LeviF

Right on time lmao

Would now be the time to make the requisite joke of you becoming acquainted with said criminals during your law school classes? The largest, and most visible, Asian street gangs are Chinese and typically operate with the blessing, if not as a direct extension of, the ChiCom government. Though ABZ, which is mixed SEAsians, has been pushing into more northeast territory. From what I understand there are some small Korean and Hmong gangs on the west coast. The statistics on this are pretty stark and tend to surprise people because interracial violence, in general, tends to be hidden from view (except in the case where a black guy is killed by or near a white police officer). But yes, pointing out the disparities there, I've been told, is racist. Subtle woke more correct moment, I suppose.

Under what definition of "racism" are we operating here? I'm really hoping for a woke more correct moment but we're not quite there yet. Keep going.

Checking NIBRS data it appears that several large cities, which will have the larger Asian populations, have not reported race data for crimes in 2022. Including LAPD. Still, 1% of homicides for around 7% of the population is pretty good and that gap won't close even if large agencies that have suddenly become non-compliant with race reporting in NIBRS (curious, no?) decide to report.

He's a lolyer. He's going to have been acquainted with a number of criminals. Asians (the UCR class Indians would be in) have disproportionately low violent crime numbers but the numbers aren't 0. 2022 has (so far, not sure what % of districts have reported) 200 reported homicides with an "Asian" offender of 19,776 known homicide offenders that year. I'm not even going to bust out the census data but Asians, I assume, are more than 1.01-ish% of the population.

Well… https://www.actionnews5.com/2024/03/21/memphis-senior-living-facility-strengethens-security-after-resident-death/?outputType=amp

You could have just read my post to begin with and saved us both some time.

And again, a civil judgment in excess of one billion dollars for being mean is essentially a star chamber decision. You asked what I would want in the above scenario. I answered. I would also accept public caning or the stocks. Hell, we could form up a good old fashioned mob and do the caning ourselves and save the taxpayers some money. What I wouldn’t want is an arbitrary decision that, in the end, amounts to a moral victory where everyone can clap and feel good about themselves for not being Alex Jones except for me, because there still isn’t any justice and my kid is still dead. At least with prison time, caning, etc. I get some justice.

Is a billion dollar debt more effective than prison? Because last I checked Jones still manages to talk on the internet.

I guess more close to my meaning would be something like “you’re never going to convince me that being mean is worth one billion dollars.”

Come a long way from predicting a massive terror attack about two months before 9/11, right down to naming Bin Laden. Of course he likely ripped it off from Bill Cooper and then followed up after 9/11 with the stock fearmongering about more false flags and suitcase nukes and martial law. At least Cooper had the decency to put his money where his mouth was and get killed by the government. That said, the show trial/humiliation ritual he sat through was a joke.

Don't let us get sick Don't let us get old Don't let us get stupid, all right? Just make us be brave And make us play nice And let us be together tonight

Violent criminals don't consider long-term consequences because on average they aren't intelligent enough to even conceive of the second order consequences of their actions. And the only way to "deter" crime among those who are unable to understand second-order consequences is to toss them somewhere that they cannot get access to the public. Believe it or not, "elitist whites with advanced college degrees" (who, by the way, are not the leading champions of various "reforms" of the CJ system) are at least capable of understanding both of the above points. Which begs the question, why do they ignore it? At some point malice needs to be considered as a motive.

If they were convinced that someone like that wouldn't kill a white cop at some point as a reward for being cut loose a couple dozen times they would have locked him up long ago. The terror is the point.

It’s the same story every time, including from the residents here: leftists are willing to try anything except actually punishing criminals. Example in another area is the Minnesota (?) AG suing Kia and Hyundai because their cars are “too easy for the youth to steal.”

I’ve been banging that drum for a while. New York City in particular has the resources to ruthlessly enforce every gun law on the books and they choose not to. Every week I get a bulletin about people known to be prohibited from possessing firearms displaying firearms on various social media platforms. Then of course there are the endless videos on TikTok and what have you of gangbangers displaying their glocks with sears or full auto switches. But you never hear about them getting scooped up by the ATF to get their mandatory 10 plus 10 for the gang escalator. Wonder why.

https://abc7ny.com/far-rockaway-queens-shooting-nyc-crime/14570095/ Another victim of left wing domestic terrorism in everyone’s favorite shithole. If I or one of my brothers caught a gun charge last April we’d be sitting in a state prison right now.

Nooooo not those banned books!

The point of the thread is the same as the fourth estate showing every picture of a White person committing sexual abuse or homicide while hiding the faces of everyone else - to trick you into thinking that Whites commit a disproportionate amount of the crime in this country when the reality is the exact opposite.

The speaker abdicated the power of the purse, giving the White House basically whatever they wanted, then went on Twitter to whine about the border again, and your problem is with the chick who wants him out? I get it. She’s loud. She’s low class. She’s a she and shes should not be able to hold office. But she’s right in this instance.

The People. Not “these people.” The People was very well and clearly defined. You’re blurring it into other things because, like most shitlibs, you don’t believe that America is a nation. You think it’s a set of ideas or a piece of paper. It’s not. It’s a nation, founded by one people for The People and their Posterity.

Now ask yourself why the 14th amendment needed to grant these persons citizenship. You fail to both distinguish between the Constitution’s usage of “people” and “persons” and understand why those words were chosen in each instance. For example the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 2 vs the paragraph you quoted above.