Obama '08?

Your data is all one-sided. Most of the biggest criminals have been white. Here is a short-list with criminals that have harmed more people with their crimes than any black man ever did - which usually involved other blacks.
I can find more, but you should get the "point."
Bernie Madoff bankrupted hundreds of people out of their life savings
Jeff Skilling same as Madoff
Tim McVey killed innocents in the Murrah building in Oklahoma City
Unibomber killed many innocent white folks
Joel Rifkin serial killer
Arthur Shawcross
David Berkowitz
John Gotti
and more recently:
The Bush White House Gang
a) they destroyed our economy
b) they approved torture of our prisoners against domestic and international laws
c) illegal wiretaps
d) started an illegal war based on false information; namely WMDs that never existed

Now, name me any black person who committed as atrocious crimes as those named above.

Idi Amin

http://deadsilence.wordpress.com/2006/08/09/african-american-serial-killers/
Henry Louis Wallace: He restricted himself to victims of his own race, like most typical serial killers. One way he was different though was that while most serial killers pick random targets, he picked people he knew. Between September of 1992 and March of 1994, Wallace raped and strangled nine young black women in Charolette, North Carolina. They were all people he knew. One was his girlfriends roommate, others were friends with his sister. His first six murders happened over a 20 month span but his last three were within 72 hours. He was arrested in January on 1994 and confessed to all nine killings. He was sentenced to death.

Carlton Gary: He killed outside his race. His combination of intelligence, charm and cunningness made him extremely dangerous. He was arrested in May of 1970 as a suspect in a rape-murder of an 85 year old woman from New York. He managed to shift the blame to someone who knew. After escaping prision, where he was being held on lesser charges, Gary made is back to his hometown of Columbus, Georgia. Between September 1977 and April 1978, the city was hit by a number of murders. The victims were seven white women, the oldest victim was just shy of 90 years old. He was later arrested for armed robbery and sentenced to 20 years in jail but after just four years he escaped. In 1984 he was charged with the murders and sent to die in the electric chair.

Celeophus Prince Jr: He too preyed on victims outside his own race. Between January and September of 1990, he murdered six women in San Diego. He stabbed one of his victims over 50 times and left bloody circles around his victims breasts. This would become his signature. Prince even killed a mother and daughter and bragged about it to a friend. He would even wear the woman’s wedding ring around his neck on a chain. He was called the “Clairemont Killer” during his nine month killing spree. He was arrested in September of 1991 and convicted of six counts of 1st degree murder, twenty counts of burglury and one count of rape. He was sentenced to death and is being held at San Quentin.

http://www.dirjournal.com/info/americas-famous-serial-killers/
Coral Eugene Watts " (Killings between 1974 and 1982)
He was the first known serial killer in the nation’s history to have legally acquired immunity and at one point it even looked as if he would be released in 2006, in spite of having committed between 80-100 murders. When a detective said that he did not have enough fingers and toes to count all the murders he committed, Watts replied that there were not enough fingers and toes in the room. (There were four men in the room).

Usually serial killers are said to kill people of their own race; however, Watts, who was an African American, killed whites mostly.

He admitted to killing females because he saw evil in their eyes. He drowned women in a bathtub in order to prevent the spirit from escaping.

He was not caught for many years because he killed in different jurisdictions and different states. DNA tests also did not prove anything because he did not dally with his victims, unlike other serial killers.

http://www.newsnet14.com/2008/01/blacks-make-up-disproportionate-share-of-serial-killers/

Does that help you understand, or are you still going to deny that black serial killers exist?



Not a crime, even though you like to think it is.


Bush didnt do it, and he didnt know about it.
Therefore according to your own words he wasnt responsible for it, so again no crime.



Nobody has been charged with a crime, and as of yet they werent criminal actions.



Again, no crime was committed, even if you think there was.

mm, No contest between the white criminals and black criminals. You just don't understand logistics; not my problem.

So, are you saying that until the numbers are equal then it doesnt matter?

Then you need to add in all of the victims og black crime, including "black on black " crime.

Unless, you just simply efuse to admit that blacks commit crime.

Also, I notice you dont deny that black serial killers exist, even though you at first didnt want to admit that.

Yes, please do all that and more; just don't forget that white crimes have harmed more people than any black crime. You probably never studied history. HINT: Hitler was white. Your perceptions are bigoted.

I have and still do study history.

HINT:Idi Amin was Black
HINT: Hirohito was Japanese, as was Tojo.
Hint:Mao was Chinese, and was responsible for more deaths then Hitler

So, if you are going to suggest that only whites can or have committed mass murder, then you are the one that is bigoted.

You're now catching on!

Your emphasis about blacks has no meaning.

I caught on a long time ago.
You are a bigot who feels that only white people can be criminals.
You continue to hold the belief that all crimes committed by minorities are somehow justified because of the racial problems you seem to think exist,(and to a small part they still do).

At least, those are my impressions of you

That's how you see it, but I just challenged your stupid belief that only blacks have a high incidence of crime. When one learns history of the world, we learn that all cultures are guilty of greater crimes against humanity if one wishes to only look at blacks in America. That lesson has gone way over your head.

That you would state that I approve of minority crimes is all imagined in your own brain, because you wouldn't be able to find any of my posts that declares such idiocy.

OK, show one post of mine where I EVER SAID THAT.
Dont say I implied that, show where I ever said it.

You cant, because such a post does not exist.

Now, are you denying that blacks here in the US commit more crime percentage wise then any other racial group?



Again, I never denied that.
And if you think I did, you should be able to show even one post by me where I did.



Since we were talking about America, looking at crimes committed by people in other countries or cultures seems pointless.

Now, once again you fail to hold yourself to your own standards.

You claim I made certain statements without backing up your claims.
According to your own beliefs and standards, that makes you a liar.
Unless you want to claim you had another "mental lapse".

Your post proves my point. You wouldn't have posted such bigoted one-sided links if you believed otherwise:



It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where you're coming from. Emphasize black crimes without looking at the total environment; MO for MACs-conservatives.

Bigoted???

I simply did what you asked, or do you deny writing this...



Are you now saying it is bigoted to point out known facts?

They don't compare in "atrociousness." You missed this very important point.

Do you understand anything about logistics or numbers? The issues are a) more people harmed by their crimes, b) the extent to which their crimes destroyed people's lives, and c) the total numbers of whites vs blacks.

comprende?

.

Do you understand what you are doing?
You are saying that since a crime doesnt compare in "atrociousness" with another crime it doesnt count.
Do you seriously believe that you cant compare crimes unless they are "even" in atrociousness?



Now you are saying that there is a threshhold that must be met before a crime can be compared to another?
So if you kill 50 people and I only kill 49, I am somehow less of a criminal then you are?


Worldwide?
In the US?
In Africa?
In Asia?
In Detroit?

Where?
You need to be more specific, then I can provide you with the answer you request.

No. You're still missing the main point; your emphasis on blacks is meaningless if you care to compare them to crimes committed by all cultures. I didn't approve of their crimes in any way, shape or form; that's your own imagined conclusion. I don't approve of any crime.

It's your emphasis that tells me you are one ignorant bastard.

But I wasnt comparing them to crimes committed by other cultures.
I was comparing them to crimes committed by people here in the US.

You originally brought up other cultures.

Irrespective of race, his constitutional rights were violated, and it would be a walk in the park to demonstrate as much. This would be a walking no-brainer, Finn. Race would only factor in insofar as the fact finder's instincts, which in turn would likely affect the amount of damages... but is wholly irrelevant insofar as establishing damages. There can be no question his fourth Amendment rights were violated... and I believe you've conceded as much yourself.

Not true. I closed my restaurants years ago, and I did pick up a Certificate in Paralegal Studies, but that means nothing to anyone but a prospective employer because only California requires one. Outside of California, “paralegal” is little more than a title, and not an impressive title at that. Hell, if you’re up for a change of venue and career, Finn, I’ll happily bestow that title upon you, whenever you want to start… regardless of your educational background.

As good fortune would have it; I was offered the first paralegal position I interviewed for, and that morphed into a General Manager position roughly 2 months later, after I had demonstrated a wealth of skills I wasn’t initially hired to utilize. Business management skills are fairly universal, and it seems many small professional offices would benefit greatly from hiring someone with these qualifications.

Let's be very clear, here: I am NOT an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and probably will never take the time to become one at this stage in my life. I probably disclose this fact a dozen times on an average day to people seeking legal advice. I may one day choose to return to school for the purpose of passing the bar, but that would likely be out of a desire to argue interesting cases for myself as something of a hobby, and I currently have no plan to do so. Frankly, I can make a lot more money if I delegate the legal tasks and concentrate on growing the business. Our growth has already been dramatic and has already been significantly hindered by not delegating enough legal tasks to a paralegal or entry level attorney.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you completely about the use of a title in argument here, or anywhere else for that matter, insofar as assessing the correctness of a position. I respect those who’ve put the time and energy into passing the bar, but recognize that in itself really isn’t such a monumental task and certainly doesn’t preclude idiots from doing so. Just yesterday opposing counsel filed an affidavit in support of a petition for appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem…in the first person and signed it himself! If we didn’t like the idea of facing the nitwit, it would take all of about a minute and a half to conflict him off the case, since he’s now both witness and lead counsel.

The office side of the law business requires aptitude, not formal accolades. When responding to a lengthy legal brief, I can’t tell if it was written by esteemed counsel or his paralegal, and it really doesn’t matter. To large extent, in theory, applying the appropriate law to any specific set of facts is mostly scientific… almost mathematical in many cases… if you’re on the right side of right… and somewhere between inventive and deliberately misleading if you’re on the other side. It doesn’t much matter if a lawyer, his secretary, or the retarded neighbor kid next door finds the controlling case law. It is what it is and if it wasn’t for human error, most cases would be that simple. One need not attain a title for their research to be accurate, or their argument to be compelling (though I know from personal experience that the layman who defends himself is usually making a foolish mistake.)

Really Finn? To the extent I come off as arrogant, and I don’t deny it, that is certainly nothing new. My sense of self-worth is utterly unaffected by what I do to earn dirty paper… though I’ll concede my confidence in my ability to locate, interpret, and Sheppardize applicable law has increased. At any rate; I in no way think of you as a moron for disagreeing with me or any other reason… so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from.

Very true. Even without the esteemed distinction of a J.D. following my name, I tend to walk right through adversary counsel… and enjoy it immensely! It would serve you well as well, my friend… if it indeed, it doesn’t already.

Really? I thought surely dude was an author.

What difference does it make; we live on planet earth. The world is intermingled as never before in the history of man. We are talking about humans; our country represents most of the cultures of the world. We are impacted by the history of the world as much as we are affected by domestic events.

Yes, I brought up "other" cultures. What problems do you have with that?
At least I don't attack your minutia or issues that have very little to do with the topic being discussed.

BS? You have not posted anything to substantiate your claim that Occom Bill's assessment is erroneous. I have examined all of the applicable law, and Occom Bill is correct. Mr. Gates did not violate any law. There was no probable cause to believe that he did. An officer who makes a warrantless arrest does so at his own peril unless he can show probable cause to believe that Mr. Gates was committing an offense in his presence.

All law enforcement officers are presumed to know the law. There exist several state supreme court cases that interpret and limit the reach of the state disorderly conduct statute and those cases make it clear that the arrest in this case was illegal/unconstitutional. The arrest was in violation of Mr. Gate's civil rights and the officer may indeed find himself liable for damages if Mr. Gates chooses to bring a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

If you believe otherwise, please provide us with a link to a state supreme court case that would substantiate your position.

Who presumes that?
Do all lawyers know ALL the laws in the US Code?
Do you even know ALL of the laws in your own specialty?

And I dont mean can you look them up, do you know ALL of them from memory?

And if you dont, what makes you think a cop would know all of the laws in his jurisdiction?