What you stated is a gross oversimplification.
Why would you assume that in a city that is 2/3 black where the police force is almost 100% white?
I am assuming that there is racism in that police force like there is in many police forces around the country.
Are you saying that we have reached the point where we must assume the lack of racism when we see the indicia of racism? We are not yet at the point where evidence racism should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I know but the opinion was just shockingly ignorant.
I’m a little trained/knowledgeable in law
I skimmed the opinion a bit.
Seems reasonable. Unfortunately, even with a full recognition of the 2nd amendment, regulations on guns wouldn’t be out of the question. There is no “chilling effect” issue like the first amendment.
Does this mean the gun grabber assholes could try simply banning each weapon model model by model? Yeah. But then that would be easily challenged.
They could try to boil a frog, I think that’s what they did in Mexico.
Of course regulations on guns aren’t out of the question but when you are basing your conclusion on a combination of bad facts and a poor application of intermediate scrutiny, you get bad law.
More like “only the police can be trusted not to misuse firearms” is a bullshit fairy tale. At least in the UK they’re consistent; nobody has firearms, including police.
If guns are so bad, the government shouldn’t be trusted with them. If guns are okay for the very average individuals who serve in police and security roles, they’re okay for the average individual citizen for the purposes of personal security.
Because what you are saying is that there is illegal activity in hiring practices going on. The presumption is that people are behaving in a legal manner. Why would you assume that there is illegal hiring practices?
Do you also assume there is racism in everyone, or do you single out police? As a result of this racism that you assume exists in the Fergeson police department, are you also implying that white people in that police department cannot effectively police black people in their jurisdiction, or black people in that jurisdiction cannot respond lawfully to white people in that police department, or some combination?
Is the extent of your evidence that the police department employs a whole lot of white folks, or do you have something else?
I don’t think that police in this country deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to racism. If there is sufficient indicia of racist behaviour, then I think there is a rebuttable presumption of racism.
Population 66% black.
Police force 4% black.
http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf
The police force itself seems to be at least mildly racist (at least in terms of traffic stops (who they pull over and the result of the traffic stop).
Blacks are pulled over much more frequently than whites, are searched more frequently than whites, are arrested more frequently than whites but have a lower contraband hit rate than whites. They also get warnings less frequently than whites.
Well I think everyone is a little bit racist but an all white police force in a majority black area in the south? Yeah, I think they are racist until they can explain away the apparent disparities.
I think a racist police force cannot effectively police a majority black population.
I posted the traffic stop statistics but frankly I think between the demographics of the police for, the demographics of the community, and the widespread grievances that seem to be levelled at the police force, I think there is a rebuttable presumption of racism in that police force.
Wow, I’ve seen many threads tangentially related to firearms veering off into gun debates. This is the first time I’ve seen a gun thread become about something else (although some posts are about both)!