Statement of discrimination

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MrFun


What source proved that Rodney King attacked the police??

If those police officers lied about being attacked first, YOU probably would believe it, wouldn't you?

It was caught on tape, you just didnt see it on the news. Thats why the officers were let off.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It's called a life. I suggest you look into having one.

In other words "Get a life". How original!

[Carver]

Originally posted by Caligastia


You didnt see Rodney attack the police because the media didnt show it. Rodney has a long history of violence, and Im not suprised the police acted in the way they did. Most people when attacked instinctively fight back.

Yep, Caligastia is still delusional.

[Az]

my POV on the whole issue:

everyone should have the same criteria when being accepted into an academic institution. AA is not the right answer to the problem.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, what the tape showed was King getting the crap kicked out of him, and when the beating didn't stop, he began to flail around, which then supposedly justified an even more intense beating. Meanwhile, the video showed that on the other side of the car, one of the passangers was getting kicked.

And ultimately, they were convicted.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Carver


Yep, Caligastia is still delusional.

You are the one who is delusional. The facts are clear.

Rodney King is a convicted felon with a long criminal record. On March 3, 1991, he was out of jail on parole, and driving recklessly and at great speed through residential streets of Los Angeles. It was later determined that he was blind drunk — there was 2½ times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood, and there was marijuana in his system — and his driving showed it.

When he was finally forced to a stop, police ordered him out of the car for fear a weapon might be hidden in it. Mr. King refused, and was pulled out. He would not let himself be frisked, spat at the police, made obscene threats to a policewoman, laughed maniacally, and danced about when told to stand still. Mr. King is six feet three inches tall, weighs 250 pounds, and was acting dangerously crazy. He refused to lie face-down on the ground so that police could safely handcuff him. The police quite properly decided to force him down.

Their first attempt was with a 50,000-volt electronic stun gun. One shot of this device will knock a person down 80 to 90 percent of the time. The officers hit Mr. King twice with the gun and it had no effect. They began to think that he was on PCP, a drug that can cause psychotic behavior. They later testified that they were afraid Mr. King would attack them and try to wrest a gun away from them. [Linda Deutsch, Jury believed police had right to use plenty of force, Orange County Register, April 30, 1992, p. A4. Sheryl Stolberg, Jurors tell of angry, bitter deliberations, LA Times, May 8, 1992, p. A3.] The best way to take Mr. King down would have been with a choke hold, but the city of Los Angeles banned choke holds in 1982. (A few drug users had died from the hold, but that may have been as much because of drugs as because of the hold.)

Since the stun gun had failed, the only way to tackle Mr. King was with night sticks, and the police clubbed him repeatedly. Mr. King refused to stay on the ground, and every time he made a move to get up, he was clubbed again. An amateur video cameraman recorded the beating, which was later broadcast on television.

The video is 81 seconds long, and it shows Mr. King resisting arrest and threatening the police. Virtually all television stations chose to show only the last part, in which Mr. King was on the ground and was being pounded in a way that appeared — and may well have been — excessive. A careful study of the entire tape suggests that the beating stopped when Mr. King did as he was told and kept still.

Three of the policemen who clubbed Mr. King were white and one was Hispanic. The media routinely reported that they were all white, and puffed the arrest up into a major racial incident. Television stations showed the tape so often that there must be scarcely anyone in America who has not seen it. As it happens, damage to Mr. King was not great; just a few weeks later, he was feeling chipper enough to solicit a transvestite prostitute, and tried to run over a Los Angeles policeman who interrupted the transaction.

What would have been different if Mr. King had been white? For one thing, the media would have inquired into why he was beaten. If they had given the story any attention at all, they would have noted a drunk driver's criminal, threatening behavior.

However, since Mr. King is black, the media had a ready-made explanation for the beating. "Racism" explained it, and the media gave full voice to the war-cry that means they think they have a sure enough white "racists" in their sights. The media scarcely mentioned what Mr. King had done to provoke a beating. They ignored the fact that Mr. King had two companions with him in the car, both of whom were black, both of whom did what the police told them to do, both of whom were unharmed (though one is now claiming they were roughed up). And of course, they turned a deaf ear when Mr. King himself said he did not think the police beat him because he was black. Thus, the media took what was, at worst, an ambiguous incident and blew it into a huge case of white racism.

[chequita guevara]

No source.

[Caligastia]

The article has references to newspaper articles. Look them up if you want.

[Carver]

Caligastia, when trying to convince people of your position, it helps to use objective written work. Pieces such as this, which sound like the immature rantings of a right wing radio show host, are so blantantly biased as to have no effect. I know your reactionary friends cheer and clap to the sound of this, but to a rational person its just drivel.

But I have to ask, what about Amadou Diallo and Abner Luima and Patrick Dorismond?

[Caligastia]

Whatever you say Carver

[Carver]

I take it then that you admit the assaults on Diallo and Luima and Dorismond were acts of white racism.

[Caligastia]

Im not sure, I havent read much about them.

[Caligastia]

Well this thread has gotten waaay off the subject, so is there anyone who still thinks this college doesnt discriminate against white males?

[SpencerH]

I saw a great deal of the trial of the police who shot Amadou Diallo. Was there racism involved? I think you'd have to say yes. Racism in the sense that they stopped when seeing black man in a doorway and wanted to question him based on that.

IMO the actual shooting was probably not motivated by race per se but by a series of misunderstandings (Mr Diallo didnt speak very good english and ran away into the alcove then reached for his wallet instead of staying where he was), errors in judgement (mistaking a wallet for a gun) , poor procedures (mixing police officers rather than allowing them to work as a unit) and lack of experience/training on the part of at least two of the officers. There was no evidence that the cops were "cowboys" or had any grudge against blacks.

[Dis]

I actually don't think it discriminates against white males

But I still don't like it. But I'm white, no one cares about my opinion . Because people of America had slaves etc, etc, I have to be blamed for it. My family wasn't even in america back in those days.

my mistake for being white. Sure I'll take the blame for the entire race.

[MrFun]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dissident
I actually don't think it

First you were paranoid, now you're not paranoid.

Make up your damn mind.

[Dis]

You're confusing me with Cal

did you not pay attention to my very first post in the thread?

I suppose not. read more carefully next time

I was never paranoid in the first place. It doesn't bother me the least bit because I never plan on going to that college.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident
You're confusing me with Cal

did you not pay attention to my very first post in the thread?

I suppose not. read more carefully next time

I was never paranoid in the first place. It doesn't bother me the least bit because I never plan on going to that college.

Oh yeah -- well now I'm paranoid that you really are paranoid, even though you claim that you are not paranoid, just because initially, you said that you are not paranoid.

[Dis]

hehe, well I never called you paranoid. You called yourself paranoid.

You might want to consult a therapist

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident
hehe, well I never called you paranoid. You called yourself paranoid.

You might want to consult a therapist

Nah -- that's not a good idea, considering that the last therapist I saw, I murdered with an ax, when he diagnosed me as being paranoid.

[Caligastia]

You dont have to be paranoid to see that this college discriminates against white males. Its plain for all to see.

Putting everyone but white males in a "protected class" obviously discriminates against white males.

Just as putting everyone but black females in a "protected class" would be discriminating against black females.

Its so obvious, but nobody wants to admit it because they dont want to admit that they support a policy that is discriminatory.

[Dis]

but the problem is, the evidence isn't there.

They might never use the protected class feature.

Until I get proof that an equally qualified white person was passed up for an equally qualified minority (based on race- not personal opinion) you can't prove anything.

It is entirely possible that there is no discrimination happening. they might not even get many white applicants. It is possible every white person who applies gets admission.

If a white person does get denied then they should sue the sh!t out of the college.

Problem solved!!

[Caligastia]

It is quite possible that there is no discrimination happening, but thats not my point. My point is that the policy is discriminatory. Whether the policy has any effect or not is secondary to the fact that it is still paid lip service.

[Dis]

I'm not sure a policy can be discrimination. I think you need a specific act to occur.

hey how about a comprimise. we continue profiling, and they keep their policy

[Velociryx]

My question would be why on earth would someone go to the trouble to build in a "protected class" feature into the form and then blatantly not use it?

Its presence and existence implies its use, no? I mean, that's like saying that even tho cars come equipped headlights, that's not evidence that they're ever used.

They were put on the car for a purpose. Just like the "protected classes" were put on the form for a purpose.

-=Vel=-

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm not sure a policy can be discrimination. I think you need a specific act to occur.

Its a policy that supports discrimination, so legally you can discriminate against white males. If the policy is having no discriminatory effect then why bother having it?

hey how about a comprimise. we continue profiling, and they keep their policy

[Dis]

I don't know. we have all kinds of policies no one follows. Most office workers don't follow policies 100%.

But there is still some room for error. For instance when are you ever going to get two applicants with exactly the same qualifications. There is always something that is going to give one applicant the edge. maybe one more extra curricular activity or charity work. The only time I would have a problem is if a white applicant with more qualifications gets denied.

Unlike what Mr. Fun said there will never ever be a case of 2 applicants having the same qualifications (see above). At the very least the interview process will set one applicant above the other. So if there is a specific case of someone with more qualifications getting denied no matter what color, they should sue.

simple enough

[Caligastia]

If its a policy nobody follows, then why have it at all?

[Dis]

colleges have all kinds of archaic policies. Like no drinking beer in class etc.

[Arrian]