Hillary's criminal justice platform

So Hillary rolls out a criminal justice platform:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ocaine-distinction/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_politics

While I in general would support a ban on racial profiling, I am concerned in how it would be enforced. I am concerned that if a city has 40% of it's population of a certain race, then the justice department might use this law to go after them if the stops, arrests and convictions for that racial group are over 40% of the stops, arrests or convictions for the city.

If crimes are being reported in parts of the city that are predominantly made up of a certain racial group, it would stand to reason that racial group would be stopped, arrested and convicted more frequently. At least it seems that way to me.

On the other hand, it would suck to be a minority and always be the one to get stopped and/or arrested by he police just because of the color of your skin. This happens, and I don't really think it should happen.

 

People profile. Period. It's human nature.

 

Um if you are a minority or majority... if you keep getting stopped/arrested by cops then maybe its time to look at the cause of such confrontations.
Hamstringing law enforcement to not do their job doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 

Baltimore got what they wanted didn't they? Crime went up some 40% IIRC, and then people started bitching that the cops weren't doing thier job.

I'm curious, if you are a patrolman working a nieghborhood that is say 90% black, are you racial profiling everytime you stop a black person?

 

Well, it looks like they are sampling now and the information suggest that it is indeed not a good thing but that never stopped an idealistic reactive-measure to move forward.

 

OK, so to put a more personal spin on this, my wife and her co-workers (federal employees) are going into a federal building, but not their workplace. They are all professionals, professionally dressed and American citizens. Guess who's backpack /briefcase always gets rifled through at security? Guess who always gets extra scrutiny of their ID badge? It isn't any of the folks of European descent. My wife finds it embarrassing that her good friend has to keep going through that crap while the rest of the group stands around and waits.

He is going to a meeting in the building as is required by his job. He is walking and talking casually with everyone else until security pulls him aside. What behavior is he supposed to change?

Note: Before you say a law enforcement law would not apply to security guards, the security guards at this federal building are in fact law enforcement.

 

Labels do indeed suck.

 

If the majority of crime is committed by a certain group does it not stand to reason that you would watch that group a bit closer? If skinny old bald white guys all of a sudden started to commit a bunch of crimes I would expect to be watched closer because I fit in to that demographic.

 

Sad situation.

I get profiled because of my name, not my looks. It does kill my day.

If I go to a security screening - smiling and greeting the individual screening me (regardless of his/her race/Nationality), I get by 90%. If I remain silent, I nearly always end up, in a pat down, or pulled apart for additional screening. In the last three years, even when driving, I wear a suit or coat.

I am not saying that personal bias is not justify is just that sometimes the numbers call for some bias.

I have written a length a the number of times, or the frequency rate that I was getting pulled over a few years back while traveling for work in through the middle of the US, from the Gulf to the Canadian border. It was simply a fact of a blacked out truck with Florida plate. To exhibit displeasure for being pulled over, would have signal ignorance to the reason that I was being pulled over or targeted.

 

I still get crap about Scarface. That movie and the actions of some of my compatriots made me easy target.

I recall the general response every time a Marielito was busted. Simple really, "one less MF giving us a bad name."

We did not strike. We did not call for justice. And, we learned to smile.

 

The crack laws are certainly open to debate as are all laws and the corresponding punishments.

The race baiting nonsense is just that.

 

Its like the saying "Stereotypes have a basis in reality".

If crime is perpetrated by a certain group of people, those people will end up in the system more.

 

pay or I'll make you pay! http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...nds-probe-exxon-after-oil-giant-stops-funding

 

Just what the hell are they going to investigate? Disagreeing with climate change?

 

Any company that big and you can find a violation of some kind if you turn over enough rocks. Never mind how much the investigation will cost the taxpayers.

 

So, a difference of opinion a skeptic makes.

Personally, I believe that there should be more opposition of views with respect to Climate Change. However, it seems that one side continues to share its view while the others goes silent.

The general trend in the industry is not to engage or respond to protests. I believe this empowers the Climate Change Theorist.

 

This a BS. So, now if one has a difference of opinion, one is subject to criminal prosecution? When did someone put in a boat ride back?

 

It would be really beneficial to see some of the many climate scientists come forward and protest this idiotic pro drive for climate change but it's not likely to happen. The scientific community is a strange animal because in order to be, or continue to be, published, a scientist must continue to support the one that holds the gold. Those are the ones that pay for the grants that pay for all the scientific research and most of them seem to be on the side of the man made warming claimers.

A few scientists have come forward with books and other publications contesting the warming theory but were then chastised by their peers for doing so. Because of that many of them no longer have a publisher that will take their work or they have lost the ability to get the available grant money to do their work. A scientific paper that is not published, in one or more of the scientific journals, is practically worthless so not many will read them.

There are a few publications (books and papers) countering the current warming theories already out there to be read but most of scientists doing the work do so for entities, like Universities, and are tenured, so they can just about piss off anyone that they want to and get away with it. So far, every paper and book that I've read on the subject has basically disproved the methods used to show warming by man, and has at the same time, shown that man does not yet have enough knowledge to prove that warming is, or is not, occurring in the first place. In other words, don't start counting your chickens until at least the hen has laid some eggs.

Follow the money.

 

With regards to Hillary, perhaps Exxon should take their million bucks and donate it to some Senator in exchange for another investigation into Hillary's doings. Her garden is filled with rocks to turn over.

 

Sounds like the road to fascism.