jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

The answer is painstakenly simple: Stop comitting crimes, and we'll stop
putting you in jail. But that overly simplistic answer, would never be
acceptable to those on the left who are always looking to deflect
responsibility away from the individuals, and onto the more clouded and
often vague entity of society.

Dave

The answer that I'm driving you to is painstakingly simple. Some people in
our society pay a higher cost to exist simply due to their skin color. You
skirted the issure repeatedly by claiming "don't do the crime and you won't
do the time." It's not that simple Dave.

If the problem of crime didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
discussion. If we truly want to hold individuals accountable for thie
actions, then everyone must pay for what they do wrong.

Do you believe in cause and effect relationships?
Is the supposed bias against minorities, responsible for their lack of
respect for the law? Or, is their lack of respect for the law,
responsible for their negative bias? A sort of "chicken and egg"
question.....


Stopping crime isn't the only answer.

No, but it would pave a very large part of the path.


It's also making certain that
punishment isn't metted out unfairly in one community over another.

Do you have statistics for the number of middle class suburban white
youths who are getting away with crimes? You only assume that since the
number of minority youths in the criminal justice system, is
disproportional to their population, that they are unfairly targeted.
Without corroborating evidence of cops "looking the other way", with
respect to white kids, you're just ****ing in the wind.


Another thing you're failing to consider; economic status. What are your
statistics for poor inner city white kids, in trouble with the law,
compared to their percentage of the city population? And what about
middle class suburban black youths?

Once again, you're painting a picture with a racial brush, which should
instead be painted with a socio-economic one.


Here's some more info for you Dave. I'm sure you'll refute it and say
something dense that'll obfuscate the actual point I'm making. But, at this
point, I consider that par for the course.

The truth does that to people looking to promote a cause, without all
the facts


SEATTLE - A new University of Washington study says people are more inclined
to shoot blacks than whites.

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that statistically you stand
a higher chance of being accosted in the city by a person of color than
a white person? I guess you can blame the media for pasting the pictures
and composite drawings of the latest rapists and robbers all over the
6:00 news, for subliminally planting that bias.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

SEATTLE - A new University of Washington study says people are more
inclined
to shoot blacks than whites.

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that statistically you stand
a higher chance of being accosted in the city by a person of color than
a white person? I guess you can blame the media for pasting the pictures
and composite drawings of the latest rapists and robbers all over the
6:00 news, for subliminally planting that bias.

Dave

That's your impression, isn't it Dave? Your question goes unanswered, but
like Rush, you draw a conclusion based on your assumption. Nice, empty
rationale.

I'm sure you'd be one of the folks who'd pull the trigger on the...

jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

SEATTLE - A new University of Washington study says people are more
inclined
to shoot blacks than whites.

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that statistically you stand
a higher chance of being accosted in the city by a person of color than
a white person? I guess you can blame the media for pasting the pictures
and composite drawings of the latest rapists and robbers all over the
6:00 news, for subliminally planting that bias.



That's your impression, isn't it Dave? Your question goes unanswered, but
like Rush, you draw a conclusion based on your assumption. Nice, empty
rationale.

Much like the conclusion you made, which stated that since minorities
are convicted of a disproportionate amount of crime, then white people
must be given a "wink and nod" and let go. A nice empty rationale.

Your failure to consider the obvious, is whay you guys on the left will
always be out of sync.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Please, I'm tired of all the "what-if's". You can find a "what-if" to
make a case for damn near anything...

Oh...and I'm sorry about all the "what-ifs". I didn't mean to put you out.
Perhaps CVS carries an Ace bandage for the mind.

All they do, is make a circular arguement, spherical.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Please, I'm tired of all the "what-if's". You can find a "what-if" to
make a case for damn near anything...

Oh...and I'm sorry about all the "what-ifs". I didn't mean to put you
out.
Perhaps CVS carries an Ace bandage for the mind.

All they do, is make a circular arguement, spherical.

Dave


Actually, they force you to think. Hypothetical situations are used often by
appeals courts in discussions with lawyers, in order to explore issues from
many angles. But, it's not for people who get nosebleeds from thinking too
hard.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Don't be silly, Dave. If a white guy was shot 28 times why six cops
standing
less than ten feet away, and was found to have no weapon, it
definitely
WOULD HAVE made every major newspaper in the country. In the case of
the
guy
in NYC, any one of those cops could have defused the situation with
one
shot, and put the guy down for good with 2-3 shots. Instead, he was
executed.


You're right. It would seem then that the NYC police department needs
a
few lessons in marksmanship. A few good shots would have done the job,
without wasting all that good ammo......

Dave


What an utterly stupid remark. If you'd been their supervisor, would
that
have been your primary source of disappointment with those cops? They
wasted
so much ammo?


Well, maybe not. Maybe their feet smelled as well......



So, you think it was OK that several cops shot an innocent man over two
dozen times, and found he had no weapon?

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Don't be silly, Dave. If a white guy was shot 28 times why six cops
standing
less than ten feet away, and was found to have no weapon, it
definitely
WOULD HAVE made every major newspaper in the country. In the case of
the
guy
in NYC, any one of those cops could have defused the situation with
one
shot, and put the guy down for good with 2-3 shots. Instead, he was
executed.


You're right. It would seem then that the NYC police department needs
a
few lessons in marksmanship. A few good shots would have done the job,
without wasting all that good ammo......

Dave


What an utterly stupid remark. If you'd been their supervisor, would
that
have been your primary source of disappointment with those cops? They
wasted
so much ammo?


Well, maybe not. Maybe their feet smelled as well......



So, you think it was OK that several cops shot an innocent man over two
dozen times, and found he had no weapon?


Do I think it's ok? Do you think it's proper to ask me, or anyone else's
opinion on this subject, when they were not involved? Maybe if you get
all the facts before you jump to any conclusions, you might find a very
good reason why things unfolded the way they did.

What I think, is irrelevant. I was not there.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

in NYC, any one of those cops could have defused the situation
with
one
shot, and put the guy down for good with 2-3 shots. Instead, he
was
executed.


You're right. It would seem then that the NYC police department
needs
a
few lessons in marksmanship. A few good shots would have done the
job,
without wasting all that good ammo......

Dave


What an utterly stupid remark. If you'd been their supervisor, would
that
have been your primary source of disappointment with those cops?
They
wasted
so much ammo?


Well, maybe not. Maybe their feet smelled as well......



So, you think it was OK that several cops shot an innocent man over two
dozen times, and found he had no weapon?


Do I think it's ok? Do you think it's proper to ask me, or anyone else's
opinion on this subject, when they were not involved? Maybe if you get
all the facts before you jump to any conclusions, you might find a very
good reason why things unfolded the way they did.

What I think, is irrelevant. I was not there.

I should've known you'd use your usual ploy - the one you reserve for times
when you notice that you've painted yourself into a corner.

Speaking of corners: Go sit in the corner and drink your chocolate milk.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

in NYC, any one of those cops could have defused the situation
with
one
shot, and put the guy down for good with 2-3 shots. Instead, he
was
executed.


You're right. It would seem then that the NYC police department
needs
a
few lessons in marksmanship. A few good shots would have done the
job,
without wasting all that good ammo......

Dave


What an utterly stupid remark. If you'd been their supervisor, would
that
have been your primary source of disappointment with those cops?
They
wasted
so much ammo?


Well, maybe not. Maybe their feet smelled as well......



So, you think it was OK that several cops shot an innocent man over two
dozen times, and found he had no weapon?


Do I think it's ok? Do you think it's proper to ask me, or anyone else's
opinion on this subject, when they were not involved? Maybe if you get
all the facts before you jump to any conclusions, you might find a very
good reason why things unfolded the way they did.

What I think, is irrelevant. I was not there.

I should've known you'd use your usual ploy - the one you reserve for times
when you notice that you've painted yourself into a corner.

There's no corner. Do you believe it is intellectually proper and honest
of me, or anyone else, to form an opinion on something, without knowing
all the facts?

I'm sure you do. Liberals go off half-cocked all the time. Facts? What
are they? Liberals need no facts when they have well written opinions to
feed on.


Dave