Cop Wanted To Harass Regular Black Person, Not State's Attorney.

[Lightbringer]

In the context of the video, yes. Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. And you cannot suggest otherwise; like the weasels who analyzed this video, you would have to create a context (e.i. a narrative) in which the motives of the police were racially based. Essentially, the perception of cops being racist preexisted the traffic stop in the video or any act of true racism.

The context of the video? You mean the one where the attorney gave pause as to the motives of the police officer?

Ok, well that is an incredibly naive and disingenuous suggestion then.

And yes I can, especially given what the video shows and the racial tensions in this country. The likely hood that it is racially motivated is more probable than whatever else you're suggesting.

"No credible answer, therefore racism"
There is no evidence. Your using abstract generalizations to justify claiming this traffic stop being racially motivated. It's no better when people use abstract generalizations to justify claiming a black person is at fault when stopped by the police a without having any objective evidence to back their claim.

You're putting words into my mouth and being very dishonest. I said there is more evidence of her being pulled over for her skin color were higher than her being pulled over because of the color of her car.

Your lack of observation in reading my comment leads me to believe you have little perception of the video itself.

There's only a narrative, and that narrative is that the police are outrageously racist and are out to target minorities. When you believe racism is everywhere, you find racism everywhere. I'd imagine from some feminist's perspective, they would have seen this as an act of sexism at the hands of mysogynist pigs carrying the will of patriarchal America.

But racism and sexism are very prevalent in this country, so your point is moot.

No, I'm forming a probable conclusion based on what I saw in the video and what I know of the racial tensions in this society.

When a ball rolls down the hill, you don't need it to reach the bottom to determine the destination or do you?

What you're arguing is that because there is no blunt racism that there is no basis of suggesting that it was racist. That is literally the argument used by almost all racists as an excuse. There is subtlety in every issue including racism. You don't have to have someone yell the "N" word to determine whether there is racist subtext in someone's words or actions.

The fact is that the police officer pulled over a black person and when he was pressured to give an explanation of why he did so without probable cause, he had no answer. This means that what he did in all probabilities is most likely of racist intent.

If you're telling me that it is not probable or just as probable as being pulled over for the color of her car, then I call bullshit on your part and ending this conversation.

 

[Exaar]

The fact is that the police officer pulled over a black person and when he was pressured to give an explanation of why he did so without probable cause, he had no answer. This means that what he did in all probabilities is most likely of racist intent.

Did it ever occur to you the cop could've just been an asshole, looking for any little excuse to give someone a ticket?.
Pulling a black person over for little to no reason =/= Racism.

Second, They stopped her because apparently they ran her licence plate(they say is routine) and it didn't come back registered to any vehicle (which could've been a genuine mistake on their part) That is cause for a stop, No?.
The women who was pulled over even says the traffic stop appears to be consistent with Florida law.

 

[kimb]

The context of the video? You mean the one where the attorney gave pause as to the motives of the police officer?

Ok, well that is an incredibly naive and disingenuous suggestion then.

And yes I can, especially given what the video shows and the racial tensions in this country. The likely hood that it is racially motivated is more probable than whatever else you're suggesting.




You're putting words into my mouth and being very dishonest. I said there is more evidence of her being pulled over for her skin color were higher than her being pulled over because of the color of her car.

Your lack of observation in reading my comment leads me to believe you have little perception of the video itself.





But racism and sexism are very prevalent in this country, so your point is moot.

No, I'm forming a probable conclusion based on what I saw in the video and what I know of the racial tensions in this society.

When a ball rolls down the hill, you don't need it to reach the bottom to determine the destination or do you?

What you're arguing is that because there is no blunt racism that there is no basis of suggesting that it was racist. That is literally the argument used by almost all racists as an excuse. There is subtlety in every issue including racism. You don't have to have someone yell the "N" word to determine whether there is racist subtext in someone's words or actions.

The fact is that the police officer pulled over a black person and when he was pressured to give an explanation of why he did so without probable cause, he had no answer. This means that what he did in all probabilities is most likely of racist intent.

If you're telling me that it is not probable or just as probable as being pulled over for the color of her car, then I call bullshit on your part and ending this conversation.

This is embarrassing. Do you think you can use probability and likelihood to accuse people of bigotry? Yet alone report a news story on it as if there was objective fact?

Probablility is not evidence. Your world perception is not evidence. Evidence is objective and undeniable fact, not your subjective perception of the world projected on to an incident. You can not say the police officer not giving a proper answer is "EVIDENCE" of racism. That is absurd.

No legal system makes their conclusions on probability, they use probability to guide their investigation and use evidence to come to conclusions. You on the other hand, came to a conclusion, and used probability as evidence. You sound like a TYT racebaiting hack.

 

[Lightbringer]

This is embarrassing. Do you think you can use probability and likelihood to accuse people of bigotry? Yet alone report a news story on it as if there was objective fact?

Probablility is not evidence. Your world perception is not evidence. Evidence is objective and undeniable fact, not your subjective perception of the world projected on to an incident. You can not say the police officer not giving a proper answer is "EVIDENCE" of racism. That is absurd.

No legal system makes their conclusions on probability, they use probability to guide their investigation and use evidence to come to conclusions. You on the other hand, came to a conclusion, and used probability as evidence. You sound like a TYT racebaiting hack.

What's embarrassing? Your lack of perception or your inability to comprehend what critical thinking is?

So, in your little world, unless if there is blatant hard evidence, no one can ever suggest that one is being racist nor sexist, even if something is obvious? Wow. It just sounds like you have a hard time picking up on subtlety, which has been demonstrated by your poor lack of observation as it is.

This isn't a courtroom nor am I indicting anyone. Have I asked for this cop to be fired? No. Have I made a formal statement about this cop being a racist without reasonable doubt? No.

Let's backtrack to what I have said in this thread:

1. I have said it is more probable that the cop pulled over the attorney without cause because of the color of her skin more so than the color of her car.

2. I have also said that the likelihood of it being motivated by racism is more probable than whatever other suggestion you have given.

I have not made a firm statement of this being a blatant act of racism. All I said was that it is most likely the case because I have reasonable suspicion based on what I know and saw.

And as for your question; yes there is a legal standard which forms conclusions based on probability, it's called Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion. LMAO.

I guess you learn something new everyday, huh?


You just sound like a typical intellectually dishonest hack.

 

[SSStylish]

You just sound like a typical intellectually dishonest hack.

Says the guy posting useless race baiting threads. You probably also believed the whole russia boogeyman shit the MSM shat out for ratings.

Im sure you would've made a thread about this incident in a heartbeat had the perpetrator been a white man and the victim a black person.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[Lightbringer]

Says the guy posting useless race baiting threads. You probably also believed the whole russia boogeyman shit the MSM shat out for ratings.

Im sure you would've made a thread about this incident in a heartbeat had the perpetrator been a white man and the victim a black person.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You're irrelevant.

At least Fiji knows how to make a decent argument here and there, unlike yourself.