E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA federal prosecutor came in for some biting criticism today from two Supreme Court justices for a racially charged remark made during a criminal trial.
The comment by the justices came as the court declined to hear the appeal of a man who was convicted in a Texas federal court of being in on a drug conspiracy.
The issue for the defendant, Bongani Charles Calhoun, was whether he knew that the people he accompanied on a road trip were about to buy illegal drugs, or whether he was merely along for the ride.
During cross-examination, Calhoun said he distanced himself from the others when one of them arrived at their hotel room with a bag of money.
The prosecutor, an assistant US attorney in the Western District of Texas, pressed him to explain why he didn't want to be there. The prosecutor asked, "You've got African-Americans. You've got Hispanics, and you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you -- a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, 'This is a drug deal?'"
After he was convicted, Calhoun -- who is African-American -- claimed the prosecutor's racially charged remark violated his constitutional rights by appealing to the jury's prejudice. The court today declined to take up his appeal, because his lawyers failed to properly pursue the issue in the lower courts.
But Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer said they couldn't let the case pass without writing to dispel any doubt of whether the Court's denial of the case "should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal prosecutor's racially charged remark. It should not," they wrote.
"By suggesting that race should play a role in establishing a defendant's criminal intent, the prosecutor here tapped into a deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice that has run through the history of criminal justice in our Nation.
"It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century," they said.
"We expect the government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice."
The justices also said it was troubling to see the Justice Department fail to immediately condemn what happened. Instead, they said, during the appeals in the lower courts, the government called the prosecutor's remark "impolitic" and said it did not affect the outcome of the trial "even assuming the question crossed the line."
Only when the case reached the Supreme Court did the Justice Department concede that the remark was "unquestionably improper."
"I hope never to see a case like this again," wrote Justice Sotomayor for herself and Justice Breyer.
Leave a Comment:
Justice and the Supreme Court mix like oil and water.
It happened in Texas...not surprise there...and there is plenty more where that came from. Sadly
I'm confused by your comment Gary.
Do you feel the Supreme Court was incorrect when it said that racism has no place in the justice system?
Now there is a Texas prosecutor who knows how to deal with a Texas jury.
Clearly the prosecutor isn't informed that the majority of new admissions to jails are young, white, and on drugs.
Sorry; but what he (the prosecutor) said is, in general, very true.
That's a common misconception Phil.
The statistics bear out that Hispanic and Whites, as a population, are more likely to be drug users than Blacks.
I linked to my source in comment #2.1
I didn't even know that "impolitic" was a word.
So the Supreme Court says that what this prosecutor did was over the line yet still refuses to hear the case. It sounds like they attempted to raise the issue in the lower courts and got no where with it because the lower court justices did not see this comment as being over the line. The prosecutor improperly used racial prejudices to gain a conviction. The lower courts apparently did not feel that the comment had any impact on the verdict. The Supreme Court seems to disagree but still did not order a new trial. It seems to me that the Supreme Court punted on this one when they should have, as a minimum, ordered a new trial.
Phil, how was the food they served you on the jury pool. The comment this guy made was just absolutely ridiculous. It's akin to saying, you saw a black man talking to a white woman, and a lightbulb went off in your head, "She's about to get raped!". This is a dog of a prosecutor, preaching to a choir of his (not the defendant's) peers on the jury.
Ridiculous.
Can't we just let Texas secede?
"By suggesting that race should play a role in establishing a defendant's criminal intent, the prosecutor here tapped into a deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice that has run through the history of criminal justice in our Nation.
"It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century," they said.
"We expect the government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice."
And yet again we find an example of liberals simply refusing to acknowledge the reality of the word in which they live. Who cares if whites also commit crimes as a couple of posters have stated here in the way of trying to dspute that blacks and hispanics aren't any more prone to committimg crime than whites, which is complete and utter BS. The fact is that when you find multiple blacks together and multiple hispanics together, there is a very high probability that they are up to no good
To state what is obvious somehow makes the stater a racist and a bigot, but guess what? To deny it makes you naive and an idiot.
BTW, I'll refer to blacks as African-Americans when one of them can point out Africa on a map for me.
In general, it's not. There are plenty of white drug dealers. The bureau of justice has convictions for sales and manufacturing as being much higher for whites than blacks.
Is it not fact that blacks and Hispanics commit 80% of all the crime in the U.S. ? Since when did the TRUTH become "Racist"?
Shovel,
The truth can't be racist.
But when you assume something to be true because of racial stereotypes, and that "fact" turns out to be false... that's where the racism comes in.
The idea that Blacks use illicit drugs at a higher rate than Whites is simply false.
Data that proves it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377408/
The Uncle Tom of the court aka Clarence Thomas had no problem with the remark.
Scuba- No one is arguing that blacks use drugs more than other races. People are saying that there are more black drug dealers, I don't think any one said anything about using. What the prosecutor said is sort of true. A joy ride that ends with a big bag of money looks suspicious no matter what race is doing it but throwing in their races doesn't sound good.
carrying
Damn, by you we better start raiding some churches I have seen. The other day, I drove by a church. They must have just finished planning those crimes you were talking about. Because there was a whole lot of blacks coming out the door. Maybe I should have called the police or the FBI?
Hmmmm, wonder if the Progressives can be taken to Federal Court for their "racially motivated remarks".
Carryingconcealed
Great advertisement for the NRA, there. Are you their official spokesperson? You certainly pass the intelligence test for the permit - NOT!
I get a kick out of the many on many blogs that insist that racism is over.
When all investigations say that whites are more into drugs for use and for sale is a fact, you have to wonder why more Blacks and Hispanics are in prison for drugs.
Racism is alive and sick.
Has no one considered that the issue for the prosecutor wasn't that there was a black person or a hispanic person, but that a black person was conducting business with a hispanic person? Is that unusual?
I'm not saying the question was proper, but what is the state of the relationship between the black community and the Hispanic community in Texas?
I imagine people wouldn't have been nearly as upset if he had said, "a black man and a white man with a big bag of money..."
Stereotyping is bad...but apparently only against non-whites.
If it's against whites, it's all good. When Obama said in one of his books that his (white) grandmother was a "typical white person" it was fine and dandy. The media has NO PROBLEM with that, and will even attack the person questioning it on Obama's behalf. It's quite a racket the progressives have built.
I have seen this double standard grow to epidemic proportions here in the U.S., and it's getting worse.
I have also seen my very liberal friends talk the standard talk about "equality" and the associated buzz words and defend blacks as being "no different" than anyone else, and I've seen these same people get nervous around a bunch of rowdy black youths who look like they're up to no good. I've also seen them struggle to explain why they don't want to buy a house in a predominantly black area without mentioning they have a natural suspicion of the prevalence of black violence. At a deep level, they know it, but they can't let themselves acknowledge it. They have invested too much energy condemning others who did the same.
It's funny.
If i saw any group of men in a room and a bag of cash, regardless of race, I'd think drug deal... Race is zero factor here.. Leave out the race and the very reasonable suspicion still stands.
Pippo,
Racism is alive and sick. As a California resident in riverside county it is very present against white or light skinned people. I was initally refused the right to register a child for school... shocking and it was clearly a race thing. In Texas it is a problem there too. I wanted some authentic food in Texas and waited for over an hour to be seated. People came and ate and they made it very clear that this was intentionally (the irony is that my blonde haired blue eyed children are partially of that race - they just can't tell). I just don't like how it is only taught one way in the text books and portrayed one way in the media. It goes both ways!
That prosecutor didn't even have to say it..its really common sense truth what he said and most know that.
Why the supreme court put their noses in this when the lower courts already said its was wrong to say in court and just a minor infraction of expressing his words..doesn't the supreme court have bigger fish to worry about?
JS in SD: the defendant's attorney in the first appeal (to the trial court for a reversal of the jury verdict, and then to the appellate court) did not raise the comment made by the prosecutor as the grounds for a reversal of the conviction, so it cannot be raised again.
Patrick Hannah: in criminal cases, as well as civil, the operative facts of the situation should speak for themselves, race/religion/gender are not raised unless they are material (a hate crime, or many of the sexual assault or harassment claims, a religious gounds for why a person may have done or not done something...like not take a child to the doctor on religious grounds). In a drug deal case like this race should not be raised by the prosecutor, especially when the overall facts contradict what the prosecutor said (most drug dealing convictions involve whites, not minorities). The bag of money, the meeting in a hotel room, and probably other facts introduced but not provided for in the article should have been enough to undermine the defendant's claim that he was just along for the ride and didn't know what was happening- not to mention that he did not leave the hotel room when the situation became strikingly obvious... The prosecutor here pushed a unacceptable lie to help secure a conviction- he didn't need to do it, and more importantly, he violated his oath as an attorney and as a prosecutor by doing so.
The issue for the Supreme Court is whether or not the appeal is properly perfected. SCOTUS is an appellate court and unless you raise an issue at trial, you can't later appeal it. This being said, sounds like the guy had incompetent counsel if they did not object and appeal on the basis of the prosecutor's racial prejudice. The defendant may still have a shot at that one.
JXC, you're missing my point. I don't think it was proper for him to ask the question, and I am not saying it was. What I am doing is asking the question... does anyone think he was referring not to the races of the people involved, but instead the combination of races? That takes a little bit of wind out of the "racist" sails.
everyone say at the count of 3. 1.....2.....3-tamra is a kunt (if she/he is a chick)
This federal prosecutor should be immediately dismissed from his position in the great state of Texas. Since he is a federal employee his actions are grounds for immediate dismissal due to his position as an employee of DOJ. I suspect if DOJ in DC were to take action against him a good ole boy federal judge would have someones arse. If he was my federal subordinate if I could not remove him from the payroll immediately, I would suspend him without pay for six months at the very least and then transfer him to Alaska without chance of being transferred to another state since he would have the violation of prejudice hung in his personnel folder. A federal judge would not have cause to strike out against a personnel action as described.
Texas is so prejudiced the privileged race in TX discriminate against themselves according to social standing when there are no other races around. Dallas was my place of employment for five years so I know firsthand. I was from the Midwest and definitely found hatred because of my geographical origins and had went beyond a high school education and could read and write.
I wish Texas would succed we would be a lot better off. WE have the oil we have the gasoline manf plants here we have the ability to protect our families without fear of getting sued but most important we have the Nukes yes Pantax is located in Texas we have the Nukes. Now how much do you all want to pay for your oil, gas, meat, and youor protection
Yes Intellect there might be some hard feelings that way because you F-ing Yankees think you know everything. Lets look at Yankees land please such as DC NYC, Chicago, Detriot cess pools of the USA
slufoot,
And you have a great educational system that somehow failed to teach you the difference between the words "secede" and "succeed". Come to think of it, it didn't even teach you how to spell succeed correctly.
slufoot also believes that the United States would be stupid enough to put all its nuclear weapons in one place.
Hell...I'd be impressed if they even knew what a map is...
Hell, I live halfway between two of the country's larger metro areas, and believe me, one has only to watch the local ten o'clock news every night to realize that this prosecutor was spot on. I agree that senseless racism is wrong; but, I also realize that facts are facts, and the truth, as in this case, often hurts.
This is just more clear evidence that bigotry and racism is fully alive in the U.S. and even in our legal system of justice. It is so very sad that only at the highest court level in the land that the racist remarks were decried. And, remember, nearly all cases seeking to have a U.S. Sup. Crt. review are rejected, i.e., almost always cases with such racist remarks are left to stand and convictions are simply based on racism. America and its hypocracy will cause it to implode one day.
If you were born in America, your American. You are not Irish-American, Chineese-American, Italian-American, and certainly not African-American.
I wasn't born in America (but my father was). What does that make me?
What Phil said was right. There were hispanics, there were blacks, there was a bag of money, and there was a drug deal. His delivery might have been better, but he did state the facts.
Zathrose, I agree very strongly with that. I don't understand why we insist on giving ourselves so many labels when the only thing labels accomplish to to divide us even further.
Unfortunately, "senseless racism" remains a "fact" in America.
I see now Pat Hannah- it's a tough call, we don't know enough about the situation there to know if the comment had some grounds to be made (did the defendant take the stand, and did he say something open up the door to bring in the racial question...)
It sounds like the prosecutor's comment, since it was not a question, in this case, was likely unecessary. However, let's look at Chicago where suburban white kids are driving into the city to purchase heroin in the west side from predominantly black dealers in areas of Chicago that are predominantly black (Chicago is a very segregated city). The Cops know to look for white kids in the heroin dealing areas- in a trial against either the buyer (likely the white kid from the burbs) or the dealer, (likely a black kid from the west side), the officer will take the stand and explain why he or she thought he had reason to investigate...leading to the arrest: the race issue would likely come in (a white kid in a car registered to the burbs meeting at a parking lot usually means a drug deal is likely in this neighborhood)
Racism and racial issues cannot be painted with broad brush strokes as many would want (on "both sides" of the issues). I doubt Chief Judge Roberts would have allowed the condemnation of the prosecutor to be made by two Justices in thier concurrence if there wasn't grounds for it (or the majority opinion would have, at the least, taken issue with Sotomeyer and Breyers' condemnation).
And the fact that the guy may be guilty had nothing to do with it, right? Drug traffickers don't generally practice their trade in front of uninvolved witnesses. The fact that the prosecutor is an ass doesn't change any of the facts of the case.
JXC, I agree with that for the most part.
Much ado about nothing. It's nice to be politically correct, and using common sense is even nicer.
Slufoot's a fool if he thinks the US will just let a newly separated Texas keep any weaponry or military installations. Hell - Texas would be bankrupt because of all the US investment into it's infrastructure that will have to be repaid. Businesses may not like the fact that they are no longer part of the US if they are registered there so they will probably leave. As for military and other necessary governmental agencies - well - get ready to part with a lot of cash. How many US soldiers will want to work for an enemy state? Texas will have to rebuild a military at the same time that the drug cartels will make a push into the former US state of Texas.
In the real world - within 20 -50 years of Texas separating from the US, it will become the northernmost part of Mexico.
@robbapaloobop and carrying concealed - I would be impressed if you would keep your mouth shut. It's not like white people could point out Africa either. Hello - you guys should remember the dumb blonde who thought the wall that divided East and West Germany was the Great Wall of CHINA. ROFL. dumb white trash. Consider how easily I pointed out some of the realities and consequences of Texas seceding to another white fool (Slufoot).
Invis - "I wasn't born in America (but my father was). What does that make me?"
What would you like to be?
Hey tex, robbo...
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africalargemap.jpg
Can this AFRICAN-AMERICAN now offer you two douches a chocolate-covered pretzel? Its fresh...
.
Ciewywtb42mh6sps-23
wow...I'm impressed
Just out of curiosity what city in what country from Africa are you from?
Their point was completely lost on you. No one is saying that black people can't pick out Africa on a map. Saying they can't locate Africa is a metaphor for "they know nothing about Africa." It's these labels that we apply to ourselves and each other that help to sustain the walls between us. A black man born and raised in Pittsburgh has more in common with a white man born and raised in Cleveland than he does with a black man born and raised in Kenya. And until we stop pretending that the opposite is true we will have absolutely no hope of tearing down the walls of racism in this country.
Could the prosecutor's statement have a racist intent?
Could it be true that yokel peckerwoods can't think their way out of a manure pile? Unless there's a bag of meth in front of them?
Agreed, blacks in America and their so called leaders continue to perpetuate sensless racism in this country. FACT!
AL and Jesse are racist? Can't Be
@ Tom...that like saying Newt and Gleen are racist? Can't Be..
I'm still trying to rationalize what "concealedcarry" #1.10 is all about.
Isn't that consistent with walking through an airport with two bags full of mota, and wearing a tee shirt that says "I Got Dope" printed front and back?
Or is he/she one of those CC's that make sure the bulge is more than noticeable? Must be a reason for that - remember, the potato goes in the front.
Racism continues to bray at the top of it's lungs, in spite of Darwin's findings. A nod is as good as a wink.
"Invisible Hand I wasn't born in America (but my father was). What does that make me?"
A mix breed!
As well as a dual national...
tex2c2 said - "Great advertisement for the NRA, there. Are you their official spokesperson? You certainly pass the intelligence test for the permit - NOT!"
So tell me something, brain-child...why is it that every time someone on here posts something you libbies disagree with, the first thing you do is call them stupid? Is that tolerant? Is that compassionate? Are you stereotyping Conservatives because we disagree with you?
Obviously those are rhetorical questions because liberals are a hypocritical scourge in this country, but I thought I'd state it for the enjoyment of all anyway.
Trust me, junior, I'm anything but dumb. As a matter of fact, guys like me scare the sh!t out of you liberals because I'm your worst nightmare; an anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-socialist, pro-free enterprise, anti-religion, anti-Obama Conservative who's educated.
And the best part is . . . there are a lot just like me.
Kind of dispels the whole toothless, white-trash, trailer park-dwelling, bible-thumping, backwoods, Republican hillbilly who wipes his ass with hay after he sh!ts, huh, tool?
And wow, SDN, that was so . . . well . . . deep and sh!t. Did you hurt your widdle bwain thinking up that witty retort? What a bunch of jokers you "tolerant" liberals are.
Here's a thought: why don't you and your holier-than-thou brethren grow a pair and own up to who and what you really are, rather than continuing to hide behind that weak facade of tolerance and compassion?
Just admit that you hate everyone who disagrees with you. Admit that you value an animal's life over a human life, provided that human is a Conservative? Admit that you love every other country more than you love your own? Admit that you're embarrassed to call yourself an American, in spite of the fact that it's liberalism that has made us a laughingstock. Admit that you would sell your own country down the river if it meant a couple of more personal rights and freedoms for you? Admit that you won't lift a finger to ever defend those personal rights and freedoms because you're a coward.
Come on, own it. Just step up and own who you are and be proud of it. It'll be liberating, trust me.
When you get out of kindergarten I'll start thinking of listening to you.
Shovel - FYI you're full of it, and you (hopefully) know it. Black and Hispanics commit 80% of crime in the country... guess again. Whites commit 69.2% of the crime, the rest is divided up per minorities. You're and incredible idiot. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43
Oh well. If you look at the amount of crime and drugs and how they relate to different races you can see how this type of comment could be made. Right or wrong the facts are still the facts.
If you wanted to talk about violent crime, you'd be correct.
But drug use is most prevalent in Hispanic and White populations.
Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377408/
You beat me to the punch Scubasteve......
Steve there is one flaw in your argument with link to a study, that study is for use among college students, not the population as a whole. If you are going to state something as a fact, be sure you have the correct facts not picking and choosing only the ones that serve your argument. All that said, the prosecutor should be fired. In the position he is in he should have known that that statement was just plain wrong.
Isn't this article about drug dealing and not drug use, thought they were two different things?
The Bureau of Justice stats back up Steve's response. More whites are convicted of drug dealing in the US than blacks.
It doesn't say one word about drug "dealing" in the article. If I am wrong please help me out here.
TruthComesHere
What facts?
Makessense- the defendant was charged because he was with the other defendants during a drug deal- the prosecutor's remark was ""You've got African-Americans. You've got Hispanics, and you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you -- a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, 'This is a drug deal?'"...
Defendant claimed he didn;t have knowledge, he, essentially, claimed that he just asked for a ride with the others...
JXC- I wasn't talking about MSN's article. I was talking about SCUBA'S artice. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
The issue for the defendant, Bongani Charles Calhoun, was whether he knew that the people he accompanied on a road trip were about to buy illegal drugs, or whether he was merely along for the ride.
you are wrong as they are party to a drug deal (money exchange for drugs) as to differ from drug use
Oh my geez people learn to read! Jayfos- see 2.9
Good eye Scott.
After doing further research, I am reversing my opinion. It is true that African Americans are the most prevalent drug users, followed by Whites, then Hispanics, then Asians.
Source: http://widelantern.com/2011/11/drug-alcohol-tobacco-use-broken-down-by-raceethinicity/
Gotcha Makessense...
Yes, that study Scuba posted was on drug use...the drug dealing studies/numbers are similiar, but it's been a while- I'll look to see if I can find it, but the (recent) studies I remember pointed out the increase in convictions of whites on campus for dealing (prescription/pot) and whites making/dealing meth ...and then compared the convictions to the longer sentences that minorities tended to get for dealing (albeit, lots of factors involved, like different drugs among different groups, college student vs others...).
Everyone is entitled to truthcomeshere's "facts."
Great posting, Scubasteve.
However, why does crybaby America whine about a few % points of ethnic drug use among Americans? Too many Americans are typically getting "high" the same— darn— way!!
Next, Americans will whine about which ethnicity abuses booze the most...!
Eric-913730,
Of course more white are convicted of drug dealing. A majority of the country is white. Truthcomeshere was saying black people are more likely to deal drugs. These two statements can both be true at the same time.
I dont know if either are or are not btw.
I know you feel that way, Ms. Sotomayer - and why a case against someone in Texas never gets to the United States Supreme Court where it squarely belongs. Each of you knows that Texas is filled to the brim with highly racist citizens that harm fellow Americans daily.
I know you will not hear another case like it - and this is what makes you racist, too, my dear.
I confidently can say that I do know this as fact that SCOTUS rarely hears these cases and it is why so much racism dominates the US.
Blocking cases from being heard is equally racist by a United States Supreme Court Justice if parties requesting certiorari are forcibly categorized to have issues of a specific and narrow subject matter.
Telling the nation that an apple is now an orange, so to speak, because our illustrious Supreme Court justices simply do not wish to prick their ears by hearing these painful matters under impartiality of the court.
Let's take a look... last week they ruled police cannot search drug dealers... this week, they rule drug dealers do not have a particular "look"...
The dealers are going to love this................
If it walks like a duck, quakes like a duck, has feathers like a duck..... according to the SCOTUS.... we we'll never know if it's a duck....
If you catch a duck being a duck then it's a duck.
If you don't catch the duck acting like a duck then it could be anything.
Stoking the fires of racism to influence a jury is just plain wrong.
The reason they didn't hear the case was because the defense didn't properly persue it at the lower court. the Supreme Court could still hear it, just as soon as that public defender pulls his head out and gets some clear air!
You're right Justice, we're all racist down here. After all, the hispanic population is booming, and you know how hispanics like to hate everyone.......
Your arguments are shallow and lack a full understanding of anything. Racism is only a tool that guilty people use to get away with behaving badly. Read the article. This case was turned down because procedure had not been followed to get it there.
The way I read this story isn't that they wouldn't hear the case; it was because they didn't properly pursue the case in the lower courts first. Am I reading it wrong?
I'm not even going to go into why certain 'drugs' should be de-criminalized. Cops & courts don't have anything better to do than bust dope smokers, knock yourselves out. But don't cry when jails are stuffed and courts are backed up for years.
But that's for another time.
Eric, let's say your in a poker game and you have a pair of two's. You place them on the table and declare you have four aces. You still have a pair of two's no matter what you called it. A duck is a duck. If the duck is ACTING human,it's still a go@@@@N duck.
If I ever need a defense attorney, I would want that prosecuter to be it. He did his job and did it well and the Politically Correct lemmings can't deal with it because it doesn't fit their agenda.
My question today is the same as always when I see the mainstream press apply different standards to upper-class wrongdoers: Why in God's name doesn't this article name the prosecutor in question?!
You may not like his/her tactics, but they did nothing illegal.
In the middle? More like on the far right. Illegality has nothing to do with Wilmer-furman's comment. Everybody else was named who was pertinent to this news story, why not the fool the story was about? Uh huh, I thought so: protecting the white male perp. Again.
Define "Illegal" in the middle. He can't go to jail for it but he violated the defendants due process of law because of the racist statement, hence the justices commenting on it.
Because he is so stupid and offensive that he completely undermined the justice system and perverted the jury. You republican fools who always talk about the liberal media or mainstream media refuse to realize that you are agitating against your own interest. It takes an alert and effective media with reputable journalists to always help guard against power greedy and morally deficient agents of the state and social control.
Perhaps the prosecutor did nothing "illegal", but the remarks were certainly unethical. For a prosecutor, unethical and illegal SHOULD carry the same severity of offense.
These supreme court members can make believe this is unfair in their sheltered life. Put them on the street in certain areas and they will make the decision of look who I'm around and I better get the hell out of here.
I guarantee they will establish their race will play a role in their criminal intent. This isn't from just a race position but when you add the race with the neighborhood together you damn well better be aware of who you are around.
In the middle - you're completely wrong. This prosecutor needs to be sued and disbarred.
Direct quote from the American Bar Association:
Standard 3-5.8 Argument to the Jury
(c) The prosecutor should not make arguments calculated to appeal to the prejudices of the jury.
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blkold.html
If you happen to agree with or like his racists statements, your opinion doesn't somehow get this guy off the hook. Remember he's representing the "people" in "people VS", not just the ignorant hicks.
If the federal government isn't racists, then why is there a race category on all their paperwork?
yeah and why if identity theft is illegal do they ask if you ever used a difrent name? in fact i think they love irony.
Hey the federal Government isn't racist, they just believe that blacks don't have the same abilities as white and thus feel the need to give them hand outs and keep them poor. That's not racist is it?
tom plymouth you must be black and receiving handouts to make such a statement. i guess all the businesses getting fat off the government giving contracts and loans and forgiving repayment are all owned by blacks
i guess racism is still prevalent as our nation has taken one step forward and two steps back, so that realistically the mindset of those who are ignorantly racist no matter what the color of their skin, hasnt yet developed from wickedness and evilness. once the mind develops from that of the cromagnum, maybe their wicked little minds will develop to that of the modern day human.
It's Tom Magnum. And he had a black friend.
... my god; we are one among the most "racist" societies in the world, and most of us have no idea what the hell the damn word means. Categorizing people by race is not inherently racist. On it's face, it is no different than designating automobiles by model, or the horsepower generated by their respective engines. In biological / physiological terms, "race" is merely a category, to wit, the designation of people by "racial category". Racism, and therefore, the term "racist", (if you will excuse the expression) is "a horse of a (completely) different color." Racism is about "categorical / collective relativity" by reason of race. It implies relative value, worth, importance, acceptability, etc. It is about those who accept such (relative) beliefs, as to worth and/or value as "truth", on it's face; the prerequisite for "prejudice", which means to "pre-judge", in the absence of fact. Those who believe that members of a given race are, somehow, inherently superior (or inferior) to another, by reason of race; more or less "dangerous", than another, by reason of race; more or less intelligent than another, by reason of race, depending upon the point of view or the "believer", are "racists". And, yes, anyone, "race" notwithstanding, can harbor the requisite beliefs, prejudices and biases necessary be fairly referred to as "racist", by definition. Put simply, the racist believes, in the absence of fact, that he/she is not simply different, but somehow better, more worthy, of more "valuable", superior, in some way, to "the other", simply by virtue of the "racial category" into which he or she was born. A belief, by the way, that has never been proven (though many "racists" have tried) scientifically. The point here is that, simply because someone invokes the concept of "race" into a discussion or discourse, does not mean that he or she is a racist.
You should do like I do and mark other:-)
Come on, admit it. How many of you here would cross the street to the other side if you saw a black or hispanic coming towards you on your side?
Are you saying that you can't think of why a person might have used a different name? How about a woman who changed her name as the result of marriage? Also, changing one's name is perfectly legal.
... I wouldn't Jeff, anymore than I would if those coming toward me were white; but, then I'm black... and just black enough, am I, to get your point, as disconcerting as the unfortunate fact you've raised may be.
We've got folks in long black robes & we've got injustice..... looks like only the color of the robes have changed over the years..............
White people are the biggest suppliers I will be glad when the Justice Department follows the trail and gets their A$$e$. Fill the jail up with the suppliers.
No, its darky in South Central, and all the major cities and its the brown mexicans in the gangs. Thank my grandfather for cotton shirts.
We can't do that Jackie. We're too busy giving the suppliers amnesty....and they're not white.
When you see a white guy and a dark skin together you know they're up to no-good.
Hispanics have taken firm control of the whole drug trade.
Bikers and gang bangers have both been squeezed out.
Blacks spent years being beat down by the white man ,,,,,,,,,, then things started getting better.
Now blacks are getting beat down by the brown man.
Ethnic cleansing has been going on BIG TIME in California.
Buttowski, you are an ARSE!!!
... from what I gather, almost daily, from reading various "Vines", it seems there are those who are having trouble defining the difference between race and "racism". I offer this up as an aide to understanding the distinctions between the two. I call your attention to the above, provided by "Blutowski 0.0", D. Dirty Dog; and last, but certainly not least, the "gem" provided, courtesy of "Kodain Vegas". These. by definition, are not "racial", but "racist" in that they assume the writer's perceived belief that being "non-other" (in this case white, I believe) is somehow "better than", "of more value than", somehow more "legitimate" than, the "other"; in this particular instance, black and/or brown people. By itself, "race" is simply a category, and nothing more. What we do, or believe in, relative to members of a given "racial" (or ethnic, religious, etc.) group (category) is about perceived and self-styled superiority and the perceptions (prejudices) that support our beliefs, in this regard. Racism is about perceived "power", based on unfounded and prejudicial beliefs. This is the key distinction between race and racism. It is the difference between, race as a "category", and "racism", an underlying "belief system"; to wit, the beliefs (based on collective and unsubstantiated prejudice) and the resulting / overt behavior of the avowed "racist". Put simply, the examples I've included here are about, not race, but "racism" as given voice to by the "racists" who've offered them; nothing more and nothing less. Perceived "power" and privilege based on presumption, perceived entitlement and prejudice is the key to the distinctions I've drawn here. Hope this helps...
Racism and bigotry among us is unavoidable but it cannot be tolerated in our institutions.
But it is tolerated; it's called "affimative action."
... Affirmative Action is not, by definition, "racism". Affirmative Action, as public policy, is based on the concept of "equality denied", ("the present effects of past discrimination") by reason of race (in this instance) and/or by means that fly in the face of the public policy; to wit, "the public good". It seeks to right these historical and institutional wrongs ("to make whole) by means of law and public policy. It's original legal standing was based on the premise that entities or institutions (public accommodations and the like) that derive all or portions of their income from taxation (or benefit due to the absence of taxation) should serve and/or benefit all of those who pay such taxes, not just a select few; that "separate but equal" in this regard, was, should not and cannot be, on its face, legal in this context; and therefore, should / must not be allowed to stand, in light of said "public good", a Constitutional imperative. The generally accepted definition of "racism" (and, by extension, "bigotry") however, turns on ideas having to do with power, prejudice, denial. superiority vs inferiority and / or persecution by reason of racial identity and/or classification. Affirmative Action simply does not meet this test, Zheng He! Have a nice day...
"But Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer said they couldn't let the case pass without writing to dispel any doubt of whether the Court's denial of the case "should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal prosecutor's racially charged remark. It should not," they wrote." - Yeah, Sotomayor really has room to talk when it comes to racially charged remarks.
"wise Latina?"
taken out of context, but in that particular case she was discussing IIRC someone with a minority background SHOULD have known better because they'd have more experience in dealing with that (I think the case/context was some sort of racial issue)
She has said that how she said that was wrong. What she means is that the court makes better decisions if their is a diversity of backgrounds in the Justices that more reflect the diversity of life experiences in our country.
Here's an example she recently gave. Justice Ginsberg was the only woman justice for a while. The court had been deliberating on this case about a 13 yr old girl that was strip searched(!) by her teachers because another student said she had an ibuprofen (zero policy on drugs in that school). Parents were suing on her behalf because she'd been really traumatized by it. In the deliberations, one judge (male) said "it's the same as going to a doctor's office" or something like that ie something to diminsh the kid's experience...some analogy that made it seem like it wouldn't be a big deal. Justice Ginsberg, the only woman, explained to those men that at 13 a girl is very very selfconcious about her body and feels very modest (more than before or after)...to be strip searched by her teachers (it might have been IN THE CLASSROOM but I'm not sure) would be horrible experience and might feel like a violation to many young girls. Notably the Justice's opinion that it wasn't a big deal did not make it to the final decision. Justice Ginsberg added some insight to the case since she was a woman.
You can't have all White Christian men on the SC. They dont' have the diversity of background to understand everyone's experience. Their job is to apply law to real life situations but to do so they need to really GET the real life situations very often.
...so sometimes in some cases a wise WOMAN or wise Black person....or wise Jew or wise Italian or wise Cajun or wise...etc is going to have more wisdom and insight into certain different cases. If everyone has similar backgrounds something will be missing.
The "wise Latina" comment sounds terrible but less so in it's context. If you heard Justice Sotomayor talk you'd see that she's an extroverted person (ie talkative) so doesn't screen her words as carefully as some people. She's pretty open. THe good thing about people like that is that they are as how they seem. Biden is kind of like that. You know what he feels and what he thinks (even if you disagree with that). But he goes overboard with enthusiasm sometimes and exaggerates or says things he shouldnt '(way too much). Sotomayor isn't that unrestraiend or gaffe prone but she is talkative and more of who she is comes out.
If you saw her talk (I saw a recent interview on tv) you'd see she's showing who she is. She does regret that comment bcause it's misleading. She does not overall think Latina's are wiser just that about some things (such as descirmination) they have had the life experience. You can tell if a person like that (open talkative extrovert) is lying. She's not.
Bogani? Bogani? Guilty just for having that as a first name!
The prosecutor thought he was being discrete by not saying @!$%#s and wetbacks. If we were really past racism we could use those words for the comedic effect they are good for. If the topic is too sensitive to even bring it up in any fashion, then we must still be racist.
... and you're right "Bob Hamilton"; a country that became proud of it's growing reputation as a "melting pot", will never be "race neutral", nor should it be, in my humble opinion. We are a nation of "mongrels" and the sooner we can learn (if ever) to recognize that simple but sublime fact as our greatest strength, rather than a perceived weakness to be exploited by "hate-filled" fools and capitalist parasites, the greater-,much greater- we can and will be come, together, as a nation of free, proud and productive individuals. I know it will probably "sound" a little corny to you; but, "One for all and all for one" ain't a bad mantra; and, if whats left of my aging memory still serves, it was written,originally, by one Alexandre Dumas, a 17th. Century, french writer, and a black man, one that you may remember from grade school. One thing is for-sure: "We the people..." will either do it together, or die as a nation for lack of trying. My hope is that we've got what it takes to live up to our creed.
Many federal prosecutors (US Attorneys) have political ambitions, and getting a conviction is the goal, not seeking "justice."
Courts and justice what a joke. Justice is gone in to days courts. It's all about money. If you got money you can kill some one and go free. But if your poor for get it. there's money to be made putting you in jail. And that's why people are going to jail more to day then ever. Money . The courts and the cops are all in on it . Good people can't do any thing to day that there's not a law that my put them a way for ever. There will all ways be trouble with race , As long as there is black and white and so on. The race card is used all the time in court and out side court. The court house of to day is a money maker, Not a place of justice. Both side's use it for there own good. Justice is a thing of the past. What to stay out of jail? get rich or die.
Yet they had bags of money and got convicted. Kills that theory.
good thing for everyone to remember about the police and prosecuter when you are a suspect or a defenant.
'you have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney.."
I was reading on the Aclu website about how to protect yourself if the police stop you or ask to interview you or arrest you. Never talk to the police. Even if they are honest they might remember things wrong or misunderstand what you say. And if you said things that make you look innocent they might not say those things in a court of law.
Travis You can kiss my white ass. Dont pretend to have any knowledge about Texas in any shape form or fashion Racist enough for you?
Another Texas yahoo who eagerly turns a blind eye to the NEVER ENDING bigotry in the STATE COURT SYSTEM there.
Irionically the same bunch of bozos are before the same Supreme Court telling the world that voting in the SOUTH should not be monitored because THEY AIN'T RACIST. YEAH, RIGHT; And, Uncle Tom Clarence Thomas is a progressive too.
Sotomeyor and Breyer might as well throw in the towel to any sanctions against state sponsored racism, corrupt judges/prosecutors/cops and any meaningful punishment of big oil or other similar big rich corrupt bas-tards as long as Roberts, Thomas, Big Tony and Aleito are pinch hitting for the GOP.
I agree Duane, these yahoos railing against you don't understand there is lots of racism in Texas, and it's directed against whites by blacks and Latinos. I'm not from Texas, but I've been there plenty of times and seen it & been a victim of it also. Politically Correct idiots are too weak to admit it, because it's not Politically Correct.
What makes Texas got such a bad rep? Is there something right about these somewhere in there?
Jealousy. The big dog is always undwer fire. Texas is one of a couple of states that can be fully self sustaining. We have low taxes, a business friendly environment and safe guards against fiscal disasters as we experienced in 2008. No one can levy a real complaint against Texas, so they just say Texans suck. Again, jealousy.
Of course, we don't talk about Dubbie or Rickie, LMAO...
BTW, for every two dollars Texans send to Washington, they get roughly three dollars back. How is that going to work out for ya? Where are you going to get the extra $75B, huh? Planning to render down some of the blow-hard, fat cats and trade the lard to Mexico for drugs that you sell to the rest of the US?
texc2c,
You realize that the government does a lot of spending that Texas doesnt want right? The federal government forcing stupid programs on Texas doesnt mean Texas cant sustain itself. And I live in Cali, not Texas so dont even try that card.
Mr. Burns, you are so out of touch with reality that it just boggles the mind. Similar to Texas wanting to change the history books in their school system. I know Texans like to think they could survive as an independent nation, but no one with a triple digit IQ actually believes that.
if texas could have sustained itself without the government, it should not have joined the states to begin with. it had the ability to stay out of the united states and could have been independent if it wanted to however it didnt. hmm wonder why. do you know how many states like texas, are receiving government funding and what they pay in taxes. did you know that states like ny, nj, ct and other northern states pay taxes to support states like texas that keep screaming they can be independent from the states.
i say, let texas secede. remove all the financial aid, funding, relief, and any payments that have been provided to texas, as well as have texas immediately pay up all monies owed to the federal government and see how long it lasts.
please secede. i really want you to secede on those grounds - and please, dont move out of the state if it starts going downhill, because hey, its what you wanted, so you can stay even during the worst of times too!
Gee, Mr Burns, I thought we were discussing the hoplessness of Texas to exist without the support of the rest of the country, not playing cards. How much is the ante?
Texas is a "TAKER" state to use the lingo of the Right.
Texas as someone pointed out Takes from the federal government in support more than it GIVES>
Most of the BLUE states on the other hand (say CT MA NY VT) GIVE more than they TAKE
we support you texas. And then your Senators try not to fund hurricane Sandy relief..first time ever people had to wring it out of Congress...millions poor into the red gulf states whenever they've been hit..took ten days for Senate ok funds for Katrina and it's usually about twe weeks. Took two months for Sandy after first bill was DEFEATED. People sat through the COLD WINTER with Walls and roofs made of TARP because they didn't get the relief funds to rebuild-
Texas is a selfish state that thinks it's so great but really doesn't care about it's countrymen clearly
The prosecuter is right on the mark. Sotomayor is full of crap.
right back at you.
The Supreme Court has decided that race plays no role in our system of criminal justice. Consequently, they ignore all claims that it has. Without clear proof of racism, they don't allow searches of police and court records to develop evidence of racism.
Dick, The supreme court is a joke. I know as will as most that race is a on going thing in the courts. It's a joke , And the ones that run it are low life people playing with the life of a person to look like there good people doing there job. The number of people in prison and jail is a shame and it's all because of money and power. Life in this country is gone to @!$%#. Evidence is no longer part of the courts and proof is what ever the cops say it is. No wonder people look down on the courts and law enforcement to day. You can go to jail to day for no good reason, No good reason at all. That is unless you have money, That will get you out of any thing in court.
It seems to me that the prosecutor would have been proper had he only talked about the bag of money, and left out the racist bs.
Anytime you have any bunch of guys with a bag of money, they are probably not going to the store for potato chips! There is probably something shady or illegal going on.
And that is time to distance oneself, if one is innocent. No mention of race was needed, or appropriate, IMO.
Here's a question: The article states that the defendant's lawyers didn't properly address this issue with the lower courts. Does that mean that this guy got inadequate representation and therefore should be awarded a new trial with competent attorneys?
yes, Chris. That is exactly right
Coming from Sorta-a-racist the comments are hysterical. More "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
What are you referring to?
And to all of you misinformed; you are 39 more times likely to be shot by a black and 300 more times to be robbed by a black. Get your facts straight. Say no to gun control. You know why "they" don't come to white neifgborhoods when there are riots? Because we have guns! And we should be able to have open season in some of these mexican and black neighborhoods.
wow. about as ugly a statement as I've ever seen on these boards.
Bet you never even checked the facts though.
I'm not referring to the facts.
I'm referring to the attitude that would prompt someone to say "we should be able to have open season in some of these mexican and black neighborhoods".
Not sure how you can defend that.
Yes, that comment was pretty messed up, but the other comments were not far off. Facts may hurt, but they are what they are.
"pretty messed up"?
Most people would describe a call to kill innocent people as more than just a little messed up. The fact that you don't is equally telling.
You called it ugly. Is that severe enough? I'm in complete agreement with you on this, so don't attack me. I knew an MT out of St Louis a few years back. He was not as thin skinned as you are.
Mark,
Don't mind skibum, he meant his post was a reply to KodainVegas, not you.
Everything Kodain was saying was good and correct until his last sentence. Then he just lost all credibility.
kodain:
Can we deduce then that black neighborhoods aren't armed? I thought just last week you claimed that's where all the illegal guns were being hoarded. Different week, different claim? A lot to be said for consistency.
"Open season" on fellow Americans? Tell us again how you are a devout patriot and support the Constitution unconditionally. As you may (not) know, 'ethnic cleansing' is considered one of the most reprehensible phrases ever spoken or exercised. Consult with The Hague for appropriate penalties.
KodainVegas, thank Jah for computer screens and keyboards, because you now have something other than a pointy hood to hide behind!
... hey, Kodain, why don't you declare "open season" on us ignorant, inferior black folks? Grab a few of your buddies, load up the old "pick-ups" with a few "coolers full of cold ones" and whatever y'all are packin' these days. then roll on down to the nearest hood for some target practice and a few "giggles & grins! You sound like a real s**t talker; a big man in your neck of the woods. Why not give it a try, buddy? Sound like a plan? Put your name in the history books; what do ya say? Sound like a good idea, tough guy? Trust me; we'll make you famous, pardner... No? Thought so... Keep thinkin' those good thoughts, toad!
A racist prosecutor in Texas what a shocker! They really should just let Texas secede and let the ignorant yahoos fend for themselves!
Ignorant, huh? You may want to check your facts before posting such ignorant comments. You're only exposing your own.
the only reason it called racist is because it was a white man that said it, if a african american was not involved in the case it would not have been said and therefore it would not be in the news. you dont hear the hispanics bitching
Pissed,
Words of advice: read what you write before you hit the 'post comment' button.
If Texas is such a bad place why do you damn Yankees and Californians keep coming here for jobs?
"Yankees"? And you wonder?
Because they have the most minimum wage jobs in the country.
Mike B-968599, evidently a tenth grade education or a GED cannot work some of the jobs they need to hire Midwesterners for. In reality there were more "Yankees" in Big D than native Texans while I was there for seven years. I recall most of the people I worked with down on Commerce St, Dallas were from out of state and either from the Midwest or Atlantic Coast. It is what it is but the worker bees were from Texas if it makes you feel any better.
"It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century,"
It is deeply offensive that a government representative resorts to this blatantly infammatory tactic any time in the last 40 years, much less the last ten.
Well, I agree. But, do you think a black lawyer would not use similar race-based tactics if the situation allowed for it? Would a black lawyer, defending a black man, to a predominantly black jury not use skin color for sympathy? The answer is yes, yes he would.
But the whole point, really, is that this should never have gone on in a Court of Law, isn't it?!?!? If you can't go into a Court of Law and not expect to be treated objectively and neutrally, instead of "subjectively opinionated", like this, then where and if ever can you expect to be SAFE from it?
And there's not enough information about the Defense. How did this appeal get to the Supreme Court? Did the original Defense bring it or was it brought by Someone else? How did the Defense screw it up at the Lower Courts? Was it a pseudo-"Public Defender"? And if so, were they too busy being cozied up with the Prosecution and the State to be affording the Client their RIGHT to the best possible defense? Or was the Defense too intimidated by the Court, itself, to make any waves, etc? (You know, these Lawyers get "known" by the Court and then have to fear retribution from certain Judges if they make too many waves or "displease" Judges and especially if it's a Court Appointed or Public Defender Lawyer who has "Judicial Economy" to be held hostage to, by the Court, OR ELSE). When really, the best "Judicial Economy" only happens when Due Process is followed and RIGHTS AREN'T VIOLATED! Right up to the DOJ who couldn't admit that it was "Unquestionably improper" until it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Good for him for bringing it!
inthemiddle:
You claim to be 'in the middle', yet you can read an imaginary attorney's mind, in an imaginary trial setting? Crystal ball, or.................?
It just like saying there are more Blacks and Hispanics folks on welfare, even though the facts are that there more White folks on welfare than the combine number of blacks and Hispanic. Put that in your pipe in smoke that. I guess there are more white folks receiving FREE STUFF.
Wrong dude way wrong. On a per capita basis there are far more visible minorities on welfare than there are whites.
Yes, Taylor, yes....evil white people.
These numbers are not statistics that mean anything until they are converted into comparable values. When this is done, you get percentages. These percentages prove your theory wrong. I could explain more about what a percentage is and why they are relevant in this scenario, or maybe even explain what a number is, but I'm guessing I am already over your head.
Taylor,
While your statement might be true, try wrapping your brain around this statistic, which is also true:
There are more whites who are NOT on welfare than there are blacks who are NOT on welfare.
WRONG, Mr Medicine Boxes. Corporate welfare to big oil alone exceeds welfare in most states. Throw in the NO TAXES PAID gift to GE, and the 34,000 ultra-rich among us who paid ZERO-ZILCH-NOT A PENNY income tax in 2010 and the poor combined disregarding any ethnic slur you would prefer receive FAR LESS THAN corporations.
And in my neck of the woods WHITES are the ONLY people on welfare. It isn't an ethnic issue it is a RICH MFKRZ WANT IT ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WORKING CLASS AND THE POOR ISSUE.
Texas just happens to be the classic example of all that is wrong here. Love your ethnics as long as they call you Massah and shine your shoes. Otherwise y'all are ready to kill them at the altar.
If your blacks or hispanics LOOK LIKE some one who committed a crime they go to jail to await execution ... problem is 'LOOKS LIKE' in Texas is defined as being the same skin tone.
Of course there are more whites on assistance, because the whites are still the majority. But in 20 yrs, hispanic weill be the majority, then whites and blacks will be 3rd.
If a white person was to say any thing about a black person or Hispanic it's racist, But on t.v. blacks often make remarks about whites as will as Hispanic, But that's Ok. Thing is WHITES HELP ALL THESE PEOPLE, And what thanks do they get none. Blacks are doing very good these days but who would know. They act like they have no way of getting a head, Or say they don't. But there all over sports and i see lots of them doing great. But yet there still crying for more, Just like the Hispanic. But now the Hispanic what to take over all together there the future are government thinks. This is a country of color now. But it's all about money and power. One day these politicians in the gay house will find themselves out of a job. The gay house will be the Hispanic gay house. Whites need to get up and do something be for it's to late. We need to get in on the game just like the blacks and Hispanic. We need to stand up to them just like we have any other threat to us. But we need new government, This one is and has sold us out to the enemy. They can say and do as they please and get a way with it, Burn are flag fly it up side down. Now there going to let all the illegal aliens out of jail and prison because of this thing going on in government. The law is for white people now not Hispanic and blacks, All they have to do is cry race and there free to go there way. Come on with the @!$%# i could care less. I'm white and i am proud of it. God bless America my home sweet home.
... "YOUR America"??? When guys like me, guys I knew and served with; guys named Washington, Jefferson, Carter, Robles, Rodriguez, Rincon, Lopez and Hernandez were wearing the uniform, this country's uniform, it was for "YOUR America, you mentally and morally defective SOB! You are one ignorant, sick, puppy, "drp"; and may "YOUR God" have mercy on YOUR hate-filled, sin-sick soul.
yodaass, I served as will, You self righteous ignorant back woods piece of @!$%#, Does that mean what. If i go to Mexico or any other country in the world can i say i'm' a American and i what this or that rights, Burn there country's flag or fly it up side down,How long do you think i would live. All i said if you come to this country live the American dream. Not bring all your ways to my country and what me to change. If you come to this country come to be a American all the way. Not all this African American, Or Mexican American. Or when the times get rough here in American run back to your country and come back here when things get better ,Like you people do. I know this happens first hand. I know some Mexicans that never been to Mexico, Born here , But say they would back there country Mexico if there was a war or what ever. But yet they were born here in America, Go fish. Mercy dud, Are you for real. Hate, What? Just telling it like it is. Don't like it. Get over your self.
Come on people the lawyer is just calling it like he sees it. Put some Negroes, wetbacks and a bag of money in a room and you have got a dope deal going down.
Bet the lawyer is a white guy. Otherwise why all the hub bub? It is not a far jump to from all factors invoved to conclude that everyone in the room were suspect.
Put some white guys and some other white guys in a room with a bag of money and you have a drug deal going down, unless some of the white guys are Congressmen then it's just bribery.
... a text book definition of judgement-before-the-fact; to wit, "prejudice" based on unfounded. stereotypical, race-based assumptions. Why is it ok when you do it, but when you do it, and I say you're a racist, for doing it, you scream "foul" cry to "high heaven" and accuse me of "playing the race card". Seems a "tad" hypocritical to me; how 'bout you, "whitey"? Oh, but that's alright, because most everything about types like you is patently hypocritical! Hypocrisy is in your DNA! Oops, there I go again. How does it feel when you're on the receiving end of unfounded and blatant hypocrisy, just because you were born white, "toad"?
Did yodaass, just call himself a toad. Yes i think he did.
I love how Progressives feel they have to come here and lie about whites and other races being more involved in the drug trade than blacks. According to the bureau of prisons, a part of the department of justice the current incarceration rates for drug convictions, broken down by race are 32.4 Non-Hispanic white; 38.7 percent Non-Hispanic black and 23.1 percent Hispanic. Given that whites are 65% of the population their incarceration rate is about half (50%) and black rates almost 300% of their share of the population, with Hispanics at about 135%. How do you know when a Progressive is lying? They open their mouths.
You used percentages and numbers that are actually relevant. Don't do that. It confuses them, and they become angry when confused. Like Gremlins, you must take great care in how you treat them.
Just because the incarceration rate is higher for people who aren't white? That's meaningless when you factor in the racism of the police and the courts. Completely meaningless.
Holly, lol, no it's not irrelevant. You'd have to prove your so-called racism accounted for the majority of black convictions to prove your point, and that's BS.
Blacks have a crime sub-culture bigger than any other race, and they commit the most crimes and that's why they go to prison more. Not any imaginary racism. Imaginary racism in 2013 is actually used as a way to increase crime by the black community and get away with stuff.
The prosecutor was wrong to phrase things the way he did. But, in fact, more blacks get off BECAUSE of their skin color as opposed to being jailed for it....OJ's a great case in point.
The drug convictions are skewed because of the sentencing disparity, you know the 100:1 foolishness and mandatory minimums. Whereas a person with a gram of crack would receive the same sentence as someone with 100 grams of cocaine, now how do you make crack and does this seem fair? Even the SCOTUS decided that the disparity was too big and now it's 16:1 which is still a disgrace.
Hey, "browneyedgirl..." don't confuse 'em with facts; it makes their "pointy" blond heads hurt. The "below-the-radar" transition to privately run, for-profit, prisons, over the past decade or more, is all about precisely the issue you've raised. But, lets not stop there: here's the bottom-line; black folks, especially in black neighborhoods, are more likely, by a large margin, to be stopped, frisked and detained, "pending investigation" (the temporary hold) by white cops, than white folks, via the same tactic, in their own neighborhoods. And we're talking random stops, resulting. all too often, in "illegal detainers", not calls to local police calls. In effect, white cops are sent out to "hunt for" black "offenders", which means the probabilities are "skewed" toward higher black arrest ratios, and subsequent imprisonment, especially in the "prisons-for-profit" world of contemporary criminal jurisprudence It's just that simple. I know it; because, before retiring from my "day job" of 25 years, I had lawyers working for me. And SCOTUS knows it to!
... have you ever considered that the ratios you've presented might have something to do with the difference between outcomes resulting from "active (inner-city) v passive" (suburban) policing, and the apparent in-balance between the race of arresting officers and the "offenders" they take into custody. You probably haven't, but there are plenty of academics and researches who have. And many of the results of their research have proven to be quite interesting, even enlightening to minds capable of enlightenment; so much so, I might add. that both defense attorneys and prosecutors in some jurisdictions, as well as some courts, are beginning to take notice of the results. You might want to do a little research, before your next seemingly learned pronouncement. In fact, to get your research off to a good start, you might want to visit my new "Nation" at www.insideroutsider.newsvine.com. There, you'll find a rather comprehensive article on just this subject, entitled "The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States. Take a look, when you can find a free minute or two to visit the forum. Assuming you have a mind that can yet be "opened" to something other than your fears and prejudices, you might even learn a few things that'll help you begin the process.
What gets me is , If black people in America are having it so bad as this yodaass is saying. Why don't they go to there so called own country and make it better and live the good life away from all us bad white people. That's what gets me .