(08-31-2016 12:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 11:17 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 04:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 04:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 03:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  On this we can agree.

Then why the thread and your other posts.

Can you be more specific?

Is this thread specific enough?

It's Fitbud. You need to slowly draw it in crayon for him to understand.

Aw look, another personal attack. How cute.

(08-31-2016 01:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 11:17 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 04:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 04:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Then why the thread and your other posts.

Can you be more specific?

Is this thread specific enough?

It's Fitbud. You need to slowly draw it in crayon for him to understand.

Aw look, another personal attack. How cute.

Perhaps it's time for some personal reflection when a statement of fact feels like a personal attack. If you insist on playing dumb then don't get upset when you are treated like an idiot.

(08-31-2016 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted the thread to start a discussion. I never gave my opinion.

(08-30-2016 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's my understanding by some of the law enforcement experts in this forum that racial profiling is good police work. Isn't it possible that this cop was doing that?

I think you very clearly did.... Only your opinion was directed at the forum, not at the article you posted...

and then you complain about personal attacks in response? C'mon

(08-31-2016 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted the thread to start a discussion. I never gave my opinion.

(08-30-2016 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's my understanding by some of the law enforcement experts in this forum that racial profiling is good police work. Isn't it possible that this cop was doing that?

I think you very clearly did.... Only your opinion was directed at the forum, not at the article you posted...

and then you complain about personal attacks in response? C'mon

(08-31-2016 01:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 01:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 11:17 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 04:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Can you be more specific?

Is this thread specific enough?

It's Fitbud. You need to slowly draw it in crayon for him to understand.

Aw look, another personal attack. How cute.

Perhaps it's time for some personal reflection when a statement of fact feels like a personal attack. If you insist on playing dumb then don't get upset when you are treated like an idiot.

indeed.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-30-2016 11:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 11:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  That sucks. Interesting the "black man" part had to be there when it more than likely had nothing to do with the situation.

What makes you think that?

What makes you think the opposite? Just saying it may have very well been just a very unfortunate incident. But by placing the "black man" part in there it's just adding more fuel to the fire, etc. Again, could be just another example of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

The article would never have been posted by a liberal otherwise. Only the "Agenda" counts. You will see a barage of these "Agendas" between now and the Election. That's How They roll to get out Their voting base. Afterwards..............Chirp, Chirp...Crickets..... until the Midterms.

Well there was one in Atlanta. Black man called 911 because an ex-boyfriend was threatening him and his girlfriend with a knife. Police came, shot the man's dog, broke in the door and shot and killed the caller (he was still on the phone) as he came out of the bedroom with a gun in his hand (since he thought it was the ex-boyfriend coming back). Officers were also Black. Disputed testimony as to whether they gave warning before kicking the door in. Since it was Black officers, not as much controversy.

That was a couple of months after another area situation. 911 call about a guy with a gun (that may have been a prank). Police go to the wrong house, a 68 year old man's home. He sees people with flashlights looking around his house. Comes out with his rifle. Police shoot and kill him. But he was white, so no outrage.

(08-31-2016 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted the thread to start a discussion. I never gave my opinion.

(08-30-2016 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's my understanding by some of the law enforcement experts in this forum that racial profiling is good police work. Isn't it possible that this cop was doing that?

I think you very clearly did.... Only your opinion was directed at the forum, not at the article you posted...

and then you complain about personal attacks in response? C'mon

I wasn't complaining. I was simply pointing it out.

(09-01-2016 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted the thread to start a discussion. I never gave my opinion.

(08-30-2016 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's my understanding by some of the law enforcement experts in this forum that racial profiling is good police work. Isn't it possible that this cop was doing that?

I think you very clearly did.... Only your opinion was directed at the forum, not at the article you posted...

and then you complain about personal attacks in response? C'mon

I wasn't complaining. I was simply pointing it out.

would it make any difference if I said...

You very obviously attempted to cast aspersions at people on this board whom you consider to be 'the law enforcement experts in this forum' by so obviously misrepresenting what anyone has ever said... and then 'pointed out' that some found your comment to be exactly as offensive as you intended it to be and responded?

Is that better?

I didn't complain either... I just pointed out that making such a dismissive comment about people, even generically is often going to merit the very response you intended when you made the comment.

It's called 'baiting'.

(09-01-2016 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted the thread to start a discussion. I never gave my opinion.

(08-30-2016 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's my understanding by some of the law enforcement experts in this forum that racial profiling is good police work. Isn't it possible that this cop was doing that?

I think you very clearly did.... Only your opinion was directed at the forum, not at the article you posted...

and then you complain about personal attacks in response? C'mon

I wasn't complaining. I was simply pointing it out.

would it make any difference if I said...

You very obviously attempted to cast aspersions at people on this board whom you consider to be 'the law enforcement experts in this forum' by so obviously misrepresenting what anyone has ever said... and then 'pointed out' that some found your comment to be exactly as offensive as you intended it to be and responded?

Is that better?

I didn't complain either... I just pointed out that making such a dismissive comment about people, even generically is often going to merit the very response you intended when you made the comment.

It's called 'baiting'.

That wasn't my intention. I simply expect people to support their position and be consistent. People on this forum have in fact said that racial profiling as not only good policy but a necessary one.

(09-01-2016 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-01-2016 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I posted the thread to start a discussion. I never gave my opinion.

(08-30-2016 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's my understanding by some of the law enforcement experts in this forum that racial profiling is good police work. Isn't it possible that this cop was doing that?

I think you very clearly did.... Only your opinion was directed at the forum, not at the article you posted...

and then you complain about personal attacks in response? C'mon

I wasn't complaining. I was simply pointing it out.

would it make any difference if I said...

You very obviously attempted to cast aspersions at people on this board whom you consider to be 'the law enforcement experts in this forum' by so obviously misrepresenting what anyone has ever said... and then 'pointed out' that some found your comment to be exactly as offensive as you intended it to be and responded?

Is that better?

I didn't complain either... I just pointed out that making such a dismissive comment about people, even generically is often going to merit the very response you intended when you made the comment.

It's called 'baiting'.

That wasn't my intention. I simply expect people to support their position and be consistent. People on this forum have in fact said that racial profiling as not only good policy but a necessary one.

Who said that when?

Yeah fit.... that's not even remotely true

What you're doing is taking what people have said.... That RACE and GENDER and other things like that ARE differentiating characteristics... i.e. if you're looking for an old white woman, there is no need to stop a young black man... and that IS in some ways, racial, gender and age profiling... but not in the way you're trying to imply.

NOBODY has seriously said that since young black men statistically account for most crimes, police should randomly stop all young black men just on general principles. THAT is the sort of racial profiling you're implying.... and none of us have suggested that such a thing is appropriate.

That isn't in evidence here.

The police were told to be on the lookout for a black man with a gun ON the premises... They arrived and found one.

Race is one of MANY differentiating characteristics that would go into ANY reasonable attempt to narrow a suspect pool. That is far more scientific than the simple examples you like to imply. WHy are you against science?

(09-01-2016 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That wasn't my intention. I simply expect people to support their position and be consistent. People on this forum have in fact said that racial profiling as not only good policy but a necessary one.

(09-01-2016 11:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah fit.... that's not even remotely true

What you're doing is taking what people have said.... That RACE and GENDER and other things like that ARE differentiating characteristics... i.e. if you're looking for an old white woman, there is no need to stop a young black man... and that IS in some ways, racial, gender and age profiling... but not in the way you're trying to imply.

NOBODY has seriously said that since young black men statistically account for most crimes, police should randomly stop all young black men just on general principles. THAT is the sort of racial profiling you're implying.... and none of us have suggested that such a thing is appropriate.

That isn't in evidence here.

The police were told to be on the lookout for a black man with a gun ON the premises... They arrived and found one.

Race is one of MANY differentiating characteristics that would go into ANY reasonable attempt to narrow a suspect pool. That is far more scientific than the simple examples you like to imply. WHy are you against science?

This

Can we say that maybe, just maybe police, no matter the color need to acknowledge that they sometimes do wrong and people, no matter the color, need to acknowledge that they sometimes do wrong?

A little self-reflection on both sides may go a long way.

(09-02-2016 02:25 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Can we say that maybe, just maybe police, no matter the color need to acknowledge that they sometimes do wrong and people, no matter the color, need to acknowledge that they sometimes do wrong?

A little self-reflection on both sides may go a long way.

That's never going to happen.