, recklessness, negligence; ALL of these concepts in the criminal law are 100% about moral analysis
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wayward's test: "purposefully does an action that he knows may end a human life and doesn't care" does NOT describe mere negligence in any jurisdiction; it's at least recklessness, gross recklessness.
Hey, Pete, gimme a break. I don't automatically know the difference between "negligent homocide" and "homocide from gross negligence." Thank you for correcting my terminology, but don't make it sound like I was doing it on purpose. I simply misremembered the term.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Do you believe that if you accidentally kill someone in QN act that wasn't intended to hurt anyone, that you can be guilty of "murder"?

Malice means intent to do harm. Aforethought means in your thought before the act. If you accidentally flip on the garbage compacter instead of a light switch, and unknown to you Geraldo Rivera was alive in your compactor, the fact that you might later be glad he was dead would not make you a murderer.

Certainly if someone has no intent to do harm, and no knowledge that his actions could do harm, there is no question that no murder, or even crime, has occurred. But I don't believe those two criteria apply here.

I'll grant that the officer had no intent to kill Garner during the incident. But the officer did have knowledge that using a choke hold could kill someone. That was the reason choke holds were proscribed in the department--they were considered too dangerous.

Now, if the officer had never intended to use a choke hold, then I would agree that this was an accidental death. But so far no one has mentioned to me that he has claimed it was an accidental hold.

I haven't followed the news either
It could be legally "accidental" (and morally accidental as well) if his previous training had suddenly kicked in and he'd reacted on instinct, thinking from the spinal column instead of the brain

If the police training failed to give training on alternatives to the chokehold, then his trainers may be found civilly negligent, and the officer is innocent. Because they arguably knew or should have known that if you take a defense measure from police that they've been trained to do, and fail to train them to do something else in its place, that they will resort to the previous tactic when they are cornered in a pinch.

You could only find the officer guilty of mere negligent homicide if you find that he didn't actually realize that using the chokehold could result in death. But if that's true, I hope you'd agree that such negligence is much much less serious than intentional murder.

If there's evidence that the cop had continued to use the choke-holds only when he was angry (as opposed to afraid) and that it was more of a sadistic thing, then there's an argument for recklessness, which is way more than ordinary negligence.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Wayward's test: "purposefully does an action that he knows may end a human life and doesn't care" does NOT describe mere negligence in any jurisdiction; it's at least recklessness, gross recklessness.
Hey, Pete, gimme a break. I don't automatically know the difference between "negligent homocide" and "homocide from gross negligence." Thank you for correcting my terminology, but don't make it sound like I was doing it on purpose. I simply misremembered the term.
I was giving you a break, and you're welcome. Despite your error in terminology, you were actually analyzing the morality and the law, and deserved kudos for that. What I said was more of a criticism of Jason for failing to recognize that you were talking about recklesness rather than negligence, and setting aside your erroneous terminology, you were right on principle
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Negligent homicide: You take an illegal left turn at the light while talking on a cell phone and run over a kid on a trike in the crosswalk

Gross negligence: You blow a red light while drunk and kill a car full of nuns

Reckless homicide (2nd degree manslaughter) You drag race down main-street at noon, and someone dies

Gross negligence isn't really well-defined; it's just something between negligence and reckless

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You could only find the officer guilty of mere negligent homicide if you find that he didn't actually realize that using the chokehold could result in death.

I'm sorry, but that is such common knowledge - not specialist knowledge - that if a police officer claims not to be aware a chokehold can cause death they should be out of uniform. Minimum professional competence of anyone whose job requires that they be prepared to use force requires they understand the potential impacts of the various methods they may use.

As a matter of basic human knowledge, when exactly would you deem it okay to use a chokehold on a person who is outnumbered and being arrested? I find it even less likely that it's okay as a matter of professional knowledge.
quote:
But if that's true, I hope you'd agree that such negligence is much much less serious than intentional murder.
Of course. Intending to kill is a more serious crime than accidentally killing, even if that doesn't particularly matter to the victim.
quote:
If there's evidence that the cop had continued to use the choke-holds only when he was angry (as opposed to afraid) and that it was more of a sadistic thing, then there's an argument for recklessness, which is way more than ordinary negligence.
I think there is something about chokeholds that's confusing the issue. Would you feel the same if was restraining people by stabbing them in the leg with a knife? It's not a tactic that is ever really acceptable as a matter of standard procedure, and it doesn't require specialist training to understand that. That said it would be effective, and its even possible that there are circumstances where it could be justified. It just shouldn't be the part of a standard package.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QUOTE]
Eric Garner is the victim, not the officer. [Big Grin]

Right, I'm glad you got what I meant anyway.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You could only find the officer guilty of mere negligent homicide if you find that he didn't actually realize that using the chokehold could result in death.

I'm sorry, but that is such common knowledge - not specialist knowledge - that if a police officer claims not to be aware a chokehold can cause death they should be out of uniform. Minimum professional competence of anyone whose job requires that they be prepared to use force requires they understand the potential impacts of the various methods they may use.
Not sure why you're sorry

I was explaining the law to Wayward

The facts you describe sound believable

Shall we all agree then that mere negligence is unlikely in this case? Either the cop reacted from impulse (and therefore non criminally although his department may be negligent in his retraining) or he acted recklessly, with knowledge and disregard for the risk to human life

Amazing things happen when we make an effort look dispassionately at the law, and then fill in the facts before passing judgment ,,,, hey, isn't that what they taught us to do in law school?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My point is that our laws regarding homicide carefully and painstakingly reflect a kaleidescope of different gradations of culpability, because the common law of murder has evolved under scrutiny over nearly a thousand years

In contrast to our laws on Domestic Violence and DUIs, which were essentially written from scratch last Thursday by a lynch mob on the rag

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I'm not the crim guy, so I defer to your categorization of different grades of criminal culpability, but it seems to me Wayward's wording was mostly tantamount to garden variety negligence (i.e. reasonable foreseeability etc...) so I thought the traffic examples pertinent.

I note that Wayward's example of the pest control company leaving behind poison pellets next to a school (which he considered "very close to murder") strikes me as far less likely to result in injury or death than, say, failing to yield in a left turn case or running a red light.

I don't know what the medical literature says about momentary chokeholds like what we saw in the tape, but I suspect the chances of killing someone from such an act is vanishingly small, perhaps smaller than the chances of killing someone by say, changing lanes without signalling. Indeed, I'm not even convinced from what I've heard that the choke hold actually killed Garner. It sounds from the video that he couldn't breathe because the officers were sitting on him, not because of the initial choke hold.

It was my understanding that for whatever reason, only the chokeholding officer was put before the grand jury, which may explain why he was let off the hook. Did the medical evidence even conclude that the choke hold caused the death? I'm wondering if this issue isn't a total red herring. It seems to me that the use of disproportionate force overall (not just the choke hold, but the overall takedown) coupled with the cops ignoring Garner's pleas that he couldn't breathe, coupled with their failure to take immediate action to get medical help when it was clear he was in distress is the real issue. The "choke hold" I think might be a total red herring in this case, making Wayward's focus on it a little strange. It seems bizarre that only the chokeholding officer is getting the brunt of this media firestorm when the other officers seem to be getting a total pass for their equally culpable role in this death.

[ January 07, 2015, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If what Jason says is true, then the death might be negligent nor accidental. If Seriati's analysis of choke holds is more true, then it's clearly reckless. I simply don't know, don't have a dog in the fight, other than a desire for clear fair communication of legal concepts, and a clear separation of individual culpability from broader issues of race and social justice.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, if these officers were killed as an intentional war on police, then the act is not as some suggest, a "hate crime" not is it "terrorism": it is to be precise, making war on the united states, just as was done in OK city. In a word, treason.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know either. We should note though that if Jasonr's description of the risk of chokeholds in accurate, you'd wonder why they are prohibited.

I was looking at the conduct as reckless, but it might be just negligent if the risk is that low.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
I don't know either. We should note though that if Jasonr's description of the risk of chokeholds in accurate, you'd wonder why they are prohibited.

You have a greater faith than I do in the folks that issue prohibitions. My son's mental institution prohibited the use of the speakerphone feature, and within 36 hours every portable phone in the joint was broken. Ever see what impulse control issue kids like heavy autistics do with telephones when you hand them over? Supervisors who don't have hands on like to issue fatwas. It makes them feel important. Without looking at the facts, i could see something being prohibited just because it had a scary name like chokehold. But looking at facts of different chokehold death cases, and having been put in a chokehold personally by a cop with a case of righteous indignation, I have the impression that the scary name and the ban was warranted.


]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We should note though that if Jasonr's description of the risk of chokeholds in accurate
For the record I don't know what the chances are of killing someone with a chokehold. I was just wondering aloud if it really is all that high for a normal healthy individual, especially if it's just for 10 seconds or so (as it seems to be in the video). I do note that Garner is quite audibly saying "I can't breathe" - can a person speak so audibly if they are being actively "choked"? Again, how forceful could the chokehold have been if Garner was still able to talk audibly from several feet away??

I do recall when this whole thing started finding it odd that the only officer that was brought up to the grand jury was the "chokehold" guy when it seemed to me that all the officers were more or less equally involved in the takedown. Was the choice to focus only on the chokehold officer the reason why no one was indicted?

Does anyone know if anyone was actually able to implicate the "chokehold" specifically in Garner's death? Or was this just a convenient rallying cry for the media to focus on for dramatic purposes?

I know what caught me about the video was how nonchalant the police were even after they realized Garner was in real distress. It seemed like they were just sitting around there twiddling their thumbs like they didn't care if he lived or died. How long did it take for them to call EMS even after it was obvious he was in serious distress?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
We should note though that if Jasonr's description of the risk of chokeholds in accurate
For the record I don't know what the chances are of killing someone with a chokehold. I was just wondering aloud if it really is all that high for a normal healthy individual, especially if it's just for 10 seconds or so (as it seems to be in the video). I do note that Garner is quite audibly saying "I can't breathe" - can a person speak so audibly if they are being actively "choked"? Again, how forceful could the chokehold have been if Garner was still able to talk audibly from several feet away??

I just watched the video yet again. It's pretty clear that the 'chokehold' was ended the moment Garner was rolled over with his face pushed into the sidewalk, and at that point the officer applying it stopped and instead was pushing his head down towards the ground. The exclamation "I can't breathe" only began after the chokehold stopped, meaning that either the officers on him were compressing his lungs, pushing his face into the ground was making it hard for him to breathe, or perhaps he was panicking and lost control of his muscles.

Now about chokeholds and takedown technique: I've been trained in both artery chokes and air chokes, as well as "one arm under one arm over" takedowns, albeit in a martial arts context and not a police or military one. A very common control and takedown position is to wrap your arms around the person, with one arm under his arm and one around the neck, where your hands meet or you grab your own elbows or shirt for locking it in. This position is used in jiu-jitsu, wrestling, etc, and has nothing whatever to do with trying to choke the target, but is about leverage and control. Notwithstanding that, you do have your arms around the neck area and so some pressure may be applied. Off-hand, it looks like the officer was trying to apply this technique to Garner, who was quite large and was too big for the officer's arms to go around the torso, making the neck-armpit a short distance and quite doable. Note how the officer uses this technique initially to destabilize Garner, then to get him on his side with leverage, and finally to roll him a bit so his face was down. The moment this happened the arms were released and the officer got on top of him, demonstrating no intent to choke Garner but rather just to leverage him.

One kind of choke hold, designed to prevent breathing or crush the windpipe, has a certain arm position that was not in evidence here, where a lot of pressure needs to be placed on the larynx in order to crush or press on it. Since the officer's arms were wrapped around Garner's torso and neck both, it doesn't look to me like this was a likely kind of pressure to have been applied to Garner. Plus, on a 'suppress the target' note, an air choke would be a very impractical thing to do on large, standing man.

Then there's the artery choke, which involves cutting off blood flow to the brain. This can be done in various ways, one of which is the 'triangle' position from jiu-jitsu, so-named because when you apply this move with your legs on someone your legs form a triangle. This position does use the 'over-under' position. It can also be applied with arms, but take note that the success of this kind of move requires control and preventing the victim moving, whereas it's quite clear the officer holding Garner was deliberately moving him all over the place. Also noteworthy is that the effect of an artery choke (which I've experienced many many times) is passing out, at which point in a fight you need to tap out in seconds if the guy really has you good. If the pressure isn't released you'll pass out extremely quickly. If this was an artery choke, and it had caused Garner's death, the order of events would have been Garner in the hold, Garner passing out, and Garner dying. There wouldn't have been a period of the hold being released, Garner yelling, and then Garner passing out. Also the feeling of an artery choke being applied isn't one of not being able to breath. Yes, any time someone is applying a lot of pressure of you it can be hard to breathe, even if they're just sitting on you, but the predominant thing you feel when under this choke isn't "I can't breathe" but rather "the world is going black."

Now that I've said all that, my personal take is that it looks like a routine takedown maneuver and not a choke hold at all. I see no evidence of an air choke at all, and the officer isn't applying pressure to the neck in the way I'd expect for an artery choke. Also the officer clearly looks like he was trying to use his pressure to maneuver Garner around and control him, rather than to knock him out.

The scenario seem to simply be that a bunch of officers used needless aggression and violence against a guy, and their hostility resulted in his death. I don't know that any illicit techniques were used (it looks pretty clean as far as disabling him goes), and my main gripe is with using force to disable someone who wasn't presenting himself as a physical threat. The issue here isn't the guy who wrapped his arms around Garner, but rather around the general notion that police can restrain and bully you with no cause other than that they feel like it. In this sense I agree with jasonr's musings that it would have made more sense to accuse all the cops rather than just the one guy. Now that I think about it more I'm much less upset than I was initially that the single officer wasn't indicted.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the analysis and detail, fenring
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:


In my experience, crime and other social phenomena frequently correlates to "race" or ethnicity, quite strongly. The Sicilian mafia was an example I gave before. I'll give you another example I know quite well from personal experience: Tamils and motor vehicle accident claims. For whatever reason, an enormous proportion of the motor vehicle accident personal injury claims in the greater Toronto area are brought by members of the Tamil community. If I had to tell you the number one language I have to hire interpreters for in discoveries, Tamil is at the top of the list. Tamils make up only about 3% of the population of the greater Toronto area yet they seem to sue more frequently than anyone else.

Are Tamils just really unlucky behind the wheel? Is there a gene buried in their DNA that makes them prone to litigate to get money for minor motor vehicle accidents?

More to the point, do you suggest that racism is somehow driving Tamils to bring unmeritorious or frivolous car accident claims out of proportion to their numbers. If so, why Tamils and not, say, Jamaicans, who also have large numbers in Toronto? Truthfully, while Jamaicans get a bad rap for certain other types of crime, in my experience they rarely sue for personal injury, and when they do, I actually find them to be exceptionally credible and honest compared to, say, Tamils. I have never, for instance, had a Jamaican plaintiff claim to have suffered psychologically from a minor car accident, whereas with Tamils they'll claim they have PTSD even if they were tapped at 5 kph. The Jamaicans seem to have a cultural taboo against admitting to any mental disability or depression while the Tamils seem to revel in it.

Interesting how culture works, isn't it? One culture produces very little violent crime but for some reason produces a disproportionate quantity of non-violent insurance fraud, whereas a different culture produces little insurance fraud, but a disproportionate amount of violent crime?

All because of racism I suppose?

Been wanting to respond to this, just had to wait until I had a bit of time; this'll probably be my last word on the racism topic for now, as its probably generating more heat than light, but I'm going to make a good faith effort to explain neutrally and strive for clarity (and I appreciate the efforts of Jason, Seriati and Fenring to do the same in rebuttal).

Jason, I'm going to use your example here to illustrate my point. I hope it goes without saying that I don't intend anything I write to malign your character, with which I have no quarrel at all.

That said, what you wrote is an example of the functioning of racism in the sense that I am using the term. And how Pyr uses the term. And the President, civil rights leaders and nearly everyone who experiences racism. I understand that you don't like that usage, and as far as I'm concerned you could call it "Trudy" and the principle would be the same. Actually, Kwame Appiah sometimes uses the term "racialism", which perhaps would serve better? Anyway...

As you observed, race doesn't actually exist biologically; human beings exhibit a spectrum of features, and each feature exhibits a spectrum of diversity. That physical/genetic diversity does not cluster into distinct groups in any way, anthropologists figured this out 100 years ago, and genetics has confirmed and strengthened it.

We, however, "see" race when we look at other people. That is to say, we notice the specific features that have conceptually been identified as "racial" indicators, and, however subconsciously, conceive of the individuals exhibiting them as belonging to one of our conceptual race categories.

We don't do this, for example, with height or weight, even though we could conceivably imagine a race of "talls" or "thins". This is a learned, cultural inheritance, an idea that people come in relatively discrete race groups.

Very few people consciously believe that anymore, at least not if they actually consider the scientific basis. Nevertheless, one of the legacies of the centuries in which we absolutely believed this, and structured our societies accordingly, is that the patterns of seeing race, applying concepts to it, and acting on those concepts, remains.

Unfortunately, its a self-sustaining fallacy. Subconsciously "noticing" specifically "racial" features, and lumping people into categories, re-enforces the perception that people actually exist in categories. This gets me to the example Jason offered.

Jason, like all of us, is noticing the "race" of his claimants, and making generalizations that he then adheres to that category. If I asked him to tell me the average height of people who claim personal injury in car accidents, he might say that its average or non-correlated, but it would almost certainly be true that he never thinks to correlate height to behaviors. Or eye color, body-mass index or any other easily observable trait not conceived of as being a racial indicator. In this regard, Jason is interchangeable with any of us; this is a broad cultural dynamic.

Now, Jason is referring to "cultures" in his example, and by specifically using immigrant communities, its a stronger argument that simply referring to "black culture". However, the basic dynamic that makes racism harmful still applies; here's a few examples of how.

First of all, these cultural groups are still identified primarily on racial grounds, that is, primarily on physical characteristics which don't, in reality, occur in any kind of distinct groups. Its perfectly valid to observe that someone with different language, dress and mannerisms belongs to a different culture to some degree, but we, all of us, would *also* notice skin color, eye and nose shape, hair texture, etc., and without a conscious effort, one set of observations would cluster with the other in our psyche. No physical characteristic, and no combination of physical characteristics, has any effect on a person's culture, behavior or pattern of choices. However, none of us are really free of having *expectations* of those things based on seeing those characteristics.

Where the rubber meets the road is when we act on the assumptions we have formed, because that's where the really serious distortions occur. For example, in Jason's example, lets assume that his observation is accurate (which could easily be true), and that Tamils make up a larger percentage of insurance fraud than other groups. Even if it were an extremely marked difference; twice as likely to commit such fraud, consider how it changes an individual's likelihood to exhibit such behavior. In the U.S., 3.2% of people are under some form of correctional control, one of the highest rates in the world. So "3% of people commit non-trivial crimes" seems a surmise that is unlikely to be too high, at least. What percentage of that is any specific crime? Obviously less, but assume its the same in this case: that 3% of all people commit insurance fraud in Toronto, but 6% of the Tamil population. Jason's experience exposes him to all of that 6%, but his daily life exposes him to a bare fraction of the remaining 94%. Also, he is seeing TWO Tamils for every non-Tamil (in this hypothetical), which is a difference few would fail to register. Unexamined, such an experience would undoubted lodge some significant connection is his mind between Tamils and insurance fraud.

However, if Jason were to encounter a Tamil on the street, not only would that person be overwhelmingly UNLIKELY to be a perpetrator of insurance fraud, that person's likelihood of being such a perpetrator is, statistically, virtually the same as anyone else he might meet. So any subconscious connection between Tamils and insurance fraud that exists in Jason's mind, and any effect it had on his behavior, would be unfairly skewed towards the negative.

That's one aspect of the basic framework of racism (racialism): we see race, we form assumptions about characteristics of members of that "race" (often in ways that are, themselves, rational and based on observation), and those assumptions impact our impressions of others who merely share similar racial indicators.

This is tempered by the fact that most people are basically decent, and at least try to treat other people as individuals. Much of the impact of contemporary racism is described, by recipient of said racism, as having a cumulative weight. Its not that not getting a taxi to stop, by itself, is so awful. In isolation, its almost meaningless. Its when you are constantly having to work twice as hard to get a taxi, a situation where you are judged exclusively on how you look, that it becomes a pernicious aspect of living in this society as a person of color. When you have a harder time getting a job interview, or an apartment, or a waiter to serve you promptly, based exclusively on your race, throughout your life, the cumulative effect is real, and the injustice is genuine. None of those situations have a real villain, and yet the result creates victims all the same.

The situation is heighten in areas like law enforcement. Due to their occupation, police officers are likely to have formed biases along racial lines in the same manner as I described above in the Tamil hypothetical. In practice, such biases cannot help to lead to unfair treatment, as the likelihood of a black man being a criminal of some kind are both very low, and statistically indistinct from that of a white man. What we see in encounters like the Garner case is not racial hate leading to conscious violence; its racial assumptions coloring choices, in a situation where those choices have life-or-death implications. How much of a threat Eric Garner was in the moment is a split-second, intuitive assessment that those cops made, and it was undoubtedly informed by his race. I agree with Jason that the choke-hold specifically is not the beginning and end of the problem here. The entire interaction, from how a target was chosen, to how he was dealt with, to the behavior of the police in the aftermath, all of it was colored by racism, and it is very likely that, had he been a different race (all else being equal), he would probably still be alive.

Personally, I think every cop involved should have been indicted; they killed a man in an obviously excessive use of force. However, I don't think it was a hate crime at all; it's merely an unfortunate consequence of the continued existence of pervasive racism. Our responsibility regarding the racism aspect, socially, is to ensure the appropriate application of justice (we failed), and to continue to expose, examine and reject our own racist assumptions and attitudes.

Anyway, that's the long version of what I am talking about when I object to racism (some of what I'm talking about, anyway). To anyone who thinks I am ascribing conscious racial hatred to the them when they hear that term, I'm not. To those who think the term needs to change because its offensive; that's not up to me. As I said above, its how the term is used by the people who are the targets and victims of racism, along with a significant majority of those who aren't, but choose to be an active part of the dialogue. I would estimate that those who use the word exclusively to refer to explicit, ideological racists ala the Ku Klux Klan, are in an ever -shrinking minority, but that doesn't really matter. As long as its clear what I mean when I use the term, I'm okay to disagree about whether a new word is needed.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree. The human species is clearly divided into two races: pygmy and nonpygmy.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam, I read your comment with interest and in all fairness I have to say that I think you are mistaking entirely what jasonr and others are saying. Most of the details you mention about how people tend to categorize others, form bias, etc, can safely be placed in the "duh" column. These are not the points of contention most of us are bringing up. The definition of the word "racism" is more than just whether we conform to how you, Pyr, the President (according to you) and 'experts' use the word; it's about how you assess problems in America and go quite quickly to the "racism" short circuit when an event involves victim who is a visible minority. No one is saying there's no racism in America, but we do try to look at situations and determine what might have caused them without immediately resorting to calling anything we don't like racism.

For instance, people called the grand jury decision about the officer here direct evidence of racism. But if my analysis above is even close to accurate then it's nothing of the kind, and it would probably be wrong to indict the one officer alone. Do you see? Our issue isn't whether bias or racism exist; it's in our distaste for those who look for any excuse to frame a bad situation as having been caused by their chosen area of interest.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Adam, I read your comment with interest

Appreciated.

quote:
and in all fairness I have to say that I think you are mistaking entirely what jasonr and others are saying. Most of the details you mention about how people tend to categorize others, form bias, etc, can safely be placed in the "duh" column. These are not the points of contention most of us are bringing up.
Good to hear; I would only add that racism is a very significant category of bias because, unlike class or culture, the underlying groups don't actually exist; and, because racism is so tied to appearance, it tends to be the first form of discrimination we make, and the most pervasive.

quote:
The definition of the word "racism" is more than just whether we conform to how you, Pyr, the President (according to you) and 'experts' use the word;
Please note that the only significant group is the people who are subjected to racism. Pyr, I and others who share this usage, do so because its how victims of racism are using it. I've never made any appeal to "experts", only to an existing dialogue.

quote:
it's about how you assess problems in America and go quite quickly to the "racism" short circuit when an event involves victim who is a visible minority. No one is saying there's no racism in America, but we do try to look at situations and determine what might have caused them without immediately resorting to calling anything we don't like racism.
If you concede my description of how inherent bias works, how can there be *any* inter-racial interaction in which racism is not a factor? I (can't speak for others) have never claimed that these types of incident are *solely* caused by racism. In fact, I will happily concede that the militarization and accompanying mindset of police is much more to blame for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner than racism was.

What I and others *are* doing, are using these examples as proof of the existence of racism to those who deny it entirely (or seem to). And also to illustrate that racism is an unguent problem, to the extent that it was probably a deciding factor in the deaths of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and countless others. Instead of a dialogue about how racism might be reduced or eliminated as a factor in these unfortunate circumstances, there are an unfortunate number of people who will deny any racism at all in these situations, and furthermore, lionize the killers as some sort of counter-reaction. The responses to *that*, as you can imagine, are quite strong.

quote:


For instance, people called the grand jury decision about the officer here direct evidence of racism. But if my analysis above is even close to accurate then it's nothing of the kind, and it would probably be wrong to indict the one officer alone. Do you see? Our issue isn't whether bias or racism exist; it's in our distaste for those who look for any excuse to frame a bad situation as having been caused by their chosen area of interest.

I arrive at the opposite conclusion. Yes, its unjust that some of Eric Garner's killers weren't charged, but I fail to see how that reduces the officer in question's responsibility, or exonerates him in any way. They all should have been indicted, *including* the one who was charged. And again, its not that the failure to indict was exclusively caused by racism, its the fact that its one of countless examples of how justice is denied to people of color (one of the more obvious one), which is presented as part of a pattern that indicates racism.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam, believe it or not I don't disagree with anything you said.

I agree that the statistical chance of any one Tamil I meet on the street being an insurance fraudster is low.

Yet, if my experience is borne out in fact, statistically, one would expect to see a statistically significant greater percentage of Tamils being engaged in the motor vehicle accident litigation system.

If I pointed out that a Tamil is three times more likely than a non Tamil to commit insurance fraud based on statistics, is this a "racist" assumption? Is it "racist" that this is so?

I wasn't suggesting that in individual cases, racist or prejudiced assumptions could not be a factor in how specific groups are treated by police. What I was objecting to was Pyr's statement that the existence of statistical disparity between how different groups interact with the criminal justice system is a priori evidence of "racism". It could be related to racism, but to discount culture entirely as a factor is clearly wrong.

In the Tamil example, I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that racism isn't forcing Tamils to commit insurance fraud or bring questionable claims. An insurance lawyer, like a policeman, may come to interactions with this group with certain pre-conceived notions, (I will confess that I sometimes pre-judge Tamil claimants when I find out that they are Tamil) but it doesn't change the underlying fact that for some reason (almost certainly cultural) this group is engaging in certain behaviour that is leading to certain outcomes. This is not racist.

By the way, I'm not sure I agree with your statement about what happened to Garner being because of his race. It isn't obvious to me that the police treated him differently because he was black.

Now if he had been a pregnant woman, or a guy in business suit, sure I think their treatment would have been different and almost certainly better. But that's not necessarily pointing to a racial thing. Had Garner, for instance, been some sketchy white dude skulking around selling black market cigarettes (or accused of doing so) I'm not sure the outcome would have been different.

Personally, I think the police had a prior history with Garner, he was a known character to them and let's face it, he wasn't exactly in a high economic and social class. This wasn't because he was black. I don't know that I accept that his white equivalent would have gotten any better treatment.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you concede my description of how inherent bias works, how can there be *any* inter-racial interaction in which racism is not a factor?
It depends what you mean by "a factor" and what you mean by "racism". First off, I assume you are talking about racialism, not racism.

With that said, if you are suggesting that any interaction between different "races" engages in some way preconceived notions and prejudices, then I would tend to agree. However, "a factor" and "the primary or dominant factor" are not the same thing. Most water has a trace of arsenic, yet most water is safe and this is not meaningful or significant. The dosage makes the poison, as a chemist once told me.

If you are saying that racialism underlies all interactions in some way, then agreed. If you are saying that it *poisons* all interactions, then I am going to take issue with that.

If you are saying that racialism is the dominant driver in disparities between criminal convictions and other legal interactions, then I'm also going to take issue with that.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:

If you are saying that racialism underlies all interactions in some way, then agreed. If you are saying that it *poisons* all interactions, then I am going to take issue with that.


How about, "underlies all interactions in some way, which, as an aggregate, is a toxic and pernicious element in our society."?

quote:
If you are saying that racialism is the dominant driver in disparities between criminal convictions and other legal interactions, then I'm also going to take issue with that.
I am; the "dominant" qualifier makes it a question of opinion, but I think there is very good evidence to support that racism accounts for most, if not all, of the disparity.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How about, "underlies all interactions in some way, which, as an aggregate, is a toxic and pernicious element in our society."?
Well, again it depends on what specifically you are talking about. The original point made by Pyr was that the statistical disparities in incarceration rates were a priori evidence of racism. I made the point that there could be cultural reasons why one group is more likely to interact with the police than another (eg: commits more crimes). I stand by that.

I don't know what your comment is meant to address. In what context do you claim that racism is a "toxic and pernicious element" in our society.

quote:
I am; the "dominant" qualifier makes it a question of opinion, but I think there is very good evidence to support that racism accounts for most, if not all, of the disparity.
Such as?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
If you concede my description of how inherent bias works, how can there be *any* inter-racial interaction in which racism is not a factor? I (can't speak for others) have never claimed that these types of incident are *solely* caused by racism. In fact, I will happily concede that the militarization and accompanying mindset of police is much more to blame for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner than racism was.


While at first glance appearing to be a balance statement, the way in which you phrased this paragraph leads to big problems in communication. Let's go through a small series of steps and you'll see what I mean:

1) Humans tend always to form bias.
2) The bias over time becomes inherent.
3) Inherent bias (i.e. racism) therefore plays *some kind of part* in all interactions.
4) No interaction can therefore be said to be free of bias/racism.
5) ?

(5) is that bad part, because (5) is the part where a black man is killed, someone says "this is proof of racism", and where when evidence of racism is requested your chain of reasoning simply states that since racism permeates all human interaction that therefore racism had to be at play in death of the black man, a priori.

Do you see how destructive this type of tautology is to the process of reasoning? It actually smacks of being Orwellian in its tone, but at the very least it will result in false smokescreens about the relevance of your claims. "The death involved racism; it had to, all human events involve racism." That sounds very compelling, and could even make people outraged, except for the fact that it exists outside of the realm of inspecting the actual facts of a given case. You can make that same claim knowing zero about a case. "I don't have to know anything, it definitely involved racism." I know you wouldn't want to make such a claim, and so we assume you wouldn't say that and we instead request direct evidence in a given case that racism was a relevant (or even dominant) factor.

Simply saying that racism was involved helps no one, and unless you can demonstrate that the event in question never would have happened at all except for racism's presence then bringing up the racism angle just incites anger and that's what is called 'race-baiting.'

Do you see my point? What you really need to avoid is making tautological statements and allowing yourself to apply the tautology a priori to all cases involving different 'races'. And then there's Pyr's version of the tautology, wherein all disparity between people of different races is racism by definition, and that therefore any interaction between people of the underprivileged group and others must therefore also involve racism since it defines the difference between them.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The mendacity of the left over what is called "racist" appears when one points to racial effects of treasured leftist institutions.

Try saying that child support laws are racist, or that domestic violence laws are racist. Ludicrous right? But clearly there are more black Americans jailed for such offenses than whites, and this discrepancy occurs because of our nation's racial history where slavery and Jim crow systematically broke up black families and created cultural expectatiosnre fatherhood. By the standards that lefties claim other laws "racist" (I.e.there is a racial difference in effect based on history) do.estic violence laws are "racist"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Try saying that child support laws are racist, or that domestic violence laws are racist. Ludicrous right? But clearly there are more black Americans jailed for such offenses than whites

You are confusing the difference between a law that is racist on its face, vs a law that is racist in application. When people speak of the inherent racism of the Justice System, they are usually referring to the latter. It is perfectly possible to believe that the intent of a law is good, while the application is not.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Lassek:
quote:

Try saying that child support laws are racist, or that domestic violence laws are racist. Ludicrous right? But clearly there are more black Americans jailed for such offenses than whites

You are confusing the difference between a law that is racist on its face, vs a law that is racist in application. When people speak of the inherent racism of the Justice System, they are usually referring to the latter. It is perfectly possible to believe that the intent of a law is good, while the application is not.
You are confusing this argument with another one.

That's a useful distinction for an entirely different argument.

In this argument, all of the laws we are talking about are being called "racist" in application.

The problem is, removal of the law would be even more harmfully racist.

Take, for example, Stand Your Ground, which is pitched as intentionally racist but in fact merely restores the common law of self defense to what it was before 20th century jurists eroded it.

Lefties shriek that the law is RACIST IN APPLICATION because a disproportionate number of blacks are killed and their killers not sent to prison because of SYG. But hold just astinking minute, lefties. SYG also benefits a disproportionate number of minorities, particularly black defendants. Furthermore, most defendants who use SYG didn't plan out their killing with SYG in mind. In application, SYG keeps more blacks out of prison than it causes harm to.

Take crack cocaine. I used to think it was racist in application to prosecute crack 4x more than ordinary cocaine. Then I got to know users of both drugs and got to see what they did to the community. I am not convinced than prosecution of crack offenses has harmed the black community as much as crack itself. It's quite possible that treating crack like ordinary cocaine might have resulted in MORE, not less harm to black communities. I don't know if we have enough info to say which route would be more racist in its effect.

I do know that meth is punished 4x as much as Meth on the federal books, but no one calls those laws anti-white.

I am not convinced that the race dialog makes the drug law conundrum any easier to solve.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1