In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Like I said, the investigations into the departments are a lot more illuminating than the cases on officers themselves.
In Ferguson, Missouri, bias has been so pervasive that city officials sometimes used racial slurs in their emails. President Barack Obama would not stay in office, wrote one city official, since “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” Black residents were twice as likely as whites to be searched during a routine traffic stop, although they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. African-Americans make up 67 percent of the city’s population but constitute 93 percent of its arrests.
Municipal courts heavily favored whites in deciding if cases would be dismissed. And the city used heavy fines to send many impoverished black residents to jail, part of a system that created a debtors’ prison. Those were among the harsh findings of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation set to be released Wednesday whose contents were previewed to POLITICO by a source familiar with the investigation.
A law enforcement official familiar with the department’s civil rights probe found that the FPD frequently conducted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and arrested individuals without probable cause.
The source also said that the investigation found Ferguson police routinely employed excessive force and violated the free speech rights of the accused.
The investigation found multiple violations by police of Ferguson residents’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as significant racial bias within the largely-white force in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to violations by police, the DOJ focused on the city’s municipal court system, which amassed revenue through excessive ticketing of residents living in or near poverty. The investigation alleges that this practice encouraged police misconduct.
Over 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding arrest warrants, the majority of which were the result of cases involving minor traffic or housing code violations.
On March 04 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Like I said, the investigations into the departments are a lot more illuminating than the cases on officers themselves.
In Ferguson, Missouri, bias has been so pervasive that city officials sometimes used racial slurs in their emails. President Barack Obama would not stay in office, wrote one city official, since “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” Black residents were twice as likely as whites to be searched during a routine traffic stop, although they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. African-Americans make up 67 percent of the city’s population but constitute 93 percent of its arrests.
Municipal courts heavily favored whites in deciding if cases would be dismissed. And the city used heavy fines to send many impoverished black residents to jail, part of a system that created a debtors’ prison. Those were among the harsh findings of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation set to be released Wednesday whose contents were previewed to POLITICO by a source familiar with the investigation.
A law enforcement official familiar with the department’s civil rights probe found that the FPD frequently conducted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and arrested individuals without probable cause.
The source also said that the investigation found Ferguson police routinely employed excessive force and violated the free speech rights of the accused.
The investigation found multiple violations by police of Ferguson residents’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as significant racial bias within the largely-white force in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to violations by police, the DOJ focused on the city’s municipal court system, which amassed revenue through excessive ticketing of residents living in or near poverty. The investigation alleges that this practice encouraged police misconduct.
Over 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding arrest warrants, the majority of which were the result of cases involving minor traffic or housing code violations.
While you were on point in highlighting the differences in treatment between black and white citizens in Ferguson, I feel like you really should have emphasized the first part where city officials are using racial slurs in e-mail and speaking badly about President Obama based on their racial prejudices. WTF is up with that.
On March 04 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Like I said, the investigations into the departments are a lot more illuminating than the cases on officers themselves.
In Ferguson, Missouri, bias has been so pervasive that city officials sometimes used racial slurs in their emails. President Barack Obama would not stay in office, wrote one city official, since “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” Black residents were twice as likely as whites to be searched during a routine traffic stop, although they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. African-Americans make up 67 percent of the city’s population but constitute 93 percent of its arrests.
Municipal courts heavily favored whites in deciding if cases would be dismissed. And the city used heavy fines to send many impoverished black residents to jail, part of a system that created a debtors’ prison. Those were among the harsh findings of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation set to be released Wednesday whose contents were previewed to POLITICO by a source familiar with the investigation.
A law enforcement official familiar with the department’s civil rights probe found that the FPD frequently conducted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and arrested individuals without probable cause.
The source also said that the investigation found Ferguson police routinely employed excessive force and violated the free speech rights of the accused.
The investigation found multiple violations by police of Ferguson residents’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as significant racial bias within the largely-white force in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to violations by police, the DOJ focused on the city’s municipal court system, which amassed revenue through excessive ticketing of residents living in or near poverty. The investigation alleges that this practice encouraged police misconduct.
Over 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding arrest warrants, the majority of which were the result of cases involving minor traffic or housing code violations.
While you were on point in highlighting the differences in treatment between black and white citizens in Ferguson, I feel like you really should have emphasized the first part where city officials are using racial slurs in e-mail and speaking badly about President Obama based on their racial prejudices. WTF is up with that.
Well as a black American who has had their civil rights violated before, I found the systematic and flagrant abuse of American's (especially black American's) civil and constitutional rights a bit more important than typical right wing chain email rhetoric.
I presume the conservatives are just about to rally behind the black population of Ferguson and elsewhere across the country as the government (the police) have been so egregiously violating the constitutional rights we all hold so dear? I presume they would support more reviews of other departments that have high rates of similar complaints to Ferguson?
I'm sure conservatives must have something to say about such blatant abuse of Americans at the hands of the government?
On March 04 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Like I said, the investigations into the departments are a lot more illuminating than the cases on officers themselves.
In Ferguson, Missouri, bias has been so pervasive that city officials sometimes used racial slurs in their emails. President Barack Obama would not stay in office, wrote one city official, since “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” Black residents were twice as likely as whites to be searched during a routine traffic stop, although they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. African-Americans make up 67 percent of the city’s population but constitute 93 percent of its arrests.
Municipal courts heavily favored whites in deciding if cases would be dismissed. And the city used heavy fines to send many impoverished black residents to jail, part of a system that created a debtors’ prison. Those were among the harsh findings of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation set to be released Wednesday whose contents were previewed to POLITICO by a source familiar with the investigation.
A law enforcement official familiar with the department’s civil rights probe found that the FPD frequently conducted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and arrested individuals without probable cause.
The source also said that the investigation found Ferguson police routinely employed excessive force and violated the free speech rights of the accused.
The investigation found multiple violations by police of Ferguson residents’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as significant racial bias within the largely-white force in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to violations by police, the DOJ focused on the city’s municipal court system, which amassed revenue through excessive ticketing of residents living in or near poverty. The investigation alleges that this practice encouraged police misconduct.
Over 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding arrest warrants, the majority of which were the result of cases involving minor traffic or housing code violations.
While you were on point in highlighting the differences in treatment between black and white citizens in Ferguson, I feel like you really should have emphasized the first part where city officials are using racial slurs in e-mail and speaking badly about President Obama based on their racial prejudices. WTF is up with that.
Well as a black American who has had their civil rights violated before, I found the systematic and flagrant abuse of American's (especially black American's) civil and constitutional rights a bit more important than typical right wing chain email rhetoric.
I presume the conservatives are just about to rally behind the black population of Ferguson and elsewhere across the country as the government (the police) have been so egregiously violating the constitutional rights we all hold so dear? I presume they would support more reviews of other departments that have high rates of similar complaints to Ferguson?
I'm sure conservatives must have something to say about such blatant abuse of Americans at the hands of the government?
Do you really see this as a strictly partisan issue? That right-wing people typically use racist language in e-mail chains and don't care about police abuses?
I think you could write the same report submitting New York City, San Francisco, or any "liberal" city and it would be just as believable that the police are biased and abuse the rights of black citizens. This thing cuts in a lot of different directions and there's plenty of blame to go around for liberals and left-wingers too.
EDIT: BTW, the e-mail chain is important because it makes the racism undeniable. People make the case that it isn't necessarily racist when we are just looking at arrest records, since crime wouldn't necessarily be representative by groups. But when the police use their work e-mail nominally for official government business to send racist jokes, it indicates that the problem runs very deep.
Protip for you young people out there - don't send anything on work e-mail that you would be embarrassed to read out loud to your boss or to strangers. You'd be shocked at how many working professionals don't know this.
Former CIA head David Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges for sharing detailed log books containing top secret codes and classified notes from his discussions with US President Barack Obama with a former lover and biographer, according to court documents filed on Tuesday.
Although the former general appears likely to escape prison, the move adds another grim chapter to the very public downfall of one of the US’s most celebrated military leaders.
"Grim chapter", "very public downfall". For a man who will never see a day behind bars and pay a slap-on-the-wrist fine.
According to documents filed on Tuesday with a US district court in North Carolina, Mr Petraeus agreed on February 22 to plead guilty to one count of unauthorised removal and retention of classified materials to bring an end to the investigation.
The maximum punishment for that is one year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine. But according to court documents prosecutors have recommended that Mr Petraeus face just a $40,000 fine and two years of probation.
Since stepping down from the CIA, Mr Petraeus has taught at a university and worked for the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.
In a statement, KKR said: “Since joining the firm in 2013, David Petraeus has made valuable contributions to KKR, and his work has benefited our investors. We look forward to working with him as he continues to add value as chairman of the KKR Global Institute.”
His real punishment is he can never get a political job or get a job requiring trust from clients (e.g. making investment decisions at KKR, starting his own investment or consulting firm). I'd guess this was a political snipe from on high, that someone found out he was going to get a promotion or start his own firm and wanted to cut him off at the knees. In the Wire, this is the equivalent to putting McNulty on the boat.
On March 04 2015 14:31 Slaughter wrote: 16k out of the 21k residents have outstanding warrants? Lol wtf.
That's a shocking statistic. Along the same lines I saw an article saying Ferguson had 40k outstanding warrants, almost 2 for every resident. I wonder why the population there feels the police are an oppressive force?
On March 04 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Like I said, the investigations into the departments are a lot more illuminating than the cases on officers themselves.
In Ferguson, Missouri, bias has been so pervasive that city officials sometimes used racial slurs in their emails. President Barack Obama would not stay in office, wrote one city official, since “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” Black residents were twice as likely as whites to be searched during a routine traffic stop, although they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. African-Americans make up 67 percent of the city’s population but constitute 93 percent of its arrests.
Municipal courts heavily favored whites in deciding if cases would be dismissed. And the city used heavy fines to send many impoverished black residents to jail, part of a system that created a debtors’ prison. Those were among the harsh findings of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation set to be released Wednesday whose contents were previewed to POLITICO by a source familiar with the investigation.
A law enforcement official familiar with the department’s civil rights probe found that the FPD frequently conducted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and arrested individuals without probable cause.
The source also said that the investigation found Ferguson police routinely employed excessive force and violated the free speech rights of the accused.
The investigation found multiple violations by police of Ferguson residents’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as significant racial bias within the largely-white force in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to violations by police, the DOJ focused on the city’s municipal court system, which amassed revenue through excessive ticketing of residents living in or near poverty. The investigation alleges that this practice encouraged police misconduct.
Over 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding arrest warrants, the majority of which were the result of cases involving minor traffic or housing code violations.
While you were on point in highlighting the differences in treatment between black and white citizens in Ferguson, I feel like you really should have emphasized the first part where city officials are using racial slurs in e-mail and speaking badly about President Obama based on their racial prejudices. WTF is up with that.
Well as a black American who has had their civil rights violated before, I found the systematic and flagrant abuse of American's (especially black American's) civil and constitutional rights a bit more important than typical right wing chain email rhetoric.
I presume the conservatives are just about to rally behind the black population of Ferguson and elsewhere across the country as the government (the police) have been so egregiously violating the constitutional rights we all hold so dear? I presume they would support more reviews of other departments that have high rates of similar complaints to Ferguson?
I'm sure conservatives must have something to say about such blatant abuse of Americans at the hands of the government?
Do you really see this as a strictly partisan issue? That right-wing people typically use racist language in e-mail chains and don't care about police abuses?
I think you could write the same report submitting New York City, San Francisco, or any "liberal" city and it would be just as believable that the police are biased and abuse the rights of black citizens. This thing cuts in a lot of different directions and there's plenty of blame to go around for liberals and left-wingers too.
EDIT: BTW, the e-mail chain is important because it makes the racism undeniable. People make the case that it isn't necessarily racist when we are just looking at arrest records, since crime wouldn't necessarily be representative by groups. But when the police use their work e-mail nominally for official government business to send racist jokes, it indicates that the problem runs very deep.
Protip for you young people out there - don't send anything on work e-mail that you would be embarrassed to read out loud to your boss or to strangers. You'd be shocked at how many working professionals don't know this.
Of course it isn't strictly partisan.
I'm not trying to blame anyone (beyond those directly responsible) at the moment. I am just waiting for conservatives (especially the lawyers) to rally behind making sure all Americans are entitled to their Constitutional rights. I have seen outrage after outrage over just about every bit of the Constitution being violated by just about every piece of government, now we have pretty clear indications of the rights of American's being repeatedly stripped and abused by an overzealous racially influenced police force.
As for other cities, I've been critical of stop and frisk realities too. Clearly a different manifestation of the same problem. Versions of stop and frisk have been used all over the country to do the same things they were doing in Ferguson. It wasn't/isn't commonplace liberals defending those practices and those statistics as not being emblematic of racial issues with the police/justice system (although some officials of both stripes have sided with their police, despite damning revelations).
The point is, anyone who actually gives a shit about the Constitution and due process should be pretty upset about this and the pattern seen elsewhere. I'm just waiting to hear some of that conservative anger about violating the Constitution and American's 1st/4th/14th amendment rights. Some of the anger about police arresting people without probable cause and stopping and searching them without reasonable suspicion. Possibly some anger about the FPD (and others) placing more emphasis on revenue generating offenses than public safety, etc...
Maybe even some support for further investigations into the police departments and municipal judicial systems?
I have a hard time imagining why conservatives wouldn't support doing something (anything) about the massive pattern of (at least the suspicion of [confirmed in Ferguson]) Constitutional violations against individual citizens.
EDIT: Maybe something about how it kind of makes sense why black people would be skeptical of local justice systems too? Probably asking for too much though?
On March 04 2015 18:57 coverpunch wrote: Is there some specific conservative that you have in mind? You're being so vague that you could always be unsatisfied with their reaction.
Just the ones that actually care about American's Constitutional rights.
Even on second viewing, I'm surprised at the Democrats joining Republicans in standing ovations as Netanyahu hits point after point about Iranian aggression, terrorism, and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel. Maybe 50-60 Democrats boycotting, but a packed house nonetheless. It is heartening to see so many Democrats cheering Netanyahu even as their president signals appeasement.
Not as covered, but I think prescient, was his comments on ISIS and Iran. It's just about dividing the fat jihad pie. Will it be their Islamic state or Iran's Islamic republic.
Who the hell blows up a mock US aircraft carrier while they're having negotiations about their nuclear program? Iran does. These negotiations are paving the way towards Iran getting the bomb. Again, I urge readers to watch the movie and hear their same arguments frankly addressed and slapped down. Iran keeps its nuclear program, and gets even negotiated restrictions removed in a decade. The easiest explanation is that Obama is relatively prepared for a nuclear-armed Iran.
The question is how does no deal make anything better? Or make Iran any less likely to get a nuke?
As soon as you realize in negotiations that any deal will involve continued enrichment, you don't go further beyond talk towards settling agreements.
I'm only engaging here because I've heard the same lines from others. In deal no-deal, you have to have something you want on the table. In dealing with a state sponsor of terror and radical Islamist regime, there's also certain things you aren't prepared to give up. If they aren't willing to stop their nuclear program and demand you agree to sit idly by while it proceeds, you're at an impasse. How's no deal make things better? The preexisting state is heaps better. You're not waving the white flag as they proceed like you're not even there. This is what Netanyahu references with "paving the way" to the bomb. Western nations grant legitimacy as Iran attains its goals.
Maybe Iran will proceed towards nuclear weapons and ICBMS, through everything except direct military action. Let's not pretend holding their hands through the 50%, 75%, and 90% to the bomb will gain for us some surprise choice to abandon Jihad, or keep them from evading inspections and violating agreements. Chamberlain had a deal and might ask his critics too, "How does no deal make things better?" When you're dealing with a belligerent and crafty regime, don't make false optimism the face of the state department. It's a timetable to confrontation and the right move is to join with your allies in determining when and how to threaten force and actually use force. I think Iran knows Obama is unwilling to wield the big stick, and is entirely consumed with speaking softly. I think Netanyahu knows too.
Even on second viewing, I'm surprised at the Democrats joining Republicans in standing ovations as Netanyahu hits point after point about Iranian aggression, terrorism, and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel. Maybe 50-60 Democrats boycotting, but a packed house nonetheless. It is heartening to see so many Democrats cheering Netanyahu even as their president signals appeasement.
Not as covered, but I think prescient, was his comments on ISIS and Iran. It's just about dividing the fat jihad pie. Will it be their Islamic state or Iran's Islamic republic.
Who the hell blows up a mock US aircraft carrier while they're having negotiations about their nuclear program? Iran does. These negotiations are paving the way towards Iran getting the bomb. Again, I urge readers to watch the movie and hear their same arguments frankly addressed and slapped down. Iran keeps its nuclear program, and gets even negotiated restrictions removed in a decade. The easiest explanation is that Obama is relatively prepared for a nuclear-armed Iran.
The question is how does no deal make anything better? Or make Iran any less likely to get a nuke?
As soon as you realize in negotiations that any deal will involve continued enrichment, you don't go further beyond talk towards settling agreements.
I'm only engaging here because I've heard the same lines from others. In deal no-deal, you have to have something you want on the table. In dealing with a state sponsor of terror and radical Islamist regime, there's also certain things you aren't prepared to give up. If they aren't willing to stop their nuclear program and demand you agree to sit idly by while it proceeds, you're at an impasse. How's no deal make things better? The preexisting state is heaps better. You're not waving the white flag as they proceed like you're not even there. This is what Netanyahu references with "paving the way" to the bomb. Western nations grant legitimacy as Iran attains its goals.
Maybe Iran will proceed towards nuclear weapons and ICBMS, through everything except direct military action. Let's not pretend holding their hands through the 50%, 75%, and 90% to the bomb will gain for us some surprise choice to abandon Jihad, or keep them from evading inspections and violating agreements. Chamberlain had a deal and might ask his critics too, "How does no deal make things better?" When you're dealing with a belligerent and crafty regime, don't make false optimism the face of the state department. It's a timetable to confrontation and the right move is to join with your allies in determining when and how to threaten force and actually use force. I think Iran knows Obama is unwilling to wield the big stick, and is entirely consumed with speaking softly. I think Netanyahu knows too.
There is nothing to indicate they wouldn't proceed toward a weapon absent a deal. It's also not as if Obama already committed to anything. If there isn't a deal that is acceptable to us Obama very well may say no-deal. Since completely stopping enrichment is the only acceptable deal for Bibi (and republicans) and is a non-starter for Iran (it would be signing their own death warrant) it's clear any deal will be unacceptable to Bibi and republicans. Luckily those trying to invade another middle eastern country (as if anything short of making Iraq New New Mexico would actually make things any more stable) don't have the final say.
continued enrichment at the 5% level is basically harmless. i don't see how this is a huge concession to give especially because iran has perfectly legitimate interest in pursuing energy and research nuclear reactors under the NPT.
The Obama-Netanyahu dynamic is quite interesting. On the one hand it's refreshing to see an American leader so strongly retain his own convictions in the face on an incredibly powerful Jewish lobby, on the other I understand Netanyahu's perspective and the nationalist agenda he pursues, which would undoubtedly be more strongly supported by a president from the current GOP.
I'm with the republicans here. We need to stop Isran from getting more nuclear weapons. We don't want genocidal religious extremists to have nukes in the middle east.
On March 05 2015 01:07 Jormundr wrote: I'm with the republicans here. We need to stop Isran from getting more nuclear weapons. We don't want genocidal religious extremists to have nukes in the middle east.
On March 04 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Like I said, the investigations into the departments are a lot more illuminating than the cases on officers themselves.
In Ferguson, Missouri, bias has been so pervasive that city officials sometimes used racial slurs in their emails. President Barack Obama would not stay in office, wrote one city official, since “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” Black residents were twice as likely as whites to be searched during a routine traffic stop, although they were 26 percent less likely to carry contraband. African-Americans make up 67 percent of the city’s population but constitute 93 percent of its arrests.
Municipal courts heavily favored whites in deciding if cases would be dismissed. And the city used heavy fines to send many impoverished black residents to jail, part of a system that created a debtors’ prison. Those were among the harsh findings of a Department of Justice civil rights investigation set to be released Wednesday whose contents were previewed to POLITICO by a source familiar with the investigation.
A law enforcement official familiar with the department’s civil rights probe found that the FPD frequently conducted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and arrested individuals without probable cause.
The source also said that the investigation found Ferguson police routinely employed excessive force and violated the free speech rights of the accused.
The investigation found multiple violations by police of Ferguson residents’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as significant racial bias within the largely-white force in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to violations by police, the DOJ focused on the city’s municipal court system, which amassed revenue through excessive ticketing of residents living in or near poverty. The investigation alleges that this practice encouraged police misconduct.
Over 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding arrest warrants, the majority of which were the result of cases involving minor traffic or housing code violations.
While you were on point in highlighting the differences in treatment between black and white citizens in Ferguson, I feel like you really should have emphasized the first part where city officials are using racial slurs in e-mail and speaking badly about President Obama based on their racial prejudices. WTF is up with that.
Well as a black American who has had their civil rights violated before, I found the systematic and flagrant abuse of American's (especially black American's) civil and constitutional rights a bit more important than typical right wing chain email rhetoric.
I presume the conservatives are just about to rally behind the black population of Ferguson and elsewhere across the country as the government (the police) have been so egregiously violating the constitutional rights we all hold so dear? I presume they would support more reviews of other departments that have high rates of similar complaints to Ferguson?
I'm sure conservatives must have something to say about such blatant abuse of Americans at the hands of the government?
Do you really see this as a strictly partisan issue? That right-wing people typically use racist language in e-mail chains and don't care about police abuses?
I think you could write the same report submitting New York City, San Francisco, or any "liberal" city and it would be just as believable that the police are biased and abuse the rights of black citizens. This thing cuts in a lot of different directions and there's plenty of blame to go around for liberals and left-wingers too.
EDIT: BTW, the e-mail chain is important because it makes the racism undeniable. People make the case that it isn't necessarily racist when we are just looking at arrest records, since crime wouldn't necessarily be representative by groups. But when the police use their work e-mail nominally for official government business to send racist jokes, it indicates that the problem runs very deep.
Protip for you young people out there - don't send anything on work e-mail that you would be embarrassed to read out loud to your boss or to strangers. You'd be shocked at how many working professionals don't know this.
Of course it isn't strictly partisan.
I'm not trying to blame anyone (beyond those directly responsible) at the moment. I am just waiting for conservatives (especially the lawyers) to rally behind making sure all Americans are entitled to their Constitutional rights. I have seen outrage after outrage over just about every bit of the Constitution being violated by just about every piece of government, now we have pretty clear indications of the rights of American's being repeatedly stripped and abused by an overzealous racially influenced police force.
As for other cities, I've been critical of stop and frisk realities too. Clearly a different manifestation of the same problem. Versions of stop and frisk have been used all over the country to do the same things they were doing in Ferguson. It wasn't/isn't commonplace liberals defending those practices and those statistics as not being emblematic of racial issues with the police/justice system (although some officials of both stripes have sided with their police, despite damning revelations).
The point is, anyone who actually gives a shit about the Constitution and due process should be pretty upset about this and the pattern seen elsewhere. I'm just waiting to hear some of that conservative anger about violating the Constitution and American's 1st/4th/14th amendment rights. Some of the anger about police arresting people without probable cause and stopping and searching them without reasonable suspicion. Possibly some anger about the FPD (and others) placing more emphasis on revenue generating offenses than public safety, etc...
Maybe even some support for further investigations into the police departments and municipal judicial systems?
I have a hard time imagining why conservatives wouldn't support doing something (anything) about the massive pattern of (at least the suspicion of [confirmed in Ferguson]) Constitutional violations against individual citizens.
EDIT: Maybe something about how it kind of makes sense why black people would be skeptical of local justice systems too? Probably asking for too much though?
Is it shocking that as a conservative I agree with you?
On March 05 2015 01:07 Jormundr wrote: I'm with the republicans here. We need to stop Isran from getting more nuclear weapons. We don't want genocidal religious extremists to have nukes in the middle east.
EPT
