Minnesota, here we go again. I'm betting ammo/gun sales are brisk

[GripItAndRipIt]

I agree with a lot of what you stated here. I don't have all of the reasons and or exacting terminology to explain the other side. I'm just merely trying to understand it. If there is room to question, it's not exact. The fact that either sides narratives can be picked apart shows that there can be a divide.

There are no "sides" when it comes to facts. It is a fact that the man's registration was expired, regardless of what "side" a person thinks they're on. It is a fact he had outstanding warrants, regardless of "side." It is a fact that he resisted lawful arrest, regardless of "side." It is a fact that he was killed by a police officer regardless of "side." These are the facts surrounding this incident. Anything else is speculation. However, we can draw reasonable conclusions by examining the facts and weighing them against the normative condition.

If profiling can be proven only one time to be that of racial profiling, wouldn't that allow all profiling to come into question? Has racial profiling been proven, yes.

For the third time, racial profiling is unconstitutional.

I agree, it can be easier to just look at the police statement, that he was pulled over for expired tags. Wholeheartedly, that's the easiest thing to do. Many that look at it from the side of law enforcement would simply just go that route.

OK we're going in circles here. I'm going to ask you to answer just one question here, please: Is it a fact that Mr. Wright's registration was expired? It's a yes or no question. Looking for a one-word answer here. Then we can further develop this construct, but first we need to agree on the basic facts. So, if you will please... yes or no? Expired or not?

I know I'm not doing the easiest thing here, trying to understand the other side, but I see some benefits to doing so. That's what I think I'm trying to describe as a mess. The current situation we are in, where either side simply sees the other as wrong vs trying to find a middle. Something isn't working, or maybe it is. I truly don't know.

So what alternative do you propose to deal with citizens who shirk their responsibility to be in compliance with the duly-enacted laws of the land?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Has little to do with wanting and a lot to do with simple demographics.

Please don't spoil a good argument with facts.

 

[Member 34319]

There are no "sides" when it comes to facts. It is a fact that the man's registration was expired, regardless of what "side" a person thinks they're on. It is a fact he had outstanding warrants, regardless of "side." It is a fact that he resisted lawful arrest, regardless of "side." It is a fact that he was killed by a police officer regardless of "side." These are the facts surrounding this incident. Anything else is speculation. However, we can draw reasonable conclusions by examining the facts and weighing them against the normative condition.

For the third time, racial profiling is unconstitutional.

OK we're going in circles here. I'm going to ask you to answer just one question here, please: Is it a fact that Mr. Wright's registration was expired? It's a yes or no question. Looking for a one-word answer here. Then we can further develop this construct, but first we need to agree on the basic facts. So, if you will please... yes or no? Expired or not?

So what alternative do you propose to deal with citizens who shirk their responsibility to be in compliance with the duly-enacted laws of the land?

No, the vehicle Mr Wright was driving did not have up to date registration. Yes it is fact he resisted arrest. Yes it is fact he had a warrant for his arrest.

Can you answer this question with a yes or no answer?

Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Wright was in fact pulled over for the expired registration?

 

[Member 34319]

Another question that if possible to answer with a yes or no, please do so.

If one case of profiling can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt, to be racial profiling, can that open the door to question profiling?

 

[Dinglenutz]

Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Wright was in fact pulled over for the expired registration?

A photograph of the license plates should do it.

 

[Member 34319]

A photograph of the license plates should do it.

Not entirely.

If the officer followed him for a few blocks or longer. I'd personally say it wouldn't be that easy of an answer. Nor if the officer wasn't in clear sight of the license, started to follow and then made the stop. None of this is an absolute for either argument in my opinion.

I get where you two are coming from @Dinglenutz and @GripItAndRipIt make no mistake I personally agree with some of the practices behind this common police tactic.

I hope you two don't paint me with a broad brush for this mental exercise. I appreciate the continuing efforts to determine which side is the correct side. I hope you both don't see me as some sort of, insert word of choice here, for continuing to try and pry apart your opinions and thoughts.

 

[Knobgoblin]

In my white community I only ever see whites getting pulled over. Take a moment and reason out why. The answer is actually in the question.

Question
Is your community middle class ? , above? , below?

Do you see nicer vehicles pulled over?
Even mix ? Strictly clunkers?

Wsp, city PD , county sheriff?

I can tell you that in my town literally everyone gets pulled over. But it's a revenue stream situation.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I can tell you that in my town literally everyone gets pulled over.

Same.

 

[RobMa]

FIRED for being stupid!

 

[Knobgoblin]

Small town with a highway running through it. Tickets mean $$ for the city.
30mph zone is a money maker

 

[Member 34319]

A photograph of the license plates should do it.

Now let's say the car was scanned by one of the devices @EHJ mentioned. The officer was alerted and followed for verification that the car he was behind was in fact the one the machine alerted. Makes stop. Different story. That picture would change the scenario as the human element is removed. Zero argument for any sort of profiling.

Tech could solve some of my concerns over the tactic of profiling.

 

[Legion489]

Wow. Lots of heat, little light. Some here seem to be arguing (I going to use a more accurate, but less tactful term) just to hear themselves, cause trouble, justify their position because it can't be justified, so on snd so forth.

OK, fact: a criminal was killed because he fought/refused to be arrested. Fact: a woman cop shoot him. Fact: idiots can be found in any group over 2 (50% chance in any group of two). Fact: giving idiots power (look at senile politicos/too many cops l've seen) and/or a gun (ditto, politicos and too many cops I've seen) and bad things happen (google Larry "Liberty" Bell and Erik Shaw, also youtube is full of cops gunning down WHITES for no reason if you bother to look, and no one rioted or burned cities down. Hmmmmm...). Does that make it right? No. Can it be changed? Probably not. According to the Bible, there were FOUR people in the world, and one killed one of the others! Well sure, if they had gun control laws (no guns, so no need, but when have facts ever mattered to libs/politicos/people who just want to cause trouble/prove they are right and you are wrong?) it might not have happened or been prevented, but it did anyway.

Deal with what is and not what you want it to be. In a perfect world, there would be no criminals, in a less perfect world, criminals would be afraid to riot and burn, or go into "good areas", and honest citizens would not be afraid to go anywhere. What we have now is, criminals run riot, burn, loot, steal freely, honest citizens are afraid to go out at night (period) and not too thrilled to go out in the day, even in "good areas", and nothing is done about the violent criminals in too many cities, period. A life was lost. Sad. A violent criminal will no longer run rampant on the streets preying on innocent victims. That's good.

How do you turn an anti-gun/anti-Constitutional Carry, pro-criminal rights/anti-law and order liberal into a PRO-gun, PRO-law and order, anti-crime zealot? Drop them off in the middle of the "bad" part of town at night and see if they get out alive. 96% success rate! The other 4% were either dead or in a coma from the beatings, so could not vote, except in democrat elections.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

No, the vehicle Mr Wright was driving did not have up to date registration. Yes it is fact he resisted arrest. Yes it is fact he had a warrant for his arrest.

Good. Now we have a rational basis for continuing the discussion.

Can you answer this question with a yes or no answer?

Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Wright was in fact pulled over for the expired registration?

The question is irrelevant. I asked you for facts, you are now moving the goalposts to speculation. The normative assumption would be, yes, he was stopped for expired tags as the police reported and is as common as tying your shoelaces in the morning. The expired registration is prima facie probable cause for a traffic stop, therefore it is reasonable that he would be pulled over for that reason. If you wish to speculate about further motives on the part of the police for pulling him over, you'll need some evidence to support your assertion. Here is the specific statue in MN:

169.79 VEHICLE REGISTRATION; DISPLAYING LICENSE PLATES.

Subdivision 1.Registration required.

No person shall operate, drive, or park a motor vehicle on any highway unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the laws of this state [...]

Subd. 8.Plate registration stickers.

As viewed facing the plates:
(a) License plates issued to vehicles registered under section 168.017 must display the month of expiration in the lower left corner of each plate and the year of expiration in the lower right corner of each plate

You have already acknowledged the vehicle Mr. Wright was driving was out of compliance with the above. Therefore, he was subject to lawful traffic stop.

Those are the facts, now here is an opinion: Mr. Wright could have prevented his death by doing one or more of the following: a) not operating an improperly registered motor vehicle; b) not acting such a manner that he had a warrant for his arrest; c) not resisting arrest. Failing that, he was the unfortunate victim of a negligent discharge of a firearm by a police officer.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Zero argument for any sort of profiling.

Officer still has discretion I believe. Racists will see racism no matter what.

Just dropping pretenses here.

 

[Legion489]

No, the vehicle Mr Wright was driving did not have up to date registration. Yes it is fact he resisted arrest. Yes it is fact he had a warrant for his arrest.

Can you answer this question with a yes or no answer?

Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Wright was in fact pulled over for the expired registration?

Can YOU?

 

[Member 34319]

Good. Now we have a rational basis for continuing the discussion.


The question is irrelevant. I asked you for facts, you are now moving the goalposts to speculation. The normative assumption would be, yes, he was stopped for expired tags as the police reported and is as common as tying your shoelaces in the morning. The expired registration is prima facie probable cause for a traffic stop, therefore it is reasonable that he would be pulled over for that reason. If you wish to speculate about further motives on the part of the police for pulling him over, you'll need some evidence to support your assertion. Here is the specific statue in MN:

169.79 VEHICLE REGISTRATION; DISPLAYING LICENSE PLATES.

Subdivision 1.Registration required.

No person shall operate, drive, or park a motor vehicle on any highway unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the laws of this state [...]

Subd. 8.Plate registration stickers.

As viewed facing the plates:
(a) License plates issued to vehicles registered under section 168.017 must display the month of expiration in the lower left corner of each plate and the year of expiration in the lower right corner of each plate

You have already acknowledged the vehicle Mr. Wright was driving was out of compliance with the above. Therefore, he was subject to lawful traffic stop.

Those are the facts, now here is an opinion: Mr. Wright could have prevented his death by doing one or more of the following: a) not operating an improperly registered motor vehicle; b) not acting such a manner that he had a warrant for his arrest; c) not resisting arrest. Failing that, he was the unfortunate victim of a negligent discharge of a firearm by a police officer.

See that's not factual. In no way is "normative assumption" fact. It is an assumption, or more correctly a legal term used to justify something that is not fact.

Yes or no, Daunte Wright was factually pulled over for expired tags? Why is it hard to answer this? Is it because there isn't a good way to answer it so easily?

I don't see how this can be seen as irrelevant, and neither does many on the opposite side. The fact that it has been proven in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, might also mean that this is not irrelevant.

As you said, If you wish to further speculate that it was fact he was pulled over for expired registration you will need some evidence to support your assertion. See what I did there? I can also use this logic to counter an argument.

I entirely agree with the last section about what Mr Wright could have done. He was in the wrong on many accounts.

 

[Member 34319]

Officer still has discretion I believe. Racists will see racism no matter what.

Just dropping pretenses here.

That might be the real root of it all.

The only thing is we have created law on racism. By doing so, one can use that case law on racism to create further racism.

In the case of Mr Wright, there might be zero racism involved. Yet, because in court officers and or cities have been sentenced for racism, one can now look at anything involving a person of color through the lens of racism.

I'm not saying it is the right or correct way to look at things.

 

[Tony617]

What kind of air freshener was hang from his rear view mirror? I read a few articles but does not say what he had. I used to hang a pine tree air freshener from my rear view mirror inside my car years ago.

Came in handy since my aunts, uncles, and mom and dad all smoked.

 

[Dinglenutz]

What kind of air freshener was hang from his rear view mirror? I read a few articles but does not say what he had. I used to hang a pine tree air freshener from my rear view mirror inside my car years ago.

Came in handy since my aunts, uncles, and mom and dad all smoked.

The air freshener thing is a red herring. Fake news.

Expired tags.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

See that's not factual. In no way is "normative assumption" fact. It is an assumption, or more correctly a legal term used to justify something that is not fact.

Yes or no, Daunte Wright was factually pulled over for expired tags? Why is it hard to answer this? Is it because there isn't a good way to answer it so easily?

I don't see how this can be seen as irrelevant, and neither does many on the opposite side. The fact that it has been proven in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, might also mean that this is not irrelevant.

As you said, If you wish to further speculate that it was fact he was pulled over for expired registration you will need some evidence to support your assertion. See what I did there? I can also use this logic to counter an argument.

I entirely agree with the last section about what Mr Wright could have done. He was in the wrong on many accounts.

Fallacy: Loaded Question. You are suggesting the cops need to prove they didn't pull this man over because of his skin color, aka presupposition.

Without evidence to support your assertion that Mr. Wright was pulled over for any reason other than the stated expired registration, you are speculating -- wildly I should add, and the question is therefore irrelevant because it is based solely on your presupposition. It is like me asking you if you still beat your wife with no evidence that you've ever beaten you wife, but because I've made the allegation I've created a false obligation to prove you don't beat your wife.

The onus to prove your speculative assertion is on you -- the party of the affirmative -- and not on me (or anyone else) to disprove your conjecture.