Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Statistics are only as useful as the person assembling them want them to be and are easy to manipulate. When our government considers the Fort Hood shooting to be "workplace violence" and the Aurora theatre shooting to be ""domestic terrorism" you know what their priorities are.
Statistics are only as useful as the person assembling them want them to be and are easy to manipulate. When our government considers the Fort Hood shooting to be "workplace violence" and the Aurora theatre shooting to be ""domestic terrorism" you know what their priorities are.
The Fort Hood shooter was an active-duty officer. The crime occurred on a military installation. It legally didn't meet the definition of terrorism. To garner a domestic-terrorism charge, the assailant must intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. The Fort Hood shooter was arraigned by military court, the Aurora shooter in civilian court. Semantics aside, your counter doesn't address key points made. In fact, it proves a certain point. Funny how use of statistics to support unconstitutional policies/civil liberty violations is fine and dandy when the targets are "others" but the moment your group could be the target then statistics are only useful as the person assembling them and easy to manipulate.
Last edited by AddaVisser; 10-22-2013 at 06:51 AM..
Well, I see it this way.
After the shooting of an innocent USC student, they are either going to
crack down somehow and stop the violence, or people are going to stop
attending the businesses downtown anyway.
It scares away customers, doesn't bring them in.
I'm actually shocked they even reported the shooting to the news.
South Carolina is infamous for covering things up.
I guess when college students are gunned down on the streets, well,
you can't really hide all the violence anymore, ha?
You may welcome a police state but I, for one, don't. Frisking people based simply because they dress in a certain manner is unconstitutional and doesn't meet the standard of probable cause.
This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. People aren't a monolithic hivemind. Judge people based as individuals and their individual actions.
Statistically, over 90% of terrorist acts committed on U.S. soil since 1970 have been committed by non-Muslims. Data from the FBI and DHS found that domestic terrorists are most likely to be anti-government white males, yet imagine the uproar at the suggestion ALL white males be profiled, stopped and frisked based on the actions of a relatively few deranged individuals.
Look, you can say all you want that you cant judge someone off of the way their dressed and in situations like Ft Hood and Aurora I would agree with you since these are rare (yes i know more frequent but still rare) and are also not situations where it was the same group over and over again, rather many different people with different issues and reasoning. Street gangs continue to cause the same issues over and over again and by their own merit, choose to be identifiable through their dress. That's why they dress so different from everyone else so they can stick out and like I said earlier, if they want to do that, that's fine, but they should expect the ramifications that come with it. The unwanted attention they get is also by their own choices in continuing to commit violent crimes and once your group causes that much terror, your a criminal organization and deserve to be targeted. I would say the exact same thing if my fraternity caused the crime these gangs do and would say that anyone wearing a palmetto tree visor, southern tides and sperrys should be targeted by police.
Last edited by ColaClemsonFan11; 10-22-2013 at 08:56 AM..
Look, you can say all you want that you cant judge someone off of the way their dressed and in situations like Ft Hood and Aurora I would agree with you since these are rare (yes i know more frequent but still rare) and are also not situations where it was the same group over and over again, rather many different people with different issues and reasoning. Street gangs continue to cause the same issues over and over again and by their own merit, choose to be identifiable through their dress. That's why they dress so different from everyone else so they can stick out and like I said earlier, if they want to do that, that's fine, but they should expect the ramifications that come with it. The unwanted attention they get is also by their own choices in continuing to commit violent crimes and once your group causes that much terror, your a criminal organization and deserve to be targeted. I would say the exact same thing if my fraternity caused the crime these gangs do and would say that anyone wearing a palmetto tree visor, southern tides and sperrys should be targeted by police.
Your entire point is made moot by the constitution. Arbitrarily stopping and searching any citizen without probable cause violates the 4th and 14th Amendments. Someone dressing in a certain manner does not meet the standard of probable cause regardless if people who dress in a similar manner commit crimes. If the police have reasonable suspicion to believe someone poses a danger, has committed a crime, or is preparing to commit one then by all means go for it, but if the suspicion rest soley on someone's pants being too baggy or hat is turned a few degrees too many then GTFO here. Never mind the fact stop and frisk doesn't even work and is ripe for abuse.
Studies have shown that men who are in fraternities are more likely to commit a rape then those who aren’t, and as many as 70%- 90% of gang rapes are committed by fraternity members but I doubt you would be gung ho about any policies that specifically targeted any and all fraternity members as potential rapist and subject to arbitrary search and seizures.
Your entire point is made moot by the constitution. Arbitrarily stopping and searching any citizen without probable cause violates the 4th and 14th Amendments. Someone dressing in a certain manner does not meet the standard of probable cause regardless if people who dress in a similar manner commit crimes. If the police have reasonable suspicion to believe someone poses a danger, has committed a crime, or is preparing to commit one then by all means go for it, but if the suspicion rest soley on someone's pants being too baggy or hat is turned a few degrees too many then GTFO here. Never mind the fact stop and frisk doesn't even work and is ripe for abuse.
Studies have shown that men who are in fraternities are more likely to commit a rape then those who aren’t, and as many as 70%- 90% of gang rapes are committed by fraternity members but I doubt you would be gung ho about any policies that specifically targeted any and all fraternity members as potential rapist and subject to arbitrary search and seizures.
So reasonable suspicion wouldnt include being in a gang? Carrying yourself in a manor that could be portrayed as threatening? There's a big grey area here and the police can find "reasonable suspicion" for anyone if they would like whether you like it or not or you interpret it being unconstitutional or not and I for one say that is a good thing because all your argument truly does is protect the gang member's rights which they should have none since they can barely be recognized as human beings IMO.
If frat rape is that big of an issue based off of your stats and the police would like To question me when I walk down to five points, thats fine with me.
Here's a question, what if all bars and businesses in Five Points banned baggy clothes, gang clothes, etc, would you have an issue with the bars?
Statistically, over 90% of terrorist acts committed on U.S. soil since 1970 have been committed by non-Muslims. Data from the FBI and DHS found that domestic terrorists are most likely to be anti-government white males, yet imagine the uproar at the suggestion ALL white males be profiled, stopped and frisked based on the actions of a relatively few deranged individuals.
1970's? That's a little old for stats that are so important. Let's focus on the last 15 years. Care to bet that white male profile is no longer number one? If I'm wrong and it is still that group. Darn right, frisk them all! I like Leon Lott's ideas. His heart is in the right place. If it's my kid in five points, I want Leon protecting him not the ACLU.
1970's? That's a little old for stats that are so important. Let's focus on the last 15 years. Care to bet that white male profile is no longer number one? If I'm wrong and it is still that group. Darn right, frisk them all! I like Leon Lott's ideas. His heart is in the right place. If it's my kid in five points, I want Leon protecting him not the ACLU.
Reading comprehension fail. I said "SINCE the 1970s" meaning stats from 1970 to present day 2013.
So reasonable suspicion wouldnt include being in a gang? Carrying yourself in a manor that could be portrayed as threatening? There's a big grey area here and the police can find "reasonable suspicion" for anyone if they would like whether you like it or not or you interpret it being unconstitutional or not and I for one say that is a good thing because all your argument truly does is protect the gang member's rights which they should have none since they can barely be recognized as human beings IMO.
If frat rape is that big of an issue based off of your stats and the police would like To question me when I walk down to five points, thats fine with me.
Don't be obtuse. Dressing in baggy clothing or wearing a doo rag or whatever doesn't automatically mean one is in a gang anymore than a woman in a short skirt and heels means she is a prostitute. There's a big difference in dressing a certain way vs behaving in a threatening manner or being an actual gang member. Just because someone is in wearing the popular style of boat shoes doesn't mean they're a boat captain. Do you look at some random person wearing a NBA or NFL jersey and think they're a professional athlete? Do you think some random person in camo shorts is in the military? Most likely not, but somehow someone in hip-hop clothing is a gang member. That said, I remember reading a study that found that people (of all races) felt that clothes that look threatening on a black person look acceptable on people of other races. In other words, a black male dressed in a hoody comes off as more threatening than an Asian or Hispanic or white male dressed in the very same manner. Regardless, you don't seem to grasp that the law requires the standard of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to be more than merely dressing in a certain fashion. Your lack of understanding of civil rights and the Constitution is disheartening for lack of a better word.
Of course, that scenario would be fine with you. It's quite obvious you welcome a police state and don't seem to care about your or anyone's basic civil liberties.
Quote:
Here's a question, what if all bars and businesses in Five Points banned baggy clothes, gang clothes, etc, would you have an issue with the bars?
No. Private businesses are free to set whatever dress code they so choose. I've been to plenty of bars and clubs that have dress codes. The issue I have is arbitrarily targeted people in PUBLIC areas solely based on how they're dressed.
Last edited by AddaVisser; 10-23-2013 at 08:54 PM..
Don't be obtuse. Dressing in baggy clothing or wearing a doo rag or whatever doesn't automatically mean one is in a gang anymore than a woman in a short skirt and heels means she is a prostitute. There's a big difference in dressing a certain way vs behaving in a threatening manner or being an actual gang member. Just because someone is in wearing the popular style of boat shoes doesn't mean they're a boat captain. Do you look at some random person wearing a NBA or NFL jersey and think they're a professional athlete? Do you think some random person in camo shorts is in the military? Most likely not, but somehow someone in hip-hop clothing is a gang member. That said, I remember reading a study that found that people (of all races) felt that clothes that look threatening on a black person look acceptable on people of other races. In other words, a black male dressed in a hoody comes off as more threatening than an Asian or Hispanic or white male dressed in the very same manner. Regardless, you don't seem to grasp that the law requires the standard of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to be more than merely dressing in a certain fashion. Your lack of understanding of civil rights and the Constitution is disheartening for lack of a better word.
Of course, that scenario would be fine with you. It's quite obvious you welcome a police state and don't seem to care about your or anyone's basic civil liberties.
No. Private businesses are free to set whatever dress code they so choose. I've been to plenty of bars and clubs that have dress codes. The issue I have is arbitrarily targeted people in PUBLIC areas solely based on how they're dressed.
Haha yep, you know what your right, if I saw a black guy in a vineyard vines bow tie and seersucker suit I would CERTAINLY be more scared of him than the Asian in a Hells Angels jacket, or the white guy wearing all red a big chain and grill in his mouth.......and are you trying to tell me that the kid with the Panthers jersey on isn't Cam Newton???
And question, Civil Rights is that thing that gave rights to all people regardless of race AND how they dress right? I'm not too sure because I have no clue nor desire to learn anything about that stuff...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1970's???
