DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence

This is what the alt-right does. They hide their racism behind the guise of psuedo-science. Slave owners used to love phrenology. This is why I have placed Haus on ignore too. The only people who can communicate with the alt-right is white people. Which is why Haus hasn't responded to PDF in awhile. It's easier just to claim that the minorities are mad and tell them to look at unfair data. It's part of the Richard Spence playbook.

I have him on ignore, so I don't know what he's saying. But I'm sure he's stated that all FBI data is volunteered by local police departments and is not an accurate stat across the board. Especially with more federal oversight in bigger cities due to the racist nature and history of the police department. I bet he also talked about how most crimes in America go unsolved:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-s-go-unsolved/
and how 1/3rd of the crimes committed aren't reported:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

Now, I'm sure he's preaching about keeping all data "per capita" even though the entire state of West Virginia has 2/3ths the population of Chicago. There will be more human to human interaction in Chicago today than West Virginia will generate in a week. Only a very small amount of that will be a violent crime. What does the crime statistics look like with population density per capita?

Thanks for taking the time ... ,lots and lots and lots to sift through ... lots of good info if u actually want to learn and educate yourself ....

I appreciate the time u took to do it ....

Thanks ...

Actually Haus has been wasting several posts trying to defend himself about a conclusion other people are projecting on him. What he's been trying to do is use a data point (Chicago) that is an admitted microcosm of the larger issue and challenge the oft accepted and repeated conclusion that poverty etc is the primary factor in regards to crime rates. He found some data that he is putting forth that suggests there are other factors that may be greater than that.

That's all. He was trying to establish a premise to launch a conversation from.

The whole racist "blacks are inherently violent" BS didn't come from him. He said nothing close to the sort. That was contrived by the ironically not-racist people.

Now watch, I'd bet a week long suspension from DT that at least one person is going to accuse me of agreeing with Haus and therefor I'm vicariously a racist as well even though i haven't typed a single word on what i think of the point he is trying to make.

But that doesn't matter anymore because its no longer bout debate and discussion. Its about arguing in absolutes and forcing ones own conclusions on others out of fear that they may be wrong ( or at least not %100 right which is probably worse because that might induce a degree of introspection).

I'll go back to the depths from whence i came now.

Eh, that’s crap.

As I said previously, this is on Haus. He posted whatever it is he posted, then proceeding to knock down every one of our post, while simultaneously refusing to offer anything on his end.

Then, after being pressed to do as such, he completely dodged and spun and continued to refuse to answer the simple question of “what is your own conclusion”

If all he’s gonna do is shoot down people’s ideas on the issue, while not offering any of his own, then he leaves himself open to such criticism.

That’s like you and I having a convo, I shoot down everything you’re saying, but then when you ask me what is my conclusion to the situation and what’s the solution, my answer is “I dunno”

So if he doesn’t know, what credibility does he possibly have to act as if we’re wrong in our assessment?

His refusal to answer questions left him wide open to criticism and the conclusions you see, specifically my conclusion that you brought up in your post.

So instead of coming at me, how bout you tell your boy to grow a pair and answer a damn question like a man instead of like a politician.

Priceless, coming from you. "I have him on ignore". Gee, if you have him on ignore, you wouldn't have a clue what he's saying.

But, when you have someone on "ignore", all it takes a click, and you can see what they post.

Also, if "per capita" is a bad thing, what would you use?

It would seem to me that "per capita" would be a fair way to compare. What am I missing here? It must be something. Cause otherwise, I don't understand how "per capita" is misleading, in any sense. Per capita, using 100,000 citizens as a bench mark.

Nah, it would appear this is what the 'alt left' prefers? I don't know, but I can sure toss out labels as well as anyone.

And, from what little I have researched, pit was wrong about Appalachia in concern to violent crimes.

He's an obvious racist who keeps posting black crime statistics while eschewing socioeconomics as a factor and then turning around and shrugging while saying "who knows? Maybe it's their culture?"

This tactic is nothing new, you can go find dozens of examples of it in the fever swamps of Breitbart and Stormfront (though at least most of those folks have the stones to not pussyfoot around their point).

Look, I know you hate dems, repubs, independents - everything political. That's a given.

What I don't get is all the labels the now called 'alt left" toss out at any time they are disagreed with.

Bigot. Racist. Xenophobe, etc, ad nauseum.

It seems some on here, when faced with facts they don't like, go all "labeling". And here I thought the left was all about acceptance, and tolerance.

In truth though, it seems that's what they profess from others. Demand from others. While they ignore things that don't sit well with them.

And as for you, pdf, I know nothing sits well with you.

bro, i stay trying my ass off to give Haus the benefit of the doubt, but it's got to the point where it doesn't matter what is posted, he's not gonna accept the answer anyway.

i've never checked out the boards on Briebart, but i've certainly seen the boards on stormfront.

lets just say its not encouraging with the similarities that get posted around here.

The guy very enthusiastically supports a known racist.

As I've said before - not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. But if you actively support the man, what other conclusions are there to be made? How could you argue that someone championing a unquestionably racist person who constantly stokes racial animosity isn't themselves racist?

I've heard many people in the past say things like "Trump's racism bothers me, but I couldn't live with the alternative" or "well, Hillary doesn't exactly have a good record with race herself", and I'm completely understanding of that.

But if someone is going to unabashedly support an obviously racist man, like many on this board do, they should be prepared to be called out for it.

I have often found that liberals love to to science and statistics until the info does not support their positions (which happens a lot.) Then it becomes "pseudo-science", or worse.

I'm not sure what the quote is about PDF and race. I don't know much about PDF other than that he used to post here often under an old moniker and that he took a long time off for what he called drug issues. I don't know what he looks like, what his age is, and it wouldn't affect what I think about the guy (he is nuts.)

I have come across Stormfront before and learned quickly that was not the place for me. I'll just leave it at that.

I do occasionally read Breitbart, at least when it's linked from somewhere or it comes up in a Google search. But these are two very different sources. Breitbart covers a lot of stuff that you just won't see from mainstream sources. Call it something like Huffington Post of the right-- not exactly unbiased, but not an outrageous source either.

Breitbart used to have an entire section devoted to "Black Crime"

I also put 40 on ignore. This is the first time I've ever used the ignore function on this forum. I'm blocking trolls and members of the alt-right. I will not use the view button, because I'm not wasting my time with those type of people in 2018.

Using per capita is a bad thing because it implies false equivalence. Chicago has a much larger population than West Virginia. Per capita does not take population density into account. Chicago has a population density of 14,645.2 people per square mile. West Virginia's population density is 76 people per square mile. They're not equivalent in any way. If you want to say or just strongly imply, "that black people are more violent or prone to crime" then using a crime rate would be a bad stat to use, because it provides no context of the overall picture. It's just tracking crime and not non-criminal interactions. There are simply more opportunities for criminal activity in the city than in the country or suburbs. You will be interacting with a lot more humans. You're not getting the full picture focusing on crime as a result. Unfortunately there is no tracking for the stats of non-criminal activity.

The talks of economics does not focus on how the black market operates or its actors. Crime is mostly committed by marginalized groups of people who cannot find legal work within the confines of established America. In predominantly white towns where most criminal activity is done by white people, those people will be the most marginalized of the townspeople. The "trailer trash" if you will. Their criminal actions should not be used against them, or white people. Instead we should take it as an opportunity to learn why they are marginalized and how to help them escape the circle of crime and violence that they know. So using this against people is saddening to me. It does not make me mad or angry, just sad. We need to offer solutions to people instead of condemning them, when they're given no alternative.

You can call me whatever you wish, but just don't call me late for dinner.

I hate to really enter the fray on this part of the topic, but I will enter at my own risk.

I believe the statistics you have posted fall under the to category of an "inconvenient truth". Just like when Al Gore came along pushing the climate change statistics the right went off the deep end, it seems like the evidence you bring to the table causes the left to go off the deep end.

Here's a good a place as any for this.

So the Supreme Court just ruled on an appeal of a Georgia death penalty case, the appeal stemming from the partiality of a juror who called the defendant the n-word, claiming that "after reading the Bible, I wonder if black people have souls". He also cited interracial relationships as a cause of murder claiming that "For example, look at O.J. Simpson. That white woman wouldn't have been killed if she married that black man". The juror's final declaration that death was an acceptable punishment came down to Tharpe "being a [n-word]".

The court ruled favorably on the appeal, sending the sentencing back down to Georgia courts.

Anyone want to take a wild stab in the dark how Gorsuch voted?

that was in september bro, but overall point is definitely valid.

Like President, Like Justice
Neil Gorsuch just showed his commitment to racial equality is about as strong as Trump’s.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...g_as_trump.html

On Tuesday night, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Georgia’s execution of Keith Tharpe, a black man who was sentenced to death by a jury that was tainted by egregious racism. One juror referred to Tharpe as a “[censored]” and questioned “if black people even have souls,” raising grave doubts about the constitutionality of Tharpe’s sentence. While six justices voted to halt the execution, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted to let Georgia proceed. Gorsuch’s vote provides the clearest evidence yet that the justice’s professed belief in racial equality is no more sincere than that of the president who appointed him.

Mark Joseph Stern
MARK JOSEPH STERN
Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

The story is an all-around tragedy. Like many death row inmates, Tharpe experienced violent physical abuse as a child and may be intellectually disabled. In 1990, he was charged with the murder of his sister-in-law; a jury convicted him the next year and sentenced him to death. Tharpe appealed, and in 1998, his lawyers interviewed Barney Gattie, a white juror at Tharpe’s trial. According to his affidavit, Gattie said: “In my experience I have observed that there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers. … I felt Tharpe, who wasn’t in the ‘good’ black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did.” Gattie also declared: “After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls.”

At the time, Georgia law prevented Tharpe’s attorneys from using this affidavit to impeach Tharpe’s conviction and sentence. But in March, the Supreme Court ruled in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado that the Constitution requires such “no-impeachment” rules give way when there’s compelling evidence that a juror made statements demonstrating racism motivated his or her vote. The Sixth and 14th Amendments guarantee both “an impartial jury” and “equal protection of the laws”; these dual commands, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained, grant defendants the right to challenge their conviction when “grave and serious statements of racial bias” in the jury room come to light.

The decision was a lifeline for Tharpe, and his attorneys asked the Georgia Supreme Court to stay his execution while it was being appealed under Peña-Rodriguez. The court refused, compelling the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and put the execution on hold. Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts—who dissented from Peña-Rodriguez—did not dissent from Tuesday’s stay of execution. Perhaps he has come to agree with Kennedy that “it must become the heritage of our nation to rise above racial classifications that are so inconsistent” with “the equal dignity of all persons.” Or maybe he has simply accepted Peña-Rodriguez as a matter of precedent. Regardless, he appears to have joined Kennedy and the liberals in delaying Tharpe’s lethal injection.

Want More SCOTUS? Subscribe to Amicus.

Join Dahlia Lithwick and her stable of standout guests for a discussion about the high court and the country’s most important cases.

Thomas and Alito also dissented in Peña-Rodriguez, and their votes on Tuesday were no surprise: Both justices have evinced a gruesome commitment to brutality in the face of injustice. But Gorsuch’s vote is somewhat startling. Yes, the justice recently voted to preserve Texas’ racially gerrymandered maps through the 2018 election, ensuring that minorities’ votes will continue to be diluted. At his confirmation hearings, however, Gorsuch endorsed equal protection with striking (if vague) passion:

I think that guarantee, equal protection of the laws guarantee, the 14th Amendment—that it took a Civil War for this country to win—is maybe the most radical guarantee in all of the Constitution and maybe in all of human history. It’s a fantastic thing.
So much for that. Gorsuch may be more eloquent than Donald Trump, but the justice’s support for racial equality as a practical matter now appears to run about as deep as the president’s. It’s sickening to see the newest justice embrace a jurisprudence that excuses white supremacy in the criminal justice system so soon after his paean to equality. If Gorsuch had his way, Keith Tharpe—a victim of egregious racism—would have been put to death on Tuesday without a real opportunity to vindicate his rights under Peña-Rodriguez. That’s not equal protection. It’s just barbarity.

I stand corrected. The article just appeared in my court briefs alert folder, but it is indeed from September.

i want to know how people on this board reacts to this:

“In my experience I have observed that there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers. … I felt Tharpe, who wasn’t in the ‘good’ black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did.” Gattie also declared: “After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls.”

when people try to claim that racism isn't a big deal, i have to wonder what reality they are living in.

racism isn't a big deal to them, because they aren't the target of it.

I've heard variations on the "there's two kinds of black people, and the other ones ruin it for the rest of them" throughout my life, and often on this board (hell, maybe even in this thread).

I don't even think they see it for the racism it is, or fall back to "well, Chris Rock said it, is he racist?"

i've had guys in the military try to push that nonsense on me too.

i even had two white guys try to tell me "whats wrong with the N word, it just means an ignorant person" as some sort of validation for why they should be able to call people that.

I've had black friends call me cracka....I never cracked a whip on anybody!

All races use derogatory terms towards other races. Hell, I've had black friends call me the 'N' word. Unlike many of you, the words don't offend me, it's the intent that gets me.

Just because a juror used that word doesn't negate the sentence. The man did commit the crime that's punishable by death right? The idiot white person that used that word shouldn't override a ruling.

A side note; you can't tell me or anybody what words we can and can't use (censorship). Only the decency in us keeps us from using them.

I've heard the same about whites.

Well, on this board anyway, we're told most whites are bigots and racists and xenophobes and all kinds of clutter.

But, 'whites' get labeled "trailer trash" and "red neck". And that's fine with people?

Well of course he isn't because he's black. You know how that works. We all have freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the constitution.

But somehow there are people who believe there's a double standard on what you can say and what you can't say based on race.

Constitution be damned? Let's just set up some double standard that everyone should accept no mater what the laws are!

If the N word is so offensive, quit using it! Don't try to pretend it's some special word that has some double standard and flaunt it in the face of others.

To me that sounds very "Trumpian". It's like throwing a little temper tantrum. Nah, nah, nah, nah. I've got a word that I can say but you can't use it!

What a crock of BS.

If somebody calls me a "cracker", it doesn't really mean anything to me, because at the end of the day, I'm not faced with daily systematic oppression and prejudice, so therefore it's little more than a silly name.

It doesn't work that way on the flip side.

they shouldn't be calling you cracker, though.

that's on you for allowing them to call you that.

your friends calling you the N word, obviously they are using the 'a' at the end instead of the 'er'.

i don't use that word, while it does slip from time to time because thats how we all talked growing up.

hopefully i don't get suspended, but it's a real easy lesson.

if me and you met up and i went "yo whats up my [censored]", then obviously you know how to take it.

but if i went "hey [censored]", then you should also know the blatant difference.

and with regards to this thread, please. if you have black friends like you claimed, then you know EXACTLY how this juror meant it, which means you know he meant it in the most racist of ways imaginable.

do us a favor and stop playing stupid, because you know damn well the difference.

I can't believe you just went there.

Taking that word, and ending it with an "a" is fine?

If the juror had ended his statement with an "a", you'd be fine with it?

Come on swish. The word, or any variation of it, is offensive.

Would it really matter to you if the juror used the "a" ending? Hell no.

If the n word is offensive, it's offensive. And wrong. Blacks don't get some privilege to use it.

did you miss the part where i said i don't use the word anymore?

i explained how the word is used culturally, and once again, you have a problem with me for pointing out something.

i really don't care at this point what you have to say, as i wasn't addressing you in the first place.

look at the the jurors comments. he meant it in the most racist way possible.

I certainly agree with you. People say they want to move forward. Yet they insist on using words from the past as some special privilege. They act like changing an er into an a makes some difference. It really doesn't.

You are correct about the juror. And you are correct about his intent in its use. Anyone can see that.

except it does, culturally.

to ignore that is to ignore why black people had to change the meaning in the first place.

i thought you would be the one who understood that, but i guess i was wrong assuming so.

You posted it, on a public message board.

Why is it fine for 1 so called "culture", and not for the national "culture"?

Yes they are, like I wrote cracka instead of cracker. It took a black guy to teach me what the word meant. I said INTENT is what gets me. I don't give 2 hoots my friends use them in an endearing manner but if they're fighting words then I'll oblige



More than likely but it still doesn't negate the verdict. I get it, the juror hates black people, he's a racist idiot. Just like Furman, I don't put much stock in someone using derogatory terms. Did the punishment fit the crime? I think so and the juror that used the 'N' word agrees, he just enjoyed the verdict more than I did because he's a racist peice of crap.



Stoping playing will fix my stupid, what will fix yours?
My skin might be thicker than yours so maybe it's hard for you to understand.

you didn't see me say the verdict itself was wrong.

however, the problem is the racist juror.

lets say i'm on trial for murder, whether or not i did it, if someone on the juror is racist against minorities, do i have a case that my verdict will be tainted due to racism?

that's the entire point.

All I see is people choosing to perpetuate the past and expecting things to move forward.

I don't really care about things like "We had to change it and culturally it's okay because we said it is".

I'm not aiming this at you as a person, but "culturally".

If people want to move forward, it's time to quit perpetuating the things they claim it's not okay for others to say. It only created an even bigger divide and accomplishes nothing.

did it create a bigger divide, or did a certain demographic just get upset once we decided to turn a derogatory word that they created around on them?

and thats to the bigger picture. obama didn't create a divide, people just got ticked off that a black man was in charge of the country.

See, to some extent we agree and in another we don't. Do I believe that racism still exists and that "some white people" felt that way about Obama? Sure I do. Yet without a LOT of white people, Obama would never have been elected. So there's certainly two sides to that coin.



Thanks for helping bolster my position. It's more about "we'll show whitey" than anything concerning moving the race issue forward. And whitey can see that.

That can go a few ways, if only 1 juror was racist and he was the ONLY guilty verdict, then racism was the only factor in his decision. That's a problem.

If all jurors decided guilty and only 1 was based on racism, then it didn't effect the collective verdict. I'm not condoning racism on a jury, I'm just saying in this case don't make it a bigger factor than what it is.

The verdict has to be unanimous. One juror certainly has impact on a guilty verdict.

umm, we've been having to "show whitey" since slavery ended.

and if that actually bolsters your position, then we are even further apart on the topic than i would've ever thought possible.

but thats cool. your position increasingly looks like "blacks should just accept whatever white people tell them is wrong".

I'm aware, but it can cause a hung jury....