Lives matter

[pattyangel]

Thanks Jax, as well as God wants me to be!!!  lol!!!

 

You know I find your opinions to be an intellectual honest perspective as well. 

[TrinityeXchange]

My objective reasoning sides with B... as personally I see law enforcement as a "color blind" duty and believe the existing criminal activity and enforcement would remain significantly the same.  The "glasses" would not change the outcome.

Jaxinjersey please come out of your suburbia dream world.  its amazing how out of touch many of you are to the real world.  i am literally in awe.  but to your credit, your poll seems so sincere however it lacks any realism whatsoever.  

 

"....and so i am like, these are the same people as me.  i am not going to arrest these people.  some of these people are judges sons, i am not going to jack them up.  and so i would head over to park heights a black neighborhood and get my arrest there to get my stats.  you have to get stats, you have to get arrest to make my supervisors happy because we all know i am not going to arrest anybody in mt washington. 

 

...and so if you ask a black male between 16 & 24 years of age, they would tell you that they have probably been locked up on a humble.  a humble is where we humble you for running your mouth too much or something like that and we create something or write up a citation to lock you up and humble you.  we wouldn't do that to whites because that citation would probably be revoked even before we turned it in [a criminal record would hurt their future career].  young blacks however are powerless to fight against it, that's why we do it.

 

....so that cycle 'we did'.  we target young black males 16-24 and search them illegally.  we find marijuana on them and lock them up.  they miss their court date and get a warrant and we find them and lock them up again.  they lose their job because of it and now they can't work.  so they are in a perpetual cycle that we helped create.  whites smoke marijuana too if not more than blacks but we don't stop and frisk them.  our target is 16-24 year old black males."

 

-- Michael Wood (Marine and Ex Police Officer)

 

and so jaxinjersey i would like to see that bit of information, interestingly omitted from your poll, at least referenced.  this is the real world.

[Jaxinjersey]

 

Jaxinjersey please come out of your suburbia dream world.  its amazing how out of touch many of you are to the real world.  i am literally in awe.  but to your credit, your poll seems so sincere however it lacks any realism whatsoever.  

 

"....and so i am like, these are the same people as me.  i am not going to arrest these people.  some of these people are judges sons, i am not going to jack them up.  and so i would head over to park heights a black neighborhood and get my arrest there to get my stats.  you have to get stats, you have to get arrest to make my supervisors happy because we all know i am not going to arrest anybody in mt washington. 

 

...and so if you ask a black male between 16 & 24 years of age, they would tell you that they have probably been locked up on a humble.  a humble is where we humble you for running your mouth too much or something like that and we create something or write up a citation to lock you up and humble you.  we wouldn't do that to whites because that citation would probably be revoked even before we turned it in [a criminal record would hurt their future career].  young blacks however are powerless to fight against it, that's why we do it.

 

....so that cycle 'we did'.  we target young black males 16-24 and search them illegally.  we find marijuana on them and lock them up.  they miss their court date and get a warrant and we find them and lock them up again.  they lose their job because of it and now they can't work.  so they are in a perpetual cycle that we helped create.  whites smoke marijuana too if not more than blacks but we don't stop and frisk them.  our target is 16-24 year old black males."

 

-- Michael Wood (Marine and Ex Police Officer)

 

and so jaxinjersey i would like to see that bit of information, interestingly omitted from your poll, at least referenced.  this is the real world.

 

Trinity... you're smarter than that... yet continue to disrespect me.  Perhaps you should check your own comprehension...  My "poll" IS fantasy... I said use your imagination... and pretend.  

 

It's simple, fair, and objective.

 

The reality is in the ANSWER... not the question.  The ANSWER reflects the honesty, not the argument.

 

Even if I concede to ALL your examples, videos, absolute and honest verdicts/results... it would not change my answer... my reality.  This is what you're missing... MOST, if not ALL of us, in whatever environment we live... already AGREE with your EXAMPLES.  They are good examples that prove bad things.  We get it... but, that's not the point.

 

Hence, the simplicity of the QUESTION.  Where is an individual's heart in each answer?  By the way... it is not a poll... just a little opportunity for people be honestly introspective.

 

So, my black friend... as I am committed to unify through a color-blind society, YOU insist on perpetuating the distinctions of color, serving division.

 

Which one of us is serving the cause better?  I would objectively say, I am.

 

And while some here might not understand my calling Trinity my black friend... please know, that I have tried to be just his colorless friend.  But, it is Trinity that insists on constantly injecting that distinction... not me.

 

So, Trinity... please refrain from your disrespect, as I take my valuable time to participate with an objective perspective.  You may not understand it... but, please understand my honest intentions.  And, you may actually find out more about yourself by answering the simple question... A or B?

 

Your friend,  Jax

[TrinityeXchange]

ah i get it.  i thought your poll was suppose to represent objectively what is real, today.  i meant no disrespect and i have no idea why you felt disrespected.  all i did was quote what the police officer said.  why you would take offense to that is beyond me or see it as me racially motivating things.  i simply quoted what the man said were the acceptable practices of the baltimore police force.  perhaps you were already aware.  there are others however who were not.  and so now everybody is made aware.  

[Jaxinjersey]

ah i get it.  i thought your poll was suppose to represent objectively what is real, today.  i meant no disrespect and i have no idea why you felt disrespected.  all i did was quote what the police officer said.  why you would take offense to that is beyond me or see it as me racially motivating things.  i simply quoted what the man said were the acceptable practices of the baltimore police force.  perhaps you were already aware.  there are others however who were not.  and so now everybody is made aware.  

Objectivism is always reality.

 

The disrespect is in that you don't recognize my intentions... and minimize and mock them (see my post #46).  I have not done that to you... and have sought to engage in objective reasoning, which IS reality.  I have also capitulated to your "examples", and acknowledged your insight in this thread, as well as others... yet you remain contentious toward me.

 

Your examples have nothing to do with my "poll", as you call it.  Further, you refuse to recognize the distinction about it that I clarified...  The question is an honesty one... and the answers to it could provide a common ground for further discussion, as you seem to insist upon.  For ME, and perhaps many others... THAT would be a more relevant starting point than your unending list of examples.  My question is simple in its intent... it gets to the root of the problem...  It really can't be simpler!

 

So, further... you could kindly and simply answer... or respectfully decline.

[TrinityeXchange]

My answer is that if cops put on colorless glasses the rate of arrest would not decline because the prison corporation is big business and will always take it's quota. Please research the prison industrial complex. It is no different than the military industrial complex. America will always find a war to fight because it is big business.

[Jaxinjersey]

My answer is that if cops put on colorless glasses the rate of arrest would not decline because the prison corporation is big business and will always take it's quota. Please research the prison industrial complex. It is no different than the military industrial complex. America will always find a war to fight because it is big business.

Thank you for your answer, indirect as it is!  Your perspective is appreciated, but the question has to do with the crime and intent of criminals... not the penal system.  I would have to declare your answer as "B", that the actual crimes will still be committed.  Whether they are punished or not is another question.  Until criminal activity ceases, the "business" of prisons will always be present.  I don't ever expect that to disappear... but incarceration can be diminished.

 

I appreciate the viewpoint!

[TrinityeXchange]

Thank you for your answer, indirect as it is!  Your perspective is appreciated, but the question has to do with the crime and intent of criminals... not the penal system.  I would have to declare your answer as "B", that the actual crimes will still be committed.  Whether they are punished or not is another question.  Until criminal activity ceases, the "business" of prisons will always be present.  I don't ever expect that to disappear... but incarceration can be diminished.

 

I appreciate the viewpoint!

and i am glad to give it.  the truth is that according to our legal system, pretty much everyone you come in contact with is a criminal.  there are now so many regulations created that it is nearly impossible for anyone over the age of 18 not to have perpetrated a federal crime.  if you have never been indicted for a federal crime at this point, you should thank the good Lord that you simply were never targeted because if you were what chance do you stand?  

 

so, in essence the ever increasing legal code is a form of taxation.  you say, "until criminal activity ceases" as if there is a moral or ethical nature behind breaking the law when it really "depends".  for instance a person has to wonder why it is that smoking pot is a crime up until recently when the federal government deemed it no longer a crime as long as they received their tax on the sale of it.  if it is that easy for something to be a crime today and not tomorrow, it begs to question if crime about unethical or immoral acts or are they about taxation.  or how an insurance company can get away with repetitive fraud and it is not a crime unless the issue of rights violations is raised by its victim.  we can even delve further into why many financial crimes are moved from criminal jurisdiction and placed under civil infraction.  a discussion for another day and thread i guess.  

 

so yes, i hold that crimes will still be committed but laws are written in a way that it is near impossible for anyone to not be a criminal.  this is the reality of the world we live, the world where men are not as free as they wish to believe.

 

here is interesting reading though from the Wall Street Journal:

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration." (read more)

Edited September 3, 2015 by TrinityeXchange

[umbertino]

and i am glad to give it.  the truth is that according to our legal system, pretty much everyone you come in contact with is a criminal.  there are now so many regulations created that it is nearly impossible for anyone over the age of 18 not to have perpetrated a federal crime.  if you have never been indicted for a federal crime at this point, you should thank the good Lord that you simply were never targeted because if you were what chance do you stand?  

 

so, in essence the ever increasing legal code is a form of taxation.  you say, "until criminal activity ceases" as if there is a moral or ethical nature behind breaking the law when it really "depends".  for instance a person has to wonder why it is that smoking pot is a crime up until recently when the federal government deemed it no longer a crime as long as they received their tax on the sale of it.  if it is that easy for something to be a crime today and not tomorrow, it begs to question if crime about unethical or immoral acts or are they about taxation.  or how an insurance company can get away with repetitive fraud and it is not a crime unless the issue of rights violations is raised by its victim.  we can even delve further into why many financial crimes are moved from criminal jurisdiction and placed under civil infraction.  a discussion for another day and thread i guess.  

 

so yes, i hold that crimes will still be committed but laws are written in a way that it is near impossible for anyone to not be a criminal.  this is the reality of the world we live, the world where men are not as free as they wish to believe.

 

here is interesting reading though from the Wall Street Journal:

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration." (read more)

 

Grazie Trinity....Much appreciated.

[Jaxinjersey]

and i am glad to give it.  the truth is that according to our legal system, pretty much everyone you come in contact with is a criminal.  there are now so many regulations created that it is nearly impossible for anyone over the age of 18 not to have perpetrated a federal crime.  if you have never been indicted for a federal crime at this point, you should thank the good Lord that you simply were never targeted because if you were what chance do you stand?  

 

so, in essence the ever increasing legal code is a form of taxation.  you say, "until criminal activity ceases" as if there is a moral or ethical nature behind breaking the law when it really "depends".  for instance a person has to wonder why it is that smoking pot is a crime up until recently when the federal government deemed it no longer a crime as long as they received their tax on the sale of it.  if it is that easy for something to be a crime today and not tomorrow, it begs to question if crime about unethical or immoral acts or are they about taxation.  or how an insurance company can get away with repetitive fraud and it is not a crime unless the issue of rights violations is raised by its victim.  we can even delve further into why many financial crimes are moved from criminal jurisdiction and placed under civil infraction.  a discussion for another day and thread i guess.  

 

so yes, i hold that crimes will still be committed but laws are written in a way that it is near impossible for anyone to not be a criminal.  this is the reality of the world we live, the world where men are not as free as they wish to believe.

 

here is interesting reading though from the Wall Street Journal:

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration." (read more)

Agreed, Trinity.  I am self-employed and dependent upon my own daily efforts in my "right" to pursue happiness.  Unfortunately, I, like so many who are fed up with much of society today, am blocked and impeded from that pursuit as we attempt to enjoy life. It is my discontent to have to "comply" with ever-changing rules, regulations, laws and mandates at any level.  There is a strong resentment toward this... and continually growing.  The "overt" immoral and shameless crimes being committed (and "allowed") are not helping with OUR... ALL OF US... rightful pursuit of individual happiness.