Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Nothing stops them.  They have the same Constitutional right to do so as anyone else. 

 

Beyond parody.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Nothing stops them.  They have the same Constitutional right to do so as anyone else.  Are you actually suggesting that constitutionalist judges would suddenly cool towards Second Amendment rights if more blacks started exercising them?


Constitutionalist judges probably not(🤔), but society wouldn’t be all that happy about it. Black boys in hoodies carrying skittles are seen as dangerous. I can only image what people would think seeing young black men with rifles on their backs walking down the street. Pretty sure we would see some new thoughts and interpretations on gun access. 

Edited by Sir2geez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the letter of the law they have equal Constitutional rights as anyone else. That doesn't mean they would be seen the same way in the public eye. There's a huge difference. And even when the letter of the law says they are to be treated equally, they often aren't in practice (arrest rates, sentencing, etc). So yeah, things are stopping black people from open carrying like these wannabe militias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, freefourur said:

When Black Panthers began arming themselves Ronald Reagan became interested in gun control.  

 
So did the NRA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sir2geez said:


The “2A community” didn’t say much after Philando Castile was shot and killed exercising his 2nd amendment rights. It took some public shaming for the NRA to finally a make a vague statement about the incident. 

 

The NRA isn't the 2A community.   They are the moderates.   Their role is to keep government cautious and keep the customers riled up enough to buy things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ the castille murder shows the difference between between white and black people legally carrying.  They both have the same legally recognized right to do so. It ends tragically for the black community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you will, but there is NOTHING normal about those armed wackos that look like a goddamn invasion force. They are an abomination to gun rights supporters, law-abiders, and people of good morals and conscience. 

Edited by TBideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Nothing stops them.  They have the same Constitutional right to do so as anyone else.  Are you actually suggesting that constitutionalist judges would suddenly cool towards Second Amendment rights if more blacks started exercising them?

 

Nothing stops them.....

 

This has been posted before, but this is the kind of stuff that happens when black men open carry.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Nothing stops them.  They have the same Constitutional right to do so as anyone else.

 

Come on, UO folks.  There's no way Gramarye wasn't trolling us here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the video is pretty much the...smoking gun!

 

tenor.gif


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you honestly believe that that video is representative of law enforcement (and the public attitudes of the establishment from which it is drawn and that it protects), then if you were serious about gun control, you'd forget the moralizing speeches and Facebook posts and organize a demonstration of a thousand open-carrying young black men.

 

Personally, I don't actually believe that those are representative and believe they were deliberately chosen for shock value, most likely from multiple samples.  (And yes, I admit they're troubling enough as they are and there are many other such videos on YouTube--many with millions of views, and I'd be willing to guess that many of those views are from sympathetic gun rights advocates, since such videos tend to circulate in open-carry-advocacy circles as much as they do in racial-activist circles.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Nothing stops them.  They have the same Constitutional right to do so as anyone else.  Are you actually suggesting that constitutionalist judges would suddenly cool towards Second Amendment rights if more blacks started exercising them?

 

I'll suggest it.  "Constitutionalist Judge" is meaningless branding.  The true animating ideals of the American right is racism and nativism.  It is not "constitutionalism".  It is not "limited government".  It is not "state's rights" or "local control"  It is not "free markets" nor "free trade".  Neither "individual responsibility" nor "family values".  The past few years have made this clear.

 

I feel bad for the rump of true ideological conservatives who believed those things, but they were never but a veneer for the uglier and baser things that were truly driving the American right.  And labeling the Right's preferred judges as "constitutionalist" was just a way of trying to claim some sort of moral high ground that they didn't truly occupy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, X said:

 

I'll suggest it.  "Constitutionalist Judge" is meaningless branding.  The true animating ideals of the American right is racism and nativism.  It is not "constitutionalism".  It is not "limited government".  It is not "state's rights" or "local control"  It is not "free markets" nor "free trade".  Neither "individual responsibility" nor "family values".  The past few years have made this clear.

 

I feel bad for the rump of true ideological conservatives who believed those things, but they were never but a veneer for the uglier and baser things that were truly driving the American right.  And labeling the Right's preferred judges as "constitutionalist" was just a way of trying to claim some sort of moral high ground that they didn't truly occupy. 

Well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

If you honestly believe that that video is representative of law enforcement (and the public attitudes of the establishment from which it is drawn and that it protects), then if you were serious about gun control, you'd forget the moralizing speeches and Facebook posts and organize a demonstration of a thousand open-carrying young black men.

 

Personally, I don't actually believe that those are representative and believe they were deliberately chosen for shock value, most likely from multiple samples.  (And yes, I admit they're troubling enough as they are and there are many other such videos on YouTube--many with millions of views, and I'd be willing to guess that many of those views are from sympathetic gun rights advocates, since such videos tend to circulate in open-carry-advocacy circles as much as they do in racial-activist circles.)

 

Well 1) we don't want to actually get people killed, unlike some people.  So no, no one is going to be organizing such a rally. 

 

And 2) a bit of an "anecdotal" type of thing, but since we've been in quarantine, we've been checking out the full library of Netflix shows.  We came across "100 Humans" which is really not that great of a show, imo.  But anyway, as it relates to this thread, they did some quirky "experiments" to test biases among their random sampling of 100 Humans.  I can't remember how many participated, but they told them they were testing reaction times and gave them a toy gun in a video-game like setting.  They were in a warehouse and they had a big SUV and some barrels, etc. scattered about - think the Men in Black test, actually.  Then, various sets of "good guys" with cell phones would appear and "bad guys" with guns would also sneak out from behind barriers.  They were supposed to shoot the bad guys and spare the good guys.  Eventually, they get to the point where two guys jump out simultaneously - one good, one bad.  The good guy is black with a cell phone and the white guy is bad with a gun.  Universally, they ended up shooting the "good" black guy.  Not only that, he was one of the guys working on the show who they saw every day.  Across gender, racial, religious, political lines...didn't matter.  They all ended up shooting the black guy when faced with a bad/white guy vs. a black/good guy they knew!

 

Point being, I don't really know that it's "racist/racist leaning people end up in law enforcement" or even "law enforcement brings out racial biases."  Like I said, the show is kind of dumb/unscientific-while-pretending-to-be but if that kind of bias is near-universal, it's a society-wide problem.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, X said:

 

I'll suggest it.  "Constitutionalist Judge" is meaningless branding.  The true animating ideals of the American right is racism and nativism.  It is not "constitutionalism".  It is not "limited government".  It is not "state's rights" or "local control"  It is not "free markets" nor "free trade".  Neither "individual responsibility" nor "family values".  The past few years have made this clear.

 

I feel bad for the rump of true ideological conservatives who believed those things, but they were never but a veneer for the uglier and baser things that were truly driving the American right.  And labeling the Right's preferred judges as "constitutionalist" was just a way of trying to claim some sort of moral high ground that they didn't truly occupy. 

 

This is just the mirror image of the unfortunately common conservative trope that the animating purpose of the American left is power for power's sake and the destruction of the United States through socialism, secularism, identity politics, and open borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

If you honestly believe that that video is representative of law enforcement (and the public attitudes of the establishment from which it is drawn and that it protects), then if you were serious about gun control, you'd forget the moralizing speeches and Facebook posts and organize a demonstration of a thousand open-carrying young black men.

 

The problem is, there are thousands of videos and examples beyond the video above!    A white guy can hole up in a house and have an 18 hour standoff and walk out alive.   A black kid gets shot reaching for his wallet to get his license out.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

This is just the mirror image of the unfortunately common conservative trope that the animating purpose of the American left is power for power's sake and the destruction of the United States through socialism, secularism, identity politics, and open borders.

 

Not really.  What you're stating is a difference of strongly held opinion, with your own terminology overlaid on our ideals.  I don't believe in "socialism" in the way that conservatives use it, but I can and do stand behind a strong social safety net/Western European style "socialism".  I straight up believe in secularism and can stand behind it.  What you're calling "identity politics", I would call social justice, and I believe in that to.  "Open borders" is a wildly inflated pejorative, but most on the left do believe in allowing more immigration, especially refugees, than those on the right and I can stand behind that to. "Power for power's sake"- well, that's a meaningless phrase.  Everybody wants power for something.

 

What I'm stating is that while the American Right likes to tout certain values, it isn't what they really stand up for.  The past few years have shown that whenever the stated values of "Conservativism" come in conflict with "White Nationalism", White Nationalism wins on the Right. 

 

Conversely, on the Left, the big debate has really been about how aggressively to pursue the stated values- and the more moderate wing won out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

This is just the mirror image of the unfortunately common conservative trope that the animating purpose of the American left is power for power's sake and the destruction of the United States through socialism, secularism, identity politics, and open borders.

 

1 hour ago, X said:

 

Not really.  What you're stating is a difference of strongly held opinion, with your own terminology overlaid on our ideals.  I don't believe in "socialism" in the way that conservatives use it, but I can and do stand behind a strong social safety net/Western European style "socialism".  I straight up believe in secularism and can stand behind it.  What you're calling "identity politics", I would call social justice, and I believe in that to.  "Open borders" is a wildly inflated pejorative, but most on the left do believe in allowing more immigration, especially refugees, than those on the right and I can stand behind that to. "Power for power's sake"- well, that's a meaningless phrase.  Everybody wants power for something.

 

What I'm stating is that while the American Right likes to tout certain values, it isn't what they really stand up for.  The past few years have shown that whenever the stated values of "Conservativism" come in conflict with "White Nationalism", White Nationalism wins on the Right. 

 

Conversely, on the Left, the big debate has really been about how aggressively to pursue the stated values- and the more moderate wing won out.


Not to speak for him, but I think that was actually @Gramarye’s point. I took his comments as “the left mischaracterizing the right as such and such” is similar to “the right mischaracterizing the left as such and such”. And I took it that @Gramarye disagrees with how most conservatives characterize the objectives and drivers of the left. 

 

I agree that we should strive to not label the goals of people with different political beliefs. It makes it extremely difficult to ever get to some point of understanding and mutually beneficial progress. Let’s argue policies and their effects. 

 

All that said, I do believe in calling a spade a spade. The idea that a black man, or group of men, could have an open carry demonstration that didn’t end in disaster is complete nonsense. We are not living in a post-racial world. We have a long ways to go. And we won’t be able to get there without people acknowledging that many challenges still exist for minorities, one of the biggest being how minorities are perceived and treated by other people. 
 

Also, I completely agree w @X on all points. I just think his defense of the left actually lines up with @Gramarye’s point. 

Edited by Boomerang_Brian
Added last paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Gram is one of the biggest offender of broad brush painting. If you take a specific look at the Political Correctness thread, you'll see that uses anecdotal stories to paint the left with a broad brush.  I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, freefourur said:

^ Gram is one of the biggest offender of broad brush painting. If you take a specific look at the Political Correctness thread, you'll see that uses anecdotal stories to paint the left with a broad brush.  I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Perhaps it was projection on my part. I thought we were having a breakthrough. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Stating that it emerged from a Chinese lab is bad? If it emerged from a Chinese lab, it is important to let the public know. There is a distinction between blaming China and their horrible leadership as opposed to blaming Asians. 

 

Sure there will be some idiots who may react that way, but they re the minority. It should not discourage people from stating the truth about the virus if that is in fact where it emerged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been an increase in racism towards Asians since the virus first emerged, amplified by the fact that the administration has called it "the Chinese virus" and "Kung flu". Long before the current claim that the Chinese government created it in a lab... which does not seem to be supported by the experts. From the Reuters article linked above (emphases added by me):

 

Quote

U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reporting and analysis have said for weeks that they do not believe Chinese scientists developed the coronavirus in a government biological weapons lab from which it then escaped.

 

If Pompeo has evidence that it was, he needs to show it to the public. Cuz it sure seems like he's circulating conspiracy theories in order to stoke "anti-Chinese sentiment" (a.k.a. racism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ Stating that it emerged from a Chinese lab is bad? If it emerged from a Chinese lab, it is important to let the public know. There is a distinction between blaming China and their horrible leadership as opposed to blaming Asians. 

 

Sure there will be some idiots who may react that way, but they re the minority. It should not discourage people from stating the truth about the virus if that is in fact where it emerged. 

 

Honest question - has there been a single story or article shared here where your reflex isn't automatically, "actually, this *isn't* racism because of _______ reasons."  Are there any posts here where you have written, "Yeah, this is racism.  That's bad," or any acknowledgement that racism does exist?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Honest question - has there been a single story or article shared here where your reflex isn't automatically, "actually, this *isn't* racism because of _______ reasons."  Are there any posts here where you have written, "Yeah, this is racism.  That's bad," or any acknowledgement that racism does exist?

Does racism exist? Of course it does. Does it exist to the extent that some on the left seem to think it does? I dont believe it does. Is everything that the country was built on built on the backs of racist intent, as some seem to want to believe? I find that to be false. 

 

Do i believe that there are Asian Americans being harassed because of the the Wuhan Virus? Yes, but it is a very small scale. There are idiots everywhere and living in a free society means that there are going to be idiots out there. There are racists out there but they are very small in minority and do not reflect the general sentiment of the vast majority of Americans. 

 

I also believe that too many people get caught up looking for minor slights and people who may use words inarticulately whether they mean it or not. Going through life in search of micro aggression has to lead to such a wretched miserable experience and I take pity on the people that act that way. If you are always in search of racism, of course you will find it in some corners, but the vast majority of people can go about living their life and not looking for the smallest slight in the world and attributing it to some deeper menacing behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There are idiots everywhere and living in a free society means that there are going to be idiots out there.

 

So your advice to the Asian-American woman whose tweet I posted above would be, "get over it"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

So your advice to the Asian-American woman whose tweet I posted above would be, "get over it"?

Pretty much Yes. She needs to get over it. She should recognize that the woman screaming at her is a bit unhinged and try and deescalate the situation. She should not live in fear because the crazy woman does not represent the vast majority of Americans. There are idiots out there for sure as well as racists. They dont make up the majority. Acting scared or engaging them is giving them what they want, it gives them a forum. If you ignore them, they lose.  

 

Back in the day we used to teach the old Sticks and Stones addage. We need to get back to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When an American goes abroad and someone tells them off because of Donald Trump, is that racism?  Surely labeling it the Chinese virus seems stupid and a play to the base; however, coming back and saying that's racist really plays into the whole theme around some on the left calling things racist more often than they should.  Can it lead to some prejudiced/bigoted acts? Yes.  Who do we hold accountable for indirect and illogical reactions though?  If we say we hold the person who said something that was misconstrued as accountable, then we're going to have to revisit a lot of things because we seem to pick and choose those circumstances based on the outcomes we want to see (i.e. we want Republicans to be seen as racist therefore we will attribute this non-racist statement to this racist act). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People live in two different worlds, man...


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Does racism exist? Of course it does. Does it exist to the extent that some on the left seem to think it does? I dont believe it does. Is everything that the country was built on built on the backs of racist intent, as some seem to want to believe? I find that to be false. 

 

Do i believe that there are Asian Americans being harassed because of the the Wuhan Virus? Yes, but it is a very small scale. There are idiots everywhere and living in a free society means that there are going to be idiots out there. There are racists out there but they are very small in minority and do not reflect the general sentiment of the vast majority of Americans. 

 

I also believe that too many people get caught up looking for minor slights and people who may use words inarticulately whether they mean it or not. Going through life in search of micro aggression has to lead to such a wretched miserable experience and I take pity on the people that act that way. If you are always in search of racism, of course you will find it in some corners, but the vast majority of people can go about living their life and not looking for the smallest slight in the world and attributing it to some deeper menacing behavior. 

 

None of this answers any of the questions I posed.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

None of this answers any of the questions I posed.

I believe I did, I am sorry you dont like the answer. To clarify - I dont automatically look at a post on the racism and reflexively say it is not racism. I give it thought and try and see where the author is coming from before I react. There are times where I agree with you in discussions on a racist statement, however there are many times that we disagree.

 

is this better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ In the example I posted above, which was clearly an instance of racism, your reaction was not, "oh wow, that was pretty racist," it was that the victim of the incident "needs to get over it".

 

I think that's what @DarkandStormy is getting at. Conservatives in this thread tend to say, "that wasn't racist," or "well, it wasn't as bad as the person was making it out to be," or "sticks and stones, they should just get over it." Never an acknowledgement that a person is racist and/or did a racist thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, taestell said:

^ In the example I posted above, which was clearly an instance of racism, your reaction was not, "oh wow, that was pretty racist," it was that the victim of the incident "needs to get over it".

 

I think that's what @DarkandStormy is getting at. Conservatives in this thread tend to say, "that wasn't racist," or "well, it wasn't as bad as the person was making it out to be," or "sticks and stones, they should just get over it." Never an acknowledgement that a person is racist and/or did a racist thing.

Without getting in the crazy person's head, it is difficult to examine true intent unless she specifically admits it. What that person did was wrong and horrible and intimidation. In this particular case, it appears the person was seeking to intimidate because of her race. Which is wrong. 

However, the severity of the situation and the gravity of the act determines how she should deal. (I know it is easy for me to say this because I was not the target). IN this case, it was a knucklehead who drove by and shouted insulting language. Shrug it off and move on. IF this because a regular occurrence and more than a one off then there is a bigger problem. The larger question should be whether this is a one off incident by a crazy person or if it is a much larger theme such as say the 1960's South. 

 

The problem is sometimes you have people seeking attention looking to cry racism at the smallest slight or micro aggression which harms the cause for those who are truly aggrieved by racism. This particular person, perceived the event that she reported to be racist. Chances are, there may be other points of view or other witnesses that may either corroborate or dispute her account. Without more, it is just sensationalist reporting by an individual on Twitter and we should not necessarily look at it as more than a potential one off incident.  We dont know the whole story and before we react to sensationalism, we should try and get the full story. 

 

 

Edited by Brutus_buckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ Stating that it emerged from a Chinese lab is bad? If it emerged from a Chinese lab, it is important to let the public know. There is a distinction between blaming China and their horrible leadership as opposed to blaming Asians. 

 

Sure there will be some idiots who may react that way, but they re the minority. It should not discourage people from stating the truth about the virus if that is in fact where it emerged. 

 

That's not what that post stated.  Basic reading comprehension would have saved you some keystrokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

66 pages in this topic, have we discussed solutions yet?  We now have a great repository of racist, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.  Great. What's the path forward?

 

Here's a few takes on it:

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11380974/reduce-prejudice-science-transgender

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/how-to-change-someones-mind-according-to-science/

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/forget-facts-3-ways-to-actually-change-someones-mi.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Cr64zCc38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2020 at 4:49 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Shrug it off and move on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how is someone to know before the gun is in their face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, X said:

And how is someone to know before the gun is in their face?

because when the threat is over, you move on. If there is the threat there, of course you take it seriously. 4 hours after the fact, instead of posting it on Twitter as the worst possible ever offense to happen, maybe get some perspective and realize that there are a lot of people who experience racism in a much more vicious fashion #privilege 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I wonder if some Jews in early 1930s Germany had a similar mindset as you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

because when the threat is over, you move on. If there is the threat there, of course you take it seriously. 

 

The guy died.  Wtf is this word salad?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

The guy died.  Wtf is this word salad?

white people are the arbiters of how minorities should handle racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

The guy died.  Wtf is this word salad?

Yes, the guy died, he was targeted by racists who killed him. It is horrible and hopefully these people are brought to justice and treated harshly for their acts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "racism doesn't exist" crowd should think about the fact that the DA in this case tried to cover for the racists until the video he had leaked out.  But I know white people aren't allowed to say the N word so it's really much worse for white people today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's saying that if you experience racism but don't die, you should just move on, which totally makes sense.  It's like if you get robbed and the perpetrator shoots at you but misses, it's not like you report it to the police.  You just move on!

Edited by jam40jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jam40jeff said:

He's saying that if you experience racism but don't die, you should just move on, which totally makes sense.  It's like if you get robbed and the perpetrator shoots at you but misses, it's not like you report it to the police.  You just move on!

of course, that's the only way to prevent the robberies from happening or escalating.  I get it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Lynching is very much alive in Georgia. 

 

 

 

More on this from CNN this morning:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/us/ahmaud-arbery-jogging-georgia-shooting/index.html

 

The prosecutor on the case intends to send it to a grand jury, but grand juries cannot meet in Georgia right now under the lockdown order in place there.

 

Two other prosecutors recused themselves from the case, including one that already wrote a letter saying that the son (the two men in the truck were a father and son) acted out of self-defense and their action fell within citizen arrest laws.  The father in the truck was a former investigator at a DA's office; not sure if it's the same office that would be bringing the prosecution here.

 

I have major doubts about the citizen-arrest argument, though the victim's family's attorney is also overstating the case:

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

 

The family attorney says: "According to that law, you actually have to be observing the crime or be in the immediate knowledge of the crime."  The second part of the law provides, "If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."  The two shooters are arguing that they were attempting a citizen's arrest for burglary, a felony, so the question is whether they had "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."  So the family attorney I think got the applicable standard wrong--but the video of course still makes me think he got the conclusion right, because I don't know how they could show reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion for burglary based on being a black man running down the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...