OK, the thread below pooh poohs police saying No AA
Yes, police can lie, including saying "I'm not affiliated with law enforcement" that old chestnut which some feel has extra legitimacy because of the fancy words.
But could the Police place an entrapping add for something illegal saying "No Whites, Blacks Only"?
Opened a drug front that advertised that it would only sell to, aka arrest and prosecute blacks?
Wouldn't that be constitutionally impermissible, attempting to enforce the law in a discriminatory way, ensuring that all arrested are Black?  Imagine the news stories and SCOTUS trial.
Well, so how can they say "we will only arrest non-black people"?

I mean, I know the police can do illegal things, and if the arrest is the consequence unlikely to get sued.. but the question is, is it LEGAL, not will they do it?

I'd be surprised if LE would use "No AA men" in a sting ad.  However, someone in a previous thread mentioned a sting in St. Paul, where this supposedly happened.  I did a cursory google search, but couldn't find any hits.  

 By posting "no AA men" in a sting ad, the practical result:  AA men would be discouraged to take the bait.  There seems to be a due process issue here, where not everyone is being treated equally under the law.  Or to be more precise, not everyone is being treated equally in an offer to break the law in a legally sanctioned sting operation.  

 OTOH, your tone sounds like boilerplate racial resentment.  As if there aren't enough black men in prison already.   --z

Although I've never personally seen "no AA" in an ad that I knew to be a sting ad, I think the police can just do it anyway.  Then anyone who is arrested as the result of such an ad would have their lawyer scream in court about how this is discriminatory.  Yes, there is a legal issue here.  The police can not single out any race and prosecute just those people, nor can they exclude people from being prosecuted based on race.  That doesn't mean they won't do it anyway, and then let you complain about that fact later on in front of a judge who most likely won't care.

Ads Do Not target blacks for prosecution, in theory they might target whites. A white guy would have a hard time convincing a judge that his rights were trampled when he went a-whoring and answered a no-AA sting ad. What's a black guy gonna do; sue LE for an equal opportunity to be arrested? What prosecutor is going to file charges against a police department for running such a sting ad because "it's illegal" and why would the prosecutor do this? Does the Civil Rights act prohibit feigning discrimination when running a sting to Stop illegal services, or does it prohibit actual discrimination when public services are actually provided?

But yes, if LE for some bizarre reason were to run an ad for only AA ("No White Guys") then I imagine a smart lawyer could try to convince a judge that LE was out to harm black guys. If you have seen an ad like this please show it to us. I would be amazed if even the most racist LE department in US would be dumb enough to post an ad like that in the 21st century. Maybe if Donny Trumpet were president that could happen

OK, this is Odd.  The reply both seems to take it that I actually mean there are police adds seeking only blacks.  NO. I mean that if you can't seek only blacks, you can't seek everyone but exclude only blacks.  How have people come to understand the Equal Protection of the Law means special favors for blacks instead of equal treatment without regard to race?  Weird.

Second, it seems to think the theory here is of discrimination against blacks in the right to whore. NO. It is discrimination against whites, latinos and Asians by excluding blacks from arrest.  If the police can't say "we won't arrest whites, only blacks, Asians and latinos", which is obviously discriminatory, then they can't say "we won't arrest blacks, only Asians, latinos and whites".  Or again, that's my whacky theory on what Equal Protection means.  I believe Obama and most of the public now think it protects blacks, or other minorities that successfully contend they are similar, alone.

 According to the NAACP, African Americans are incarcerated at six times the rate of White Americans. AA account for 1 million of the 2.3 million Americans incarcerated.  One critical factor is the idiotic "War on Drugs" policy, where thousands of non-violent black men are incarcerated every year. Even some conservatives like Rand Paul are now acknowledging that the "War on Drugs" is bad policy.  --z

Bigot = Noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Soooo, calling someone a name who holds a different opinion....hmmmm
Who is the Bigot?  You buddy.

On the substance, Obama and Eric Holder's Justice Department report that blacks commit Violent Crime at 8 times the rate of all other Americans combined, and over 10 times the rate of White Americans.  So, it appears that blacks are incarcerated at too low a rate relative to the amount of crime they commit by your NAACP stat.  Same with the Black Lives Matter goofiness -blacks commit over 50% of all violent crime, so why is having blacks be about 30% of all police killings outrageous or unjust?

But that still doesn't answer my point.  Why would "Equal Protection" mean its OK to intentionally lock up non-blacks while protecting blacks, but wrong to lock up blacks while protecting non-blacks?
The very idea of actually equal treatment, of color blind definition of discrimination, makes you need to engage in bigoted attacks and name calling and non-sequiturs?

Weird

 
 You don't to link to the source of your data, because you can't.  From FBI crime statistics in the U.S. in 2014 (link below):  
 Total arrests:  Whites = 6 million;  Blacks 2.4 million.  Even when adjusting for population differences, your crime 'rates' are wildly overinflated.  Never mind that over 25% of blacks live in poverty, compared to 10% for whites (U.S. Census).    
 Your opinions are  based on racial prejudice, not facts.  That makes you an ignorant bigot.   --z

OK, the 8x rate is based on averages of older stats, an violent crime rate have fallen.
So, lets use your 2014 stats, for which you provide a handy link.
According to YOU, and the FBI, in 2014 Blacks ONLY committed over 5 times the violent crime rate of all other Americans COMBINED (average the violent crime rates: black homicides 52% of all homicides, black rape 30%, black robbery 56%, black assault 33% = Blacks commit average of 43% of all violent crime, while only 13% of population, and all others commit 56% of violent crime while being 87% of the population.  

That is a per capita rate of 5x higher than the per capita rate for all others combined).

According to YOU, and the FBI, for 2014 the black per capita rate versus whites is a little harder.  The FBI separates Hispanics from whites for victims, but not perpatrators.  But according to the 2012=-2013 National Crime  Victimization Survey from the DOJ, which does separate the two categories for perps, whites committed 62% of the combined White and Hispanic Rate.  

So, using your 2014 FBI number, blacks commit

that include "no-AA" for the purpose of appearing genuine? Do you also feel persecuted by the fact that the original American colonies and the USA during its first century were built up largely by the sweat, blood, and tears of kidnapped black slaves?

Using your 2014 FBI stats:
Blacks commit 51% of homicides, 56% of Robberies
Blacks commit 43% of violent crime (homicide, rape, robbery, assault) down from my rough average of 50%
Blacks are only 13% of the population
SO, blacks commit 5x the rate of violent crime than all other races combined, 7x the homicide rate of all other races combined

blacks were 26 percent of all victims of police shootings in 2015 according to the WashPost
 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings

So, blacks are shot by police far below their rate of violent crime.  This means they are Under-represented, not Over represented.  This means the entire thesis of BLM is untrue.
Your data provides a quibble with my stats which were based on earlier data, but don't disprove the larger point at all.    
You don't agree with my point, not because I am Ignorant or Uniformed, but because you have a race based prejudice about what the answer should be.  If the answer is unflattering for blacks, you prejudge it to be untrue.  You are also uninformed about the basic data.

So, you are an uninformed, not to say ignorant person who is racially prejudiced and intolerant of others with differing opinions.  YOU sir, are an Ignorant Bigot.

Its not about feelings.  
If the police did use "No AA" in a sting ad, that would clearly be unequal treatment by race, and be unconstitutional.  It would objectively be persecution by race, no matter what anyone felt.
My OP was whether this was true, or some obscure legal doctrine of which I am unaware allows that, like Disparate Impact legal theory allows unconstitutional race quotas in hiring.

I actually had thought that No AA meant "not a police sting" an so assumed TGTBT ads meant rip off bait and switches instead.

Your point seems to be something like Karmic balancing.  If blacks were persecuted in the past, persecution of others on behalf of blacks is OK now.  So, it would be OK for Russians to invade and put Mongolia to the sword and torch today... after al, Genghis did the same the other direction earlier in history?
Yes blacks were slaves.  So was every other group at some point in history.  Yes, the US was created by invasion of Indian tribal lands...but so was every single Indian tribal territory taken from another Indian tribe in bloody warfare, and every single human group and individual and nation sits on land taken from someone else by violence sometime in the past.  

So, no, I don't believe in Karmic balancing of historical wrongs with fresh new wrongs in the present.  I believe in Equal Treatment and Equal Protection of the laws

 An admission of ignorance by you.  That didn't stop you from posting bad numbers in the first place.    Let's look at the FBI stats (that I provided, since you're incapable of providing meaningful data).  Let's focus on murder:  Total = 8, 230;  whites committed = 3807; blacks committed = 4224.  
 
 You realize that we're talking about 8230 murders (slightly over half, 4224 committed by blacks) in a country of over 300 million people.  We're also talking about 'arrests' not 'convictions.'  
 
 Here's the problem:  by taking a tiny sample of the population (murderers), you're trying to assert something quite ugly about a large population (38 million African Americans) who've been uniquely persecuted in the U.S.  Never mind your idiotic assertion that "everyone was once a slave".  

 To be clear: you've spent a lot of time on this thread trying to characterize something hateful about blacks based on a tiny percentage of their population.  Not only is that illogical, it's also evil.  You should be grateful that I referred to you as an ignorant bigot. You appear to be much worse than that.  --

First, to clarify, because you may be misunderstanding this.  All claims made which say "blacks" do not mean "all individual blacks" but rather "blacks as a group, on average, statistically, as compared to other groups as groups, on average, statistically".  OK?  As in blacks in 2014, by your stats, committed violent crime at 5x the rate of all non-blacks combined, but there were many non-blacks who committed violent crime and many many blacks who were totally innocent.  Also, all people groups have been slavers and enslaved in history, but obviously not in US history.  That point is that past wrongs is a bottomless can of worms when used to justify current wrongs.  Now that that is out of the way...

OK, let's see if I've got this straight.
- I am correct on the facts, but those facts are about rare and trivial things, like homicide and rape.
- I am using correct statistics to make a statistical claim about blacks as a group.  This is incorrect because group statistics don't apply to each member of a group.  Therefore, statistics about black poverty, or black deaths from police, or numbers of black Oscars etc would also be illegitimate...
-Except, well, it is only illegitimate to use correct statistical facts about rare unimportant things like thousands of murders and tens of thousands of rapes and robberies, if those fact are something unflattering about blacks.  

If a statistic is unflattering but true about blacks, it is hateful. If you are informed and correct on the facts, you are ignorant if those facts are unflattering to blacks.  If you have a reasoned judgment, based on correct facts, you are prejudiced, if that judgment is unflattering to blacks.  Because blacks have been uniquely persecuted in the USA, making correct informed judgments about important things like violent crime is illogical, evil, ignorant and bigoted.  If you believe that past evils are a dangerous thing to justify present unequal treatment, you are also evil and illogical.  

The good, logical, informed, position is that past mistreatment of blacks justifies present unequal treatment and willful ignorance of facts that might be negative about them.  Emphasis of facts that make them appear heroic or mistreated in the present,  are good.  Facts that show those to be untrue, evil once again.  

Got it.  Thanks for your mercy, oh great moral arbiter of the Sacralized.

  Your idiotic statements about slavery ("all people groups do it!") pepper this thread . Between the 16th to 19th century, 10 million Africans were enslaved & shipped to the Americas.  By the time of the U.S. Civil War,  over 4 million black slaves were living in the U.S.  Name another racial group (besides blacks) impacted by slavery to that magnitude.  You can't, but that won't stop your moronic posts about slavery.      Your 'claim' about 'blacks as a group' is based on a faulty premise. Since the number of violent criminals is such a small fraction of the African American community, your entire argument is a fallacy.  To make any claim about a group, a premise needs to be true about a significant percentage of that population.  Here's one: over 25 percent of  African Americans live in poverty.  That's 1 in 4 blacks, which is statistically significant.    

 But you (and Fox News  & right-wing radio) ignore black poverty.  Instead, you constantly cite black crime rates.  The reason you ignore one and focus on the other:  It serves a political/racial agenda that's overtly hostile to blacks.  The possibility that poverty leads to crime (irregardless of race) isn't even a blip on your radar screen.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (link below):  Poor U.S. households had the highest rates of violence; in fact, poor urban whites have higher rates of violence (56.4 per 1000) than poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1000).  But a much higher percentage of blacks live in poverty.    

 I'm sure you'll ignore the paragraph above, because you're terrified of black criminals. So let's put the stats into real life perspective: Blacks commit approx 4200 homicides per year; whites commit 3800 homicides.  The number of  U.S. fatalities from car crashes per year:  38,000 killed (and 4.4 million injured).  Logically, you have a lot more to fear from an American driver (of any color) than an African American criminal.   But your posts have little to do with logic or justice.  

 Here's the framework of your argument:  (1) Diminish the historical impact of slavery (2) Ignore black poverty (3) Focus on African American criminality.  One wonders what motivates someone to dedicate such energy to the sophistry above.  I'd recommend some honest introspection.  But you're so full of hate & fear, I doubt that's possible.    --z

-- Modified on 3/20/2016 10:25:05 AM

Jim Crow and the Klan in the south, industrial sweat shops and discrimination in the north. Unequal access to jobs, housing, education, health care. I guess this bullshit Legal thread really belongs on the Politics board.

 Yep, this definitely is a P&R thread now.   I've avoided that swamp.  I'm sure this is just a dreary sampler of what goes on over there.  --z

Yo, Mr. Name Cally McIntolerant... you make good points, it would help if you weren't so hysterical  

"Name another racial group (besides blacks) impacted by slavery to that magnitude"  OK, it seems you are conceding that all people have indeed engaged in slavery and other forms of barbarism germane to human evil.  But, your point about scale is a reasonable one.  Certainly, within US history, blacks are completely sui generis.  Within world history... well, are we talking gross numbers or relative to percent population?  I don't know.  My actual point on that slavery thing wasn't that US race slavery wasn't important... but that once you assign someone special rights by skin color due to broad historical wrongs, it is problematic.  Obama isn't a descendant of American slaves, and has a good likelihood of being a descendant of slavers on both sides, the Africans who sold them into slavery and the whites who bought them.  His race shouldn't give him a 'get out of jail free' card (as in No AA in a police sting add) nor a 'go to jail card'.  
   
  "To make any claim about a group, a premise needs to be true about a significant percentage of that population." OK, another fair point.  If there were 2 white mass serial killer cannibal whatever per century, and one black, it wouldn't make sense to compare them as groups.  BUT, higher black violence and criminality are pervasive.  You focus on the most rare item, homicide, but this issue pervades much more numerous categories, such as robbery and assault.  1 in 3 black men go to prison in a life time (the majority of those are NOT for drug crimes btw).   Also black crime rates are so much larger than all other groups, ranging from 9x in the 90's to only 5x the per capita rate now.  Given the huge disparity in degree, and the reasonable frequency within the group, and persistence as a phenomena year to year for as long as crime stats have existed, I think it makes sense to talk about this as a group characteristic, like poverty.    Also, are you willing to use your standard consistently?  Blacks killed by police is a vanishingly small number, a few hundred a year... do statistics and claims about that not matter to you?  Also, your attempt to trivialize homicide as a phenomena because other types of death outnumber it is silly.  More die in car crashes than plane crashes too... should we ignore plane crashes?  

 
 "According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (link below):  Poor U.S. households had the highest rates of violence; in fact, poor urban whites have higher rates of violence (56.4 per 1000) than poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1000).  But a much higher percentage of blacks live in poverty."

- Now that one gave me pause, because I thought I'd remembered stats that even controlling for parental Socioeconomic Status and income blacks scored lower on tests, had higher crime rates etc etc.  Maybe I am all wrong?  Nope.  Please read the detail of the report you link.  The higher violence is actually "violent victimization" as in urban poor whites are VICTIMS more often.  If you look at the National Crime Victim Survey, you see that blacks commit far more inter-racial violence than whites... so it seems likely these poor urban whites are victims more often.. because maybe they are the victims of poor urban blacks?  Your source certainly doesn't establish that poor whites commit crime at a higher rate, and lots of other data point the other way, such as comparing impoverished Appalachia (similar drug issues, much much less violent crime) to poor black areas.
   
"One wonders what motivates someone to dedicate such energy to the sophistry above."  Look, what is my point?  That blacks don't deserve some special protected status, they should get EQUAL treatment, no more no less.  They aren't special angel victims of a racist system that need special compensating legal rights.  I brought up black crime because the BLM movement has portrayed blacks as victims of a racist system, yet their % killed by police is well below their % of violent crime commission... showing that blacks are actually not, on average, as a group, even if the phenomena is super rare (police shootings) getting specially victimized.  

  " you're so full of hate & fear "   Good thing you can see inside me- Thanks!

 

 How fun: you call other people "hysterical" while posting racial crime stats in CAPS:  "BLACKS ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL"  
 And here we get to the ugly root of your hatred.   You know who should be in jail: Bush & Cheney. Those white guys in thousand dollar suits kill more innocent people than all those scary black thugs who haunt your nightmares.  
       Your posts reveal a lot about you.  It's rather easy to discern a festering hornets' nest of rage, fear, & resentment.  --z

"BLACKS ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL" errr OK, I did use all caps for emphasis on a few words, but that is not a quote by me, nor even a fair nor reasonable paraphrase of anything I said or implied.
   
 Obama isn't a descendant of American slaves… His race shouldn't give him a 'get out of jail free' card…  "And here we get to the ugly root of your hatred.   You know who should be in jail: Bush & Cheney... scary black thugs who haunt your nightmares. "  Again with the non-sequitur. OK, fine Bush and Cheney should go to jail, no argument... what's that got to do with my point about equal protection???  And again with the hysterical heaping up of adjectives, name calling, and imputing motives and putting words in my mouth.
       
 "It's rather easy to discern a festering hornets' nest of rage, fear, & resentment."  Yeah, OK.  All the name calling, demonizing, intolerance of differing opinions, intentional misquoting, and general lathered up purple prose are on one side here buddy.  But OK, I'm all hornet's nesty full of rage thug nightmare resentments.  Fine.

"Do you know that African Americans are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And they’ve got to do something about their moral standards.  We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. They can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things African Americans must do for themselves.”

Wow, what bitter hornet infested hatred filled sack of rage, fear and resentment said that?
The man with that nightmare about scary black thugs was?... Dr Martin Luther King, speaking to a church in 1961, except with the changes of 'African American' sub'd for 'Negro', and 'they' substituted for 'we' and 'our'.  Clearly, that MLK guy had an ugly root to his hatred.

ll: D Dirkler has an important Public Service Announcement below:  

 ******************************************************************************
 D. DIRKLER:  ATTENTION WHITE AMERICA, BLACK PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS.  
I'VE GOT THE CRIME STATS.  NEVERMIND THAT VIOLENT CRIMINALS ARE A TINY FRACTION OF THE  
AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY.  NEVERMIND POVERTY.  NEVERMIND THAT YOU'RE 10 TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO BE KILLED OR INJURED IN A CAR CRASH.  BLACKS ARE SCARY AND...YOU WOMEN STOP  
LAUGHING AT MY MICROPENIS.  I HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY... ******************************************************************************

 Thanks Dirkler, I'm sure everyone got the message.  All you need now is an exorcism.  --z

So I'm demon possessed, in addition to having a really small penis, unlike the big manly and holy defenders of the PC faith like yourself. Gosh, you  got me pegged for sure.  Have a nice life Z!

END OF MESSAGE

sometimes a cigar is just a smoke

END OF MESSAGE

sure nailed me!  Micro Penis -hah good one!
Hey, is this something you purchased, like one of those x ray glasses from comic books?
Or is it an in born talent, to know about everyone's schlong by telepathy?