Author Topic: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden (Read 18332 times)

AGelbert · « **Reply #45 on:** September 05, 2014, 10:03:12 pm »

Ad council says telling people they won’t be loved or successful because of the color of their skin is no way to sell beauty products.

September 04, 2014 By Melissa Rayworth

Melissa Rayworth is a regular contributor to TakePart. She has also written for the Associated Press, Salon and Babble.

A few semesters ago, one of Jayanthi Rajan’s marketing students had her mind blown while working on a senior project at Albright College. As this American student compared the cultural messages in advertising from different countries, she was stunned to see a demeaning commercial for “skin whitening” creams sold in South Asia.
“Professor, you have to see this ad,” the student told Rajan. “It’s about a guy who breaks up with a girl because she’s dark. And then she uses the cream and they get back together!”

After working for nearly a decade in India’s advertising industry before teaching in the U.S., Rajan wasn’t surprised. Ads for skin-whitening creams are ubiquitous in India and many Asian countries, and many promote that same before-and-after story line: Make your skin fair, and you’ll be beautiful and successful, but stay as dark as you really are and you’ll get nowhere in life or love.
“The so-called ‘fairness cream’ market is huge in India,” Rajan says, and many ads depict “before-after scenarios of dark-to-fair transitions resulting in success.”

So she sees an important victory in the new guidelines announced by the Advertising Standards Council of India on Aug. 14. The guidelines state that ads in India can no longer depict people with darker shades of skin as less successful, less happy, less appealing to potential mates, or otherwise in worse situations than fairer-skinned people.

India’s standards council is an ad industry organization, not a government agency that can legally enforce its guidelines. But in the past, it’s had high rates of compliance when calling for ads it has deemed false or offensive to be removed from TV airwaves or not to be printed.

The council announced that it hopes these new rules will “go a long way in ensuring that advertisements of products in this category do not depict people with dark skin as somehow inferior to those who are fairer.”
Rajan hopes the council is right, but she’s realistic: You can’t sell “fairness creams” like India’s popular Fair & Lovely without promoting the idea that lighter skin is better than darker skin. Beauty advertising is only the beginning of India’s deeply divided class divisions and the entrenched cultural beliefs regarding light skin.
At best, this ruling will force advertisers to step back from blatantly stating that lighter skin is the only road to success and happiness.

That implicit connection can still have an impact on the lives of darker-skinned people, says Harlan Spotts, a professor of marketing at Western New England University. “Even subtle cues can be quite powerfully transmitted through repeated exposure,” he says.

But Spotts points out that just as American tobacco companies were forced to stop touting the supposed health benefits of cigarettes a half century ago, these companies are finally being told to stop drawing an explicit connection between fair skin and success.

They’re also beginning to face pressure because of globalization and social media. Decades ago, multinational companies could hide from their Western customers that they sold products with blatantly bigoted messages in Asian countries. Today people are hearing about these products, seeing the way they’re sold, and sharing these offensive ads online.

At the Facebook page for Dark Is Beautiful, a campaign launched five years ago by the India-based organization Women of Worth, ads for “fairness creams” are posted, discussed, and shared. Supporters can also see ads created by Dark Is Beautiful, including some featuring Bollywood actor Nandita Das.

“Look anywhere and everywhere,” reads the tagline in an ad featuring Das. “There are blatant and subtle reinforcements that only fair is lovely. So much pressure and so little public debate around it!”

Whether or not advertisers like it, that public debate has begun. Fueled by social media and shaped by rules that call out discrimination, it’s likely to grow.

http://www.takepart.com/feature/2014/09/04/dark-skin

Agelbert NOTE:

AGelbert · « **Reply #46 on:** September 06, 2014, 06:44:30 pm »

In Detroit, so many workers are blocking the streets that the police chief is worried they might run out of handcuffs.

AGelbert · « **Reply #47 on:** September 10, 2014, 10:03:17 pm »

Quote

Justice for Disabled Man Killed by LAPD During a Traffic Stop
author: SUE LEE
target: LAPD Officials
signatures: 10,887

we've got 10,887 signatures, help us get to 11,000

overview
petition

Please sign and share this petition in an effort to get LAPD officers held accountable for killing a disabled man during a routine traffic stop. The officers should be suspended until an investigation is completed into the incident and why this man ended up deceased. These officers need to be held responsible; wearing a badge does not entitle people to kill unarmed innocent people.

Ezell Ford, a 25-year-old disabled man, was on his way home in South Los Angeles when two police officers stopped him for "investigation." The police claim that Ezell reached for their gun and a struggle ensued -- but the only eyewitness account so far tells a different story. According to the witness, Ezell was lying on the ground, complying to the officers' demands. They shot him three times with intent to kill.

Ezell's cousin stated "They shot him in the back, knowing mentally, he has complications. Every officer in this area, from the Newton Division, knows that -- that this child has mental problems... The excessive force... there was no purpose for it. The multiple shootings in the back while he's laying down? No. Then when the mom comes, they don't try to console her... they pull the Billy clubs out."

No officers were injured during the incident. In fact, one of the officers involved has a history of complaints lodged against him. In 2011, the officer allegedly trespassed on private property and then nearly drowned a man to death in front of his family when they asked to see a search warrant.

These officers need to be held accountable for their actions and realize are in these positions to serve and protect their communities and residents, not overpower, bully and kill them! Please sign and share this petition in an effort to get LAPD officers held accountable for killing Ezell Ford. At the very least, they should not be allowed on the streets with weapons while eyewitnesses report they have needlessly murdered an innocent man!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/178/991/554/?z00m=21482770&redirectID=1460525865

Don't worry _______, this guy must have REALLY REACHED HARD for the gun and must have REALLY given the police a REASON to shoot him in the back! Of the course the suspect was UNARMED so the FACT that the POLICE ARE ALWAYS ARMED provides and EXCELLENT REASON for blowing away a blackie, DON'T IT? Now you can GIT EM' even if they HAVE NO WEAPON! Besides, He might've given these poor police an orbital fracture!

And after all, let us not forget DUE PROCESS OF LAW! There has been no GRAND JURY! What are, ya, uncivilized or sumptin'?

Where's the evidence!!?

We must be objective about all this... Let's not get carried away... The police must be trusted. Besides this doesn't happen to white people so there is NOTHING TO "CRY" about, eh?

Thomas Jefferson's BIG PLAN continues to experience MISSION CREEP...

AGelbert · « **Reply #48 on:** September 11, 2014, 01:38:23 am »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQfg52m0-4o&feature=player_embedded
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/10/1328532/-Racists-swarm-to-attack-Ferguson-Kids-video

AGelbert · « **Reply #49 on:** September 13, 2014, 02:03:11 pm »

September 12, 2014 By Nicole Pasulka

Staff Writer Nicole Pasulka has written for Mother Jones, BuzzFeed, The Believer, and New York Observer. She lives in New York City.

New witnesses to the Aug. 9 police shooting of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., have come forward. Brown, who was black, was shot by white police officer Darren Wilson. St. Louis County Police have said that Brown ran toward Wilson and made a grab for the officer’s gun.

But statements to the police, FBI, and media this week by witnesses contradict Wilson’s version of the shooting. Two construction workers, who have not been named but who were near the scene, said that they "starting hearing pops." They saw Brown “staggering and running,” according to KSDK. "And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, 'OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK."

"The cop didn't say, 'Get on the ground.' He just kept shooting,” one of the construction workers, who said he heard a gunshot and then another one 30 seconds later, told CNN. Brown "had his f---in' hands up." The other man "got about 8 to 10 feet away from him...I heard six, seven shots...it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That's when Michael stumbled forward. I'd say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face."

A witness named Phillip Walker told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he saw Brown walking with his hands up, not running toward Wilson.

The shooting has sparked weeks of protests in Ferguson, where the population is around 70 percent black and the police force and City Council are overwhelmingly white. Locals are demanding Darren Wilson be charged in Brown’s death. On Wednesday 10 people were arrested during a demonstration that blocked traffic on I-70.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/09/12/daily-fix-witnesses-say-michael-brown-had-hands-up

AGelbert · « **Reply #50 on:** September 25, 2014, 07:40:59 pm »

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dashcam-captures-south-carolina-trooper-shooting-unarmed-man/story

Quote

Dashcam video captured the moment a South Carolina state trooper shot an unarmed man during a traffic stop earlier this month.

The trooper, Sean Groubert, was arrested Wednesday and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.

The video shows Groubert stopping Levar Jones for a seat belt violation at a convenience store in Richland County, South Carolina, on Sept. 4, according to South Carolina Department of Public Safety.

After Groubert asked for his license, Jones, 35, turned back toward his car and reached inside. Groubert then began shooting and yelling at Jones to "get out of the car."

Jones, who was unarmed, was hit in the hip with a bullet, police said. He can be heard saying "I just got my license. You said get my license."

Groubert was fired last week. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

Agelbert NOTE:20 years!!!? That's it!!? I know it's REAL HARD for some here to do the "appropriate punishment" math, but TRY to imagine what a Black man would get for SHOOTING at an unarmed BUILDING, let alone another human being....

Still don't get it? Look at the charges. It's a SET UP to keep the punishment low. When they want to SCREW SOMEONE (i.e. a Black man), the charges involve a grievous felony (i.e. Manslaughter or attempted murder). The charge of Assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature is a way to MINIMIZE the maximum sentence!

Never mind.

AGelbert · « **Reply #51 on:** September 29, 2014, 02:01:06 am »

Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 05:19 PM PDT.

U.S. To Pay Navajo Nation $554 Million in Largest Single Tribe Settlement in History

by
ericlewis From The Washington Post:

In the largest settlement with a single American Indian tribe, the Obama administration will pay the Navajo Nation $554 million to settle claims that the U.S. government has mismanaged funds and natural resources on the Navajo reservation for decades.
The settlement, to be signed in Window Rock, Ariz., on Friday, resolves a long-standing dispute between the Navajo Nation and the U.S. government, with some of the claims dating back more than 50 years.

...

“This landmark resolution ends protracted and burdensome litigation,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement provided to The Washington Post on Wednesday. “This demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to strengthening our partnerships with tribal nations.”

...

“The Navajo Nation has worked tirelessly for many years to bring this issue to a close,” said Ben Shelly, president of the Navajo Nation. “After a long, hard-won process, I am pleased that we have finally come to a resolution on this matter to receive fair and just compensation for the Navajo Nation.” ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/24/1332206/-U-S-To-Pay-Navajo-Nation-554-Million-in-Largest-Single-Tribe-Settlement-in-History

Agelbert NOTE: Never forget the Navajo Uranium miners compensation PITTANCE!

SNIPPET 1:

Quote

Thirty years after mining began, an increasing number of deaths from lung cancer made evident the fact that Kerr-McGee had held miners' lives as cheaply as their labor. As Navajo miners continued to die, children who played in water that had flowed over or through abandoned mines and tailing piles came home with burning sores.

Even if the tailings were to be buried -- a staggering task -- radioactive pollution could leak into the surrounding water table.

SNIPPET 2:

Quote

Miller's committee was investigating not only the Navajo death toll from radiation poisoning, but many other reports that indigenous peoples were willfully and recklessly exposed to radiation during the Cold War.

The geographic range of purported radiation poisonings spans half the globe -- from the Navajos in the United States Southwest, to Alaskan Natives whose lives were endangered when atomic waste products from Nevada were secretly buried near their villages , to residents of the Marshall Islands in the South Pacific, an area in which the United States tested atomic and hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere between 1946 and 1958. As investigations deepened, it appeared that the treatment of Navajos was not the exception, but one example of a deadly pattern of reckless disregard for indigenous life in colonized places, human and otherwise.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/UraniumInNavLand.html

AGelbert · « **Reply #52 on:** October 01, 2014, 09:29:41 pm »

Grand jury considering the Ferguson shooting is being investigated for misconduct
The St. Louis County prosecutor’s office is investigating an accusation of misconduct on the grand jury that is hearing the case against the Ferguson Police Officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Ed Magee, the spokesman for county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch , said they received the information from a “Twitter user” Wednesday morning.

“We are looking into the matter,” he said.

An account of possible jury misconduct surfaced Wednesday morning on Twitter, when several users sent messages about one juror who may have discussed evidence in the case with a friend.

In one of those messages, a person tweeted that they are friends with a member of the jury who doesn’t believe there is enough evidence

to warrant an arrest of the officer, Darren Wilson.

The same person who tweeted about being friends with a member of the jury has also tweeted messages of support for Wilson.

Magee confirmed that the Twitter user and feed came from an activist, Shaun King.

Within seconds of posting this, her friends told her to delete it and she did. It was screenshotted first. pic.twitter.com/b6kTf9p40h :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

The jury has been weighing evidence on the case since Aug. 20, within days of the Aug. 9 shooting. McCulloch told The Washington Post last week that both the FBI and county police’s investigations into the shooting are “pretty much done.” He also said that jurors should be done hearing all the evidence by later this month, but they could meet through mid-November.

Grand jury proceedings are confidential and if there has been a breach, the prosecutor’s office may have to start over with a newly empaneled group.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/grand-jury-considering-the-ferguson-shooting-is-being-investigated-for-misconduct/ar-BB6Snxq

AGelbert · « **Reply #53 on:** October 02, 2014, 11:07:31 pm »

Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 09:56 AM PDT.

Arizona Teacher Fired for Breaking up Racist Bullying of 4th Grader

by
Frank Vyan WaltonFollow .

attribution: Arizona teacher fired after defending student from bullying [KNXV-TV]
25 year veteran Elementary Teacher Pam Aister was fired this week by the Fountain Hills Arizona School District after breaking up an incident of Racial Bullying by Four Students against one other.

“He was called the n-word, ‘monkey’, and ‘coon,’ Aister told KNXV.

Ainster told KTAR-FM that she also said to the group, “If you’re picking on him, you’re picking on me. It’s not five against one, it’s five against two, and there will be no more taunting, teasing or racial names.”

But parents of the alleged offenders claim that Ainster used abusive language telling them to "shut up"

and that one had an "ugly face", an allegation that Ainster denies. In the end the School Board, following the recommendation of their attorney, voted to terminate Ainster on the basis of reports from the parents.

Isn't it an interesting world, assuming Ainster's claims are essentially true and even that the counter claims against her are valid, where a pack of bigoted bullies can rely on their parents to protect and escalate their bullying in order to remove a teacher whose primary crime was to stand up against their racist taunting - even if somewhat vehemently - in order to protect and defend a vulnerable child?

How would you hope the teacher of your children would react in this situation?

Follow the link below to read more and to watch a Video Report from KNXV.

http://www.rawstory.com/...
.

12:26 PM PT: Change.org has a Petition Up to Support Ms Ainster: https://www.change.org/...

12:34 PM PT: Additional Links on this story:
Racially Bullied Student Talks about Teacher who Stood Up for Him http://www.kpho.com/...

Veteran Teacher fired for Defending Bullied Student http://www.kpho.com/...

http://ktar.com/...

12:35 PM PT: What I'm hearing vis Kosmessage is that this area is on top of being predominantly white, is also dominated by Hard Core Tea Party Politiics.

David Schweikert is the congressman in this district. He beat former congressman Ben Quayle in the republican primary in 2012 largely due to overwhelming support from his hometown of Fountain Hills, where there is a very active tea party group. Schweikert is so right wing, he was one of a handful of republican reps (along with Huelskamp and Amish) removed from key committees by Boehner as punishment for being a pain in the a$$ to house leadership. That gives you an idea of how reactionary and right wing a lot of the people are there.
So that's something.
12:55 PM PT: CBS 5 - KPHO

2:13 PM PT: The School Board Report claims this wasn't the first incident where Ms Ainster was "rude" to some of the white children,

and even casts doubt that the initial incident was "racial" http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/... (Although it should be noted that the bullied student, in one of the above reports, completely verifies Ms. Ainster's account, could this report itself be biased? Hard to tell.)

.
Originally posted to Vyan on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 09:56 AM PDT.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/02/1333771/-Arizona-Teacher-Fired-for-Breaking-up-Racist-Bullying-of-4th-Grader

AGelbert · « **Reply #54 on:** October 03, 2014, 11:48:28 pm »

Daily Kos KNOCKS IT OUT OF THE PARK with this one!

'Dear White Racists' is One of the Best Explanations of White Privilege You Will Likely Ever Read

Dear white racists and your fragile fee-fees:

Relax, I'm white, too. Look, I can do the secret handshake and nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Lemme whitesplain something to you, fellow white men: no one buys your bullshit.
That's because your bullshit runs like this: For historically- and presently-oppressed black people to be treated decently, they must carefully avoid doing anything that could be remotely twisted into behaving like a white racist, even if you're squinting and looking at it from five hundred meters away in a thick fog. Because that would be racist, and therefore hypocritical, and if that's the case, they deserve to continue to be oppressed.

Here's the thing you thick-headed **** totally fail to get: NO ONE DESERVES TO BE OPPRESSED, PERIOD. You can talk all you want about how it's okay for black people to be mistreated if--- but get this, there is no "if". It's not okay, ever. That's why we call it mistreatment. Your error is to think that it's ever justified, and your active misdeed is to constantly search for a justification. Black people, collectively, are not guilty of anything. In fact, a basic principle of civil society is that we reject the notion of collective guilt.

Some individual black people, like individual white people, have done bad things, and in those cases, may deserve judicial punishments. But even those people don't deserve mistreatment from some random white guy on the street. And black people in general don't owe anyone anything as a prerequisite for being treated decently. No one does.

Now I know there are a bunch of you in the back of the room waving your hand and getting ready to launch the argument that it's racist to complain about white privilege. No, it is not. Complaining about white privilege is not the same as assigning collective guilt to white people. White privilege is a pervasive feature of our society and our legal system. It's hard to see if you're white (and you're not looking or actively trying not to look), but it is real, it is powerfully destructive, and if global warming had the kind of statistical support that evidence of white privilege has, Bill O'Reilly would be haranguing FOX News viewers to install solar panels.

And here's the subtle point that you folks either can't or won't grasp. White privilege is especially the responsibility of white people to fix, not because we're all racist schlubs like you are, but because white privilege itself means that we're the ones who have the power to change it.

Black people don't have that power, again because of white privilege, and not because they aren't sufficiently careful in the way they phrase their complaints about being mistreated. It's our problem and our responsibility as white people to fix not because whites are collectively guilty, but because it is the responsibility of ALL PEOPLE to fight for decent treatment for ALL PEOPLE. It just happens that, because of our shithead ancestors and a helping handful of historical accident, we white people are the ones who can do something about it. When the finger on the trigger is white, it's pointless to ask a black guy to lower the gun.

And quite frankly, given all the **** that our black fellow citizens have put up with, and all the **** they have to deal with every. ****. day., if some of them lose their tempers and say things that aren't carefully calibrated to kiss your privileged, hypersensitive asses, well, is that actually surprising? You lose your minds when black people just complain verbally about being kicked. Imagine how tough it would be for you to keep your cool if someone was actually doing something to you instead of just talking.

Finally, yes, I know this is pointless. You want to be offended to fluff your fragile egos, and you want black people to please shut the **** up and stop harshing your mellow.

I hate to break it to you, but as long as people are being murdered by the state, given draconian sentences for crimes that in many cases they haven't even committed, and being held in poverty and privation and a constant state of fear, those of us who actually give a **** about our fellow citizens are going, at the very least, to make some noise about it.

In the meantime, if you can't be bothered to do your duty as an American to protect your fellow Americans with the considerable power at your disposal, at least shut the **** up and stop making an ass of yourself.

Regards,
Your fellow privileged white guy

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/01/1333622/--Dear-White-Racists-is-One-of-the-Best-Explanations-of-White-Privilege-You-Will-Likely-Ever-Read

AGelbert · « **Reply #55 on:** October 04, 2014, 10:14:14 pm »

Ashvin (since you just pointed out that you are technically under arrest if the police are detaining you and must charge you or release you if not - hence the fact that a law savvy person asks, "Am I free to do?" - No arrest means you ARE free to go, period),

Watch this video of an educated, law savvy African American Woman get fired on by the New Mexico Highway Patrol. White racists will say it was her fault (as usual

). But the point is that ALL the cop had to do was NOTE the fact that she would not sign, take her license plate number and let her go. She KEPT asking if she was free to go. The cop kept saying NO. This was a civil, not a criminal law area. the cop was SUPPOSED to let her go when she would not sign.

Eventually she just took off. The cop that fired on her and her kids was eventually fired BUT he was NOT charged with attempted manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc. Imagine if this had been a WHITE person fired on by a Black officer!!!

And by the way, this woman is a FANTASTIC driver! She handled that van like a PRO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBL6AEkvLbk&feature=player_embedded

White Racist prudent, measured, logical, free thinking defense of his inability to see a "problem" with the way the New Mexico racist, murdering cops handled that traffic stop.

AGelbert · « **Reply #56 on:** October 05, 2014, 09:19:41 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBL6AEkvLbk&feature=player_embedded

Quote from: agelbert on October 04, 2014, 06:07:19 pm

Ashvin,
Watch this video of an educated, law savvy African American Woman get fired on by the New Mexico Highway Patrol.

Bro, she definitely was not "law savvy" LOL. The passenger (her son?) was not either.

Quote

Mking will say it was her fault (as usual ). But the point is that ALL the cop had to do was NOTE the fact that she would not sign, take her license plate number and let her go. She KEPT asking if she was free to go. The cop kept saying NO. This was a civil, not a criminal law area. the cop was SUPPOSED to let her go when she would not sign.

Technically, traffic violations are criminal. And when she drove off the first time, she gave the officer more than enough probable cause to make an arrest, and probably enough for a search of her vehicle.

And obviously when the son came out and assaulted the officer, that made it a very serious criminal matter.

Basically, driving away after the officer pulls you over and before he lets you go is not lawful and will rarely end well...

Quote

Eventually she just took off. The cop that fired on her and her kids was eventually fired BUT he was NOT charged with attempted manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc. Imagine if this had been a WHITE person fired on by a Black officer!!!

You're 100% right about this. The cop firing his gun should have been fired AND charged with at least agg assault. This was a clearly a situation in which deadly force was not needed for any legitimate reason. Cops are not held to the same legal standard most citizens are, especially white cops dealing with minority suspects, which can make them very dangerous.
[/quote]

Ahsvin,

Notice that MKing did not say WORD ONE about this statement from you

Quote

You're 100% right about this. The cop firing his gun should have been fired AND charged with at least agg assault. This was a clearly a situation in which deadly force was not needed for any legitimate reason. Cops are not held to the same legal standard most citizens are, especially white cops dealing with minority suspects, which can make them very dangerous

He just did his best to ridicule my position as some "Anthony's world" never-neverland. :evil4:

A traffic stop may be technically part of "criminal" law BECAUSE it's not a law suit in the CIVIL law area but speeding is STILL a misdemeanor offense so low on the legal totem pole that it doesn't STAY on your rap sheet after a period of time. THAT was the SITUATION when the COP stopped her. The COP created the negative situation by IGNORING the LAW. You CAN claim that when she drove off she gave probable cause to use force (open her door and pull her out of the vehicle - assaulting her in the process) and you would be WRONG again.

Take a deep breath, counselor. Who is in charge of exacerbating the situation here, the driver, her son or the cop? WHY did the cop INSIST that she sign the ticket when she had NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to sign it, OVER and OVER again.

Sure, if I had been her, I would have said that I will not sign the ticket and, rather than asking if I was free to go (although that WAS a law savvy question, regardless of what you said), I would ask, OVER and OVER, if I was under arrest until I was released or jailed with some trumped up charge of "creating a disturbance" or whatever.

MKing's playing a game here (and you've fallen for it

with his "Anthony's world" BULLSHIT. Notice he uses my first name when he has NEVER used his. That's his "friendly" way of saying that HE KNOWS WHO I AM AND WHERE I LIVE. I've gotten that from a few "friendly" Vermonters too. They look at you, smile, then say, "I know where you live". :evil4: Bring it on MKing. Boo!

I'll dig up the trial proceedings if you want. Her son? Are you kidding me? He's a MINOR! I never said anything about him being law savvy. Did you watch the video? The driver CLEARLY stated she DID NOT want to sign the ticket OVER and OVER. She was WITHIN HER RIGHTS to say that. She was doing 70 in a 50 mph zone! Are you going to tell me the cop could DEMAND that she sign if she refused to sign the ticket? BULL S H I T !

Did you see the cop's body language when he got out of the car the second time? Are you BLIND? He KNEW they were unarmed. He had INTENT to use FORCE because somebody drives off without SIGNING A TICKET!!!? Are you all right, Ashvin?

These people were UNARMED and the cop pulls a GUN on a teenaged boy when the cop is assaulting his mother! Are you all right, Ashvin!!? The mother was screaming at her son to get in the car. He was just a kid trying to defend his UNARMED mom!

And she was supposed to just SIT there while the cops are smashing the side door? Are you all right, Ashvin?

I cannot believe you came up with this analysis. We will have to agree to disagree. The point neither you or Mking want to see which IS considered in ALL Criminal Court proceedings is INTENT (as in MENS REA).

That cop KNOWS exactly where the line is. The INSTANT an uncooperative citizen began to argue about signing a speeding ticket, he HAD to let her GO. He DELIBERATELY used his power, authority and WEAPON to attempt to force a signature. The fact that you believe he was in his rights is sad. He wasn't.

At THAT POINT, he was NO LONGER acting as a police officer but as a DICTATOR. The LAW was on HER side from then on.

But with encroaching fascism, what those cops did to that lady WILL become "normal" whenever they want to do it without even the uncooperative driver excuse. And I'm sad to say, with all the hair splitting you came up with, all I can say is Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

AGelbert · « **Reply #57 on:** October 06, 2014, 03:35:41 pm »

Quote from: Uncle Bob on October 05, 2014, 09:27:36 pm

Quote from: MKing on October 05, 2014, 08:44:52 am
Quote from: Ashvin on October 05, 2014, 05:53:42 am
And obviously when the son came out and assaulted the officer, that made it a very serious criminal matter.

Ashvin, you are missing the point. In Anthony's world, there is nothing that a police office can do to a civilian of color that isn't racist. Can't wink at them, can't bust them for speeding, nothing, and ANYTHING that the poor oppressed minority does is just all good clean normal activity, like in the example provided, OBVIOUSLY the cops were just to supposed to not do their job, not notice being assaulted (after all, it was whiteys fault for slavery 100 years ago and therefore the rules are different because of what the great-great grandparents of those people suffered).

Of course it is a serious matter. Just like when Brown reached in through that cop car window and did...something. Or Trayvon Martin decided to bash someone's head against the sidewalk. Or Sharpton claimed that this young lady had been **** by a bunch of white guys...except...she hadn't...but to Anthony, FACTS don't matter...if it involves a white person (or Peruvian), and some African American person, the white person is racist and the minority person is oppressed and all laws should be suspended because...just because...

It doesn't have to make sense in his world. It doesn't make sense in your world, or mine. Or anyone else's. Only Anthony.

The son did not assault the officer, he had a gun pointed at him as soon as he got out of the car, although what else to expect where anyone could be armed any time. The officer never acted as though the driver may have been armed talking and struggling with the woman. Typically the officer was very very patient and willing to cut a break with a tall slim MILF, but zero patience with the male. Before she went to drive off the second time he decided to go to the rear passenger side and work on smashing the sons window rather than the drivers side front to stop her driving off.

The officer while very patient seemed to have a problem with stating clearly she was under arrest. Saying "that means what youre saying to me is you want to see a judge right away, and I can arrange that, wait there", is not the same as "YOu are under arrest", neither is "just come out here.......no, no tricks....just turn around" .

You see the son get out and stand close to the officer struggling with the woman on the busy road for a second before backing off, with his back to the camera. Good enough to call assault for Ashvin and MKing.

Zimmerman was seen under arrest straight after the incident on camera from the front, side and back all clearly unmarked, and the coroner stated there was no sign of struggle on martins body. That's the evidence, however the claim by Zimmerman that he was having his head bashed on the ground without losing consciousness or leaving an injury trumped that.

MKing previously said he wanted to wait and see before coming to any conclusions about Brown in Ferguson now he's reached a conclusion that he reached into the car for some reason. It seems to me it doesn't matter what the evidence is ever, since Ruben Hurricane Carter and Rodney King and the slaves were freed, fearful folks needed to be reassured.

Thank you, UB.

The instant the cop refused to release the woman without a charge (conditio iuris) to justify said arrest, he stopped being a law enforcement officer and started being a dictator. The LAW was technically on HER side at that point. The fact that she drove off the first time means she knew that. THEN when the DICTATOR assaulted HER (you saw his body language when he got out of the car at the second stop), the cop was using force outside the law. THAT is assault AND battery. THEN, a minor who obviously doesn't know **** about the law and is just trying to protect his mom (I NEVER said the minor was "law savvy!" - I don't know what caused Ashvin to assume incorrectly that I said that.) tries to STOP the assault and THAT is considered an assault!!!? Then the cop pulls a GUN on an unarmed MINOR because said MINOR was interfering with the cop's illegal assault and battery. The mom screams at her son to get in the car because she KNOWS that cop is itching to pull the trigger on her son. THEN the cop proceeds to vandalized the vehicle, recklessly endangering the MINOR occupants in the process based on WHAT? That the minor backed AWAY from a GUN pointed at him and got in the vehicle!!!?

I am sure the court proceedings will reveal all the above as an objective analysis. The cops may be given a lot of latitude under our **** up system, but they are under the SAME laws as we are. Yes, in a fascist state where some citizens have greater protection under the winken, blinken and nod racist modus operandi than others, that "latitude" CAN turn into looking the other way while a cop goes berserk. But that does not mean, by any stretch of hair splitting legalese, that the cop was NOT acting unlawfully LONG before a bullet was fired at the vehicle!

Ashvin, if you still insist on your position, we will have to agree to disagree. If this cop's behavior is "lawful" when he refused to let that uncooperative driver who refused to sign the ticket go (saying she was NOT FREE TO GO), then all I can say what Tacitus said long ago: Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. The greater the degeneration of the republic, the more of its laws.

AGelbert · « **Reply #58 on:** October 06, 2014, 03:55:59 pm »

Quote

but to Anthony, FACTS don't matter...if it involves a white person (or Peruvian), and some African American person, the white person is racist and the minority person is oppressed and all laws should be suspended because...just because...

I KNOW all about YOUR world, pal! I had a friend from Indiana (as white as they come with blue eyes who's last name is Robeson) that worked as an electrician on ocean oil platform rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and one off of Brazil for years. You are full of ****, MKing, and you know it. That's why you use the above fallacious debating technique of extrapolating the extreme example without DARING to discuss the merits of the example I presented. HELLO? It was Ashvin that tried to EDUCATE you about what being TECHNICALLY UNDER ARREST is and what isn't. Those cops DID NOT do their job and you **** know it. But it's rather entertaining to watch you bob and weave. HELLO? When you are NOT under arrest, you are free to go. Play your **** word games with someone else, pal.

Tell me, have you ever heard the expression "Jungle bunny"? Oh, of course not. LOL!

Ken told me ALL ABOUT "how it works" for pay (the COLOR pecking order of pay) on those rigs. Go ahead and deny it. That's your thing. That's your predatory, dog eat dog, **** world where the mark is NEVER supposed to know he is being suckered, abused or whatever and you go around pretending you have a shred of ethics.

Ken lived in Texas. He explained "how it works" with blacks and Hispanics there too...

You talk a good game. And you play a rough game. I've got your number and so do many here.

Back to the ocean oil rig platform, the only cool thing about it was that he was once several miles off the coast of Brazil over a promising salt dome and several thousand HUGE moths parked on the rig for a couple of days before moving on. Ken wondered where the **** those moths came from so far out to see. IT seems they can fly a lot better than it says in the biology books. But I'm certain they were pleased to see that ugly thing sticking out of the ocean that they could rest on. So thank you, fossil fueler, for giving the moths a place to rest while your pals "did what you do". That's another propaganda point that you can throw at people along with the "oil rigs provide habitat for fish" BULLSHIT. :evil4:

So have fun trying to flip the racist meme on me. That's an old and rather tired RACIST trick. LOL!

Hey MKing, the above are two Homo SAPS, that, scientifically speaking, are the same species with slightly different melanin concentrations. No big deal, right? So why does it **** you off to see those two breeding? Say WHAT? It doesn't bother you? LIAR!!! :icon_mrgreen:

I know ALL ABOUT "your world", MKing.

If you had your way, there would be NO PLACE on earth where your kind did not abuse fellow Homo SAPS.

I'll give you one thing though. I don't think you are particularly racist, per se. You'd screw ANYONE.

AGelbert · « **Reply #59 on:** October 06, 2014, 06:45:31 pm »

Quote from: RE on October 06, 2014, 06:07:38 am

Quote from: Ashvin on October 06, 2014, 05:34:40 am
I think the same thing would have happened if it was a white family in the car.

You can speculate that might be true, but evidence doesn't bear that out.

While there are numerous video examples of White on Black egregious Police behavior out there on You Tube, there are none I know of of egregious White on White or Black on White egregious behaviors. Given the White population is much larger, statistically speaking there should be more examples of this.

RE

Well said.

Ashvin, if the "law" is on the side of your assumptions, then you need to go back and review Mens Rea in regard to INTENT in criminal law as well as Tacitus:
Corruptisima Republica Plurimae Leges. The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws. —Tacitus, Anals III 27

Renewable Revolution

User

Stats ezBlock

Author Topic: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden (Read 18332 times)

AGelbert

It Seems that, in INDIA, the WHITER YOU ARE THE RIGHTER YOU ARE!

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Another Black Man Murdered By Police

AGelbert

VIDEO by Ferguson Kids: Hey White People: A Kinda Awkward Note To America

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Navajo Nation gets some PAYBACK!

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

AGelbert

Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden

Recent Topics