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.
It's not "my remedy." It's the USDA's remedy. I happen to agree with it.
You cannot supply us with a cite that supports your assertion that she can be jailed. It was your assertion, the burden is on you to support it.
Not only did I not ignore that she could be held liable under civil rights statutes, I actually explained it in a post.
You once again fail to understand the difference between a civil lawsuit for damages and a criminal prosecution. Your knowledge of the law here is incorrect. You do not understand the difference between civil and criminal liability, and it is obviously you that is out of your league here.
I could help you out with a cite to the appropriate section of the United States Code, but I'm not going to, because this is much more fun.
You really are VERY bad at this.
No, i'm not bad at this at all. Since you believe you're so smart at this, one would reason that you'd know that I haven't cited any particular law because each case has been handled differently by the courts. For example: If the discrimination is at the behest of an employee/employer, then the courts have generally considered the case a civil matter. BUT, when the case involves discrimination at the behest of a specific law, such as the ADA or the Civil Rights Act, then a person can be criminally liable.
I do not fail to understand the difference between civil and criminal. The fact that you keep saying that exposes the shallowness of your argument.
Take a moment and consider what you're saying. And then take a moment and read what I have written here. You may just finally understand that there are intracies that are not defined by simple civil vs criminal allegations. Where laws are broken, criminal prosecution is a potential remedy.
People like you are no stranger to this forum. You think you have it all figured out, but the devil is in the details. That big "gotcha" moment still eludes you.
I lived in Atlanta, GA for five very long years --a town full of black racists who don't know that they are racists. In fact, I listened to one pseudo-intellectual, Afrocentric, revisionist history diatribe after another explaining that it was actually impossible for black people to be racist. I listened to their facile, fallacious, and sophomoric arguments in absolute awe of this peculiar combination of irrationality and audacity. It was all I could do to keep a straight face.
If there is indeed a "MOVEMENT" in this country to call blacks out on their own bias and BS all I can say is it's about time.
Absolutely, it is about time the double standards are called out and the poor me routine is getting old.
No, i'm not bad at this at all. Since you believe you're so smart at this, one would reason that you'd know that I haven't cited any particular law because each case has been handled differently by the courts. For example: If the discrimination is at the behest of an employee/employer, then the courts have generally considered the case a civil matter. BUT, when the case involves discrimination at the behest of a specific law, such as the ADA or the Civil Rights Act, then a person can be criminally liable.
Give me a cite. Can you? Otherwise....
Like I said, I COULD help you out here and find it for you. But since you chose to misrepresent me, I'll just let you continue to fail to support your argument.
The statutes do exist, but you cannot find them. They also don't really apply here for reasons to lengthy to explain to someone who wouldn't understand anyway.
Quote:
I do not fail to understand the difference between civil and criminal. The fact that you keep saying that exposes the shallowness of your argument.
You have conflated the two together in at least two posts. It's obvious from the fact that you posted a link to a story about a CIVIL settlement to support your CRIMINAL assertion that you really do not have any idea what you are talking about.
Quote:
Take a moment and consider what you're saying. And then take a moment and read what I have written here. You may just finally understand that there are intracies that are not defined by simple civil vs criminal allegations. Where laws are broken, criminal prosecution is a potential remedy.
You've already shown that you do not know the difference between the two when you posted that link. Hilarious. Now you assert that there are criminal sanctions available when any law is broken. That is not true. The law has to provide for criminal liability specifically. You'd know that if you went to law school, but obvously you did not. So why try to pretend?
Quote:
People like you are no stranger to this forum. You think you have it all figured out, but the devil is in the details. That big "gotcha" moment still eludes you.
I'm glad to hear that knowledgeable, logical people abound in this place. I do not think you are one of them.
Show me the statute that provides for her to be criminally prosecuted under these circumstances.
What you fail to understand is that a statute that provides only for civil liability cannot result in criminal liability unless that is specifically provided for in the statute. DOJ "policy" is not a statute.
Here is the discrimmination that happened. She admitted it on her own accord. Sad that quite a few people on here haven't noted that.
24 years ago, yep that's right...........TWENTY-FOUR YEARS AGO, she didn't go 100% of her abilities to assist a White farmer when he requested assistance with a foreclosue.
From the AP article:
"She says she was torn over how much to help him because so many black farmers were also struggling, and decided to do just enough to be able to say she'd tried:
I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough. ... So I took him to a white lawyer. ... So I figured if I would take him to one of them, his own kind would take care of him."
We all know enough basic history of America regardless of the slant or your opinion. If anyone can be honest with themselves then ask yourself if you have ever, even once, not given your full effort on the job to assist someone based on race. Have any of you ever, even once passed judgement on someone based on race?
Most of us would probably not justify giving less effort to assist someone based on their race. To those of you jumping all over this woman: are you saying you think it's justified that she lost her job over an incident as described above that happened 24 years ago?
No distinction whatsoever. If the DOJ considered the two mutually exclusive, it would have outlined a policy stating such. Did they? No. They place the two issues in the same policy guidance. Discrimination can be viewed as a hate crime, which can be criminally prosecuted.
Debate over.
what this women did was ignorant definately, stupid for sure, but does not fall within the hate crime statute. If that was the case, there would be many crowded Federal prisons around the country. The person she was referencing does have a Civil case, but a criminal one, don't see it.
what this women did was ignorant definately, stupid for sure, but does not fall within the hate crime statute. If that was the case, there would be many crowded Federal prisons around the country. The person she was referencing does have a Civil case, but a criminal one, don't see it.
Again, she supposedly can explain how her statements were taken out of context.
Even though it doesn't matter - I'm interested to hear 'the context' - If anyone has a link I'd appreciate it.
There are definitely actions or instances when the 'context' does not matter - acts of pedophilia for example, I bet there are others. I'm not saying this is in the same category, but within the framework of civil/equal rights and discrimination I think its pretty close.
I mean like this \/\/
What context is it OK to be/act like a pedophile? There is none
What context is it OK to discriminate based on race? There is none
<edit> Read some more details and apparently there was more to the story and she may have ended up helping that farmer out quite a bit over the 2 years following that video clip. I have not seen actual footage of the entire clip though. Take home points for me: 1) never give a speech 2) do not allow video or audio recording of a speech if I'm forced to give one 3) if someone is recording my speech I need to have my own recording of it as well 4) If you have a point, make your speech very short 5) she's probably not a pedophile
Show me the statute that provides for her to be criminally prosecuted under these circumstances.
What you fail to understand is that a statute that provides only for civil liability cannot result in criminal liability unless that is specifically provided for in the statute. DOJ "policy" is not a statute.
I don't fail to understand that. I fully acknowledge it, in fact. What i'm pointing out to you that it's not as cut and dried as you try to make it. Discrimination can be a civil matter. Discrimination can be a criminal matter. You're trying to make it simply a civil matter, of which it is not. This lady could be held personally liable for discrimination if in fact she is investigated for breaking a particular law. Will she be criminally charged? That's not up to me to decide. But its not outside of the bounds of possibility, as you try to make it.
Shirley Sherrod says she was forced to step down by the White House even though her comments, in which she says she withheld support for a farmer because he was white, were really part of a story of racial reconciliation. In an interview, Sherrod said the White House's wishes were relayed by an Agriculture Department undersecretary.
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.
