"Racial Profiling"= PC/SJW Gobbledygook!!!

[brocktonblockbust]

Inner cities are made up of poor, uneducated people who rely on crime and welfare to survive.

Police have every right to stop, in North Newark, NJ, for example, a "~Netas" ghetto mobile with no shock absorbers packed with 8 Puerto Ricans at 2 a.m. SIMPLY BECAUSE COMMON SENSE DICTATES THEY ARE WELL KNOWN TROUBLEMAKERS.

I can give hundreds of examples why "racial profiling" is politically correct BULL SHIT. it has only emboldened the criminal scumbags over the past 25 years.

[Master]

So why exactly did they stop them?

[brocktonblockbust]

So why exactly did they stop them?

Because they caught them with cocaine, crack cocaine, and meth, plus $6500 in cash and a stun gun. 2 of the 8 had outstanding warrants.

A GREAT decision by Newark police force to stop them.

THATS why they stopped them.

[Master]

So why exactly did they stop them?

Because they caught them with cocaine, crack cocaine, and meth, plus $6500 in cash and a stun gun. 2 of the 8 had outstanding warrants.

A GREAT decision by Newark police force to stop them.

THATS why they stopped them.

That is fair enough if the intelligence suggested it not because solely for the colour of their skin.

[brocktonblockbust]

So why exactly did they stop them?

Because they caught them with cocaine, crack cocaine, and meth, plus $6500 in cash and a stun gun. 2 of the 8 had outstanding warrants.

A GREAT decision by Newark police force to stop them.

THATS why they stopped them.

That is fair enough if the intelligence suggested it not because solely for the colour of their skin.

Its a fine line. A very very fine line.

[Master]

So why exactly did they stop them?

Because they caught them with cocaine, crack cocaine, and meth, plus $6500 in cash and a stun gun. 2 of the 8 had outstanding warrants.

A GREAT decision by Newark police force to stop them.

THATS why they stopped them.

That is fair enough if the intelligence suggested it not because solely for the colour of their skin.

Its a fine line. A very very fine line.

No it is clear, you do not stop someone just because they are black.

[brocktonblockbust]

So why exactly did they stop them?

Because they caught them with cocaine, crack cocaine, and meth, plus $6500 in cash and a stun gun. 2 of the 8 had outstanding warrants.

A GREAT decision by Newark police force to stop them.

THATS why they stopped them.

That is fair enough if the intelligence suggested it not because solely for the colour of their skin.

Its a fine line. A very very fine line.

No it is clear, you do not stop someone just because they are black.

It never happens that way and you cannot prove a negative.

A black thug gets stops in Harlem, has 3 outstanding warrants. Easy to read behavior, law enforcement is trained for that. CIA and FBI etc ate trained to intuitively detect subtle and even obvious outward expressions of criminality, criminal intent, criminal or delinquent demeanor. It is not fool proof, but it is a necessary and effective tool.

But he then says he was stopped Cuz he was black.

PROVE IT. PROVE IT. YOU CANNOT. IT WAS A COMBINATION OF:

observing his behavior
Observing His physical reactions
Observing his body language
Observing his disposition
Identifying tell tale signs of delinquency
Etc etc etc
Taking into account the local crime rates
Taking into a account the usual profiles/repeat offender profiles in the given neighborhood, etc etc
Then its an amalgamation of all those data collections THAT FACTOR INTO A LAW ENFORCERS DECISION TO STOP/DETAIN SOMEONE.

but people can always play the race card and say "it was only because he was black"....




@El Kabong

[Master]

You give too much credit to officers as if they have the power to read minds and can predict a crime.

[brocktonblockbust]

You give too much credit to officers as if they have the power to read minds and can predict a crime.

Never said that. They make mistakes. But if they cannot read minds nor predict crime, they should still try to do so, and not cower under the accusations of having racially profiled.

[walrus]

You give too much credit to officers as if they have the power to read minds and can predict a crime.

I hear u master but what about airports. They will search you by behavior alone. If your car is all jacked up usually there is some kind of safety issue the cops can pull you over for. If you are in a known drug area at a certain time the cops will find a reason to pull you over. We make a big deal about it but these frickin cops can pull you over for any little reason

[Master]

You give too much credit to officers as if they have the power to read minds and can predict a crime.

I hear u master but what about airports. They will search you by behavior alone. If your car is all jacked up usually there is some kind of safety issue the cops can pull you over for. If you are in a known drug area at a certain time the cops will find a reason to pull you over. We make a big deal about it but these frickin cops can pull you over for any little reason

Intelligence led policing is fine but stopping someone just because they are black is wrong and counter productive.

[El Kabong]

It would be bad if people were stopped merely due to their skin color, Master you are spot on with that.

But if you notice a pattern and can effectively police by actively noticing that pattern without (and this is key) without infringing on anyone's rights then by all means, do it.


I think most of the trouble is due to the war on drugs and likewise the war on poverty. The war on drugs gets a lot of otherwise peaceful people criminal records for buying or selling drugs, the prohibition on drugs has made Gangs the main supplier and distributor of drugs and therefore brought in violence to protect their illegal operations. How do children wind up in gangs? No father in the household so they turn to gangs for a sense of belonging, a single mother in over her head dependent on the government to provide for her and her family, those kids drop out of school at a higher rate, they end up in jail at a higher rate, and they end up on government assistance at a higher rate.


There's no simple solution because it's a complex multifaceted problem. My answer would be for the government to take a couple steps back and society to take a couple steps up....I am of the opinion that (as it is taught in behavioral psychology) if separate groups come together to achieve a collectively beneficial goal it will create a more harmonious neighborhood/society and there will be more vigilance, more pride int he neighborhood, more of a community feel, more like the America Norman Rockwell painted where policemen can be friendly and helpful rather than seen as a threat.

A buddy of mine was a detective with the police in my home town. He was given a low income black neighborhood to patrol. When my friend would walk his beat he did not carry his nightstick as just having it put some of the people on the defensive immediately because in the 40's and 50's I'm sure there was a different kind of "justice" that was being dealt out. My friend treated the members of the community he walked as if they were members of his community, he treated them with respect and dignity which is as it should be for any person and as a result he still to this day holds the record for percentage of cases closed, I forget the actual number but it's in the 90% range. Those folks where my friend was walking a beat, they didn't want to live in some gangland war zone hell hole they wanted what everyone wants, a community which you can be proud of.

[El Kabong]

Woman Who Spanked Her Children With Belt After She Caught Them Stealing Gets Arrested And Sets Off Firestorm Of Debate � CBS Los Angeles


Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


You'll notice the woman in question is a "Single Mother"....of six children....3 of those children committed the crime of theft. The "Baby(s) Daddy" is incarcerated and the mother didn't want her children to go down that road. The single mother attempts to discipline her children (something which is easier to do when there are 2 parents in the house) and so it her attempt to teach her children just how wrong stealing is.......the bleeding heart left has her arrested and her children taken from her which benefits who? Does that really "help" the kids?

Now I don't want children beaten with belts to "teach a lesson", I would like for children to be reasonably and rationally taught right from wrong...but with 6 kids and parenting by herself there is a "sense of urgency" she probably had to where she felt the need to act in a swift and extreme manner in order to really get her point drilled home.

I know parents lose their tempers at times, I know they have a hard job in shaping a life for their children, but shit like this doesn't help any of the parties involved. If the mother is unfit she's unfit, but in my view teaching your child not to steal is a good thing and if that lesson comes from a belt then I'm betting it's a lesson those 3 children will not soon forget and that is important when you're a single parent trying to provide the best for your kids.



The Government does not always know what is best for people, it is very silly to assume they do. If the Children were not "abused" and only disciplined then this DA advancing this case is a complete and utter virtue signaling moron.

[Master]

Well worded and correctly written unlike Brock.

[brocktonblockbust]

Well worded and correctly written unlike Brock.

Bwahaha.......not!