Summations Only

That's a simple thing to say, but it's wrong. The reality is that we do make attempts to judge things like intent and knowledge when we determine guilt and culpability.For example the distinctions between degrees of murder all involve probing evidence of the mental state of the perpetrator and the result can be the difference between a relatively short stay in prison and the death penalty. The difference between a forgiveable accident and negligence, and malice are all based on what was in the defendant's head.You yourself have argued that the policeman in the Eric Garner case should not be charged because he was just doing his job. What is going on here other than your speculation about someone's mental state. Yes, it is simple; and incorrect.

Yes, of COURSE you take motive, intent, etc into account but ONLY WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE A BEHAVIOR TO JUDGE. Sheesh. I'm ONLY responding to the idiotic idea that you can judge unconscious attitudes as such. Sheesh.

Hoping to raise the tenor of debate in this thread, I'd like to suggest that we can do better than characterizations of "irrelevant garbage" and "idiotic." Let rationality and reason eclipse emotion.

Aren't you responsible for what you put in your mind? What you learn? Racism is a learned response isn't it?Children playing don't care what color (sex, religion, politic) you are ...Enjoy

Jesus did:

quote:

---

Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

---

But we do. Courts concern themselves with motivation all the time. We can read people's hearts by what's manifested in their behaviour.

I've already answered both your points. This is the second time for both. God can read the heart and judge it, and this is what Jesus is telling us, so WE will consider what is in our OWN minds; but a society can't judge people for what's in their minds. And yes, intent is considered when judging ACTIONS, of course, but only BECAUSE of the actions. My argument is always and only that we can't judge ONLY what is in a person's mind.abe: This too has already been answered: Concerning the idea that we can read people's hearts by what's manifested in their behavior, sometimes we can, but if there is no behavior to consider then you can't, and in the case of the police examples given on this thread, the point is that there is no outward behavior that suggests racism at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's what I said. As I keep telling you, the examples given in this thread are irrelevant. We're talking about overall racist tendencies, in police officers in general. Shooting more black people than white people does suggest racism (though that isn't the only possible explanation).Edited by ringo, : Speilling.

Wrong. You are ignoring the entire context of the discussion here. People are concerned about unconscious attitudes because they do affect behavior. If we don't want the behavior to occur, then one approach is to drag those unconscious attitudes into the light of day.Those unconscious behaviors can be tested for and studied. And, of course, they have been, your silly crying to "leave us alone", notwithstanding. What was up with that anyway>Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

First of all YOU are wrong. This IS what I've been talking about all along, any idea that you can hold people responsible for what is in their minds/hearts as determined by a test or any other method. APART FROM ANY KNOWN ACTIONS. No, I am specifically responding to misinterpretations of what I am saying. Get that right and then I'll deal with your context. But if there is no behavior that fits the unconscious attitude you have in mind then there is nothing to be concerned about. When three police incidents are being called racism without the slightest evidence in the actual behavior of the police to demonstrate that racism was involved, which is clearly the case in two of them (Brown and Garner) and merely open to question in the third (the Rice boy) you are indicting the police for something in your own imagination of what you figure had to be in the cops' minds, you are condoning destructive protests on the basis of nothing, and lending support to the killing of policemen on the basis of nothing but psychobabble. This is perniciously evil thinking. This is intrusive Big Brotherism of an incredibly pernicious sort, micromanagement of the human heart. We live in a fallen world, you're never going to get the perfect utopia you want, ever, and you are trusting in a testing instrument as if it were the oracles of God Himself the way you all are talking. I didn't say leave ME alone, I'm saying leave US alone, leave the human heart alone, get your ridiculous tyrannical Psychology out of our lives. It's none of your business what's in our minds, that's our business and God's business. This idea that you can ever get some kind of accurate reading of "unconscious behaviors" from an instrument designed by fallen human beings is EVIL, and even if you could it is evil because whatever sin is in the human heart is none of your business. And when you sound like you would indict people for what you think this instrument has shown to exist I think you should all be prosecuted for a crime against humanity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, what conclusions can we draw about the Chicago Police Department if the facts are as they are alleged to be in this report?CPD Traffic Stops and Resulting Searches in 2013 | ACLU of Illinois

Looked it over, subbie. The problem with this whole subject is that any way race can be shown to be a factor in such a profile or any social situation it is assumed to be racism and unjust. I can't make that assumption. If it is known that blacks and Hispanics are more often involved in criminal activities of certain kinds than, say, whites or Asians, then it is simply common sense, realistic judgment of the probabilities, to suspect them. I'd want to see the statistics compared to the rate of criminal activities in Chicago by those races before I concluded racism is involved. I'd also ask how many Asians there are in the city and what proportion of them are stopped under the same circumstances.ABE: I'd also bet that the kind of car that is being driven, its age and condition, may be a factor, and that the whites who do get stopped may also fit a profile of a type known to be more often involved in certain kinds of criminal activity. There are many kinds of profiling if you want to identify a likely suspect. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Would you agree that whatever visible evidence they used was innaccurate becausemore X pulled over but less "contraband" found
less Y pulled over but more "contraband" foundand that they should change their approach to target Y more and X less?Enjoy

Well, no. It would be common sense if it was known that a majority of black people and Hispanics were "involved in criminal activities of certain kinds". If not, then there is no reason to suspect any particular individual. If most black people are (for example) not drug dealers, which they aren't, then it is reasonable to suspect that any given black person is not a drug dealer, and to proceed on that basis.By analogy, men commit rape more often than women. That doesn't make it common sense and realistic judgement to suspect that I'm a rapist. If most men were rapists, then it would become common sense, you'd have the balance of probabilities on your side, and it might become reasonable to investigate me to find out which people I've raped and how many. But if all we can say is that men rape more than women do, then it is not common sense to suspect me of being a rapist, and it would not in keeping with the Fourth Amendment for the police to search my house for the women I may be keeping prisoners in my basement, just because men are more likely to do that. Men would have to be absolutely likely to do that to justify such a procedure.It's interesting that conservatives fulminate against what they call "group rights", but are apparently OK with people losing rights as a group.

Unless, of course, you and your chums want to attribute something to anti-Christian bias. Then you can peer into people's hearts with godlike infallibility.

Apparently you didn't read all of it. Let me show you some of it. My emphasis.Since the facts show that whites are more likely to be involved in criminal activity than blacks, by your reasoning they should be searching whites at a higher rate than blacks. How do you account for higher rates of searching blacks, considering the actual facts?